“SPQR” – Rome’s First Millennium

While no more than a blink of an eye in geological terms, a thousand years is almost inconceivable on a human scale. Subtract a millennium from the present date and we find ourselves in an era of unbearably primitive conditions with even the glimmerings of modern science or the Industrial Revolution lying hundreds of years away in the future, indeed with an event as basic and pivotal as the Norman Invasion of England still fifty years off. Most historians are content to limit their inquiries to much more finite periods, some focusing exclusively on what basically amounts to a single historical event over no more than several years, such as WWII.

Thus, all the more credit should be given to Mary Beard for her ambitious effort to survey a thousand years of Roman history (more or less), looking at the evolution of Rome from just one of many small villages that dotted the plains of Latium in early prehistory to its preeminent position as the first and greatest of the many cities called “the capital of the world.” Long famous as a debunker with a noted proclivity to take the proclamations of ancient sources with a pinch of Attic salt, Beard brings her objective, careful perspective to bear on some of the most difficult questions of ancient European history: Just how did Rome achieve its remarkable rise to power and how much of that rise is accurately depicted in Romans’ own history of their early days?

Beard focuses on the information that is actually available to us, namely the remarkable amount of correspondence and written history that survives from the last century BCE and the first century CE, with a special emphasis on the writings and personality of Cicero, the famous Roman philosopher and politician. Her portrait of the constantly scheming while simultaneously idealistic Cicero is warts and all accurate while still retaining affection for her subject. By looking at the practices, attitudes, and beliefs of Cicero as set down in his writings and those of other contemporaries, Beard is able to extrapolate to some extent and to reach conclusions about how events in previous eras might have shaped their viewpoints. She also makes sure to examine the archaeological evidence regarding Rome’s distant past, but rightly notes that this is scanty in the extreme.

In the course of her analysis, Beard raises many interesting points and insights. While some of her conclusions are widely shared, others can be deemed novel and insightful:

* She emphasizes that, while city fathers like Cicero were always eager to sing the city’s praises, Rome for most of its existence was a miserable rabbit warren of winding, narrow streets crammed with filthy hovels, prone to disastrous floods, fires, and outbreaks of disease. Most modern conceptions of Roman grandeur only came to pass during the Imperial era.

* Beard argues convincingly and well that Pompey the Great should be considered the first emperor rather than Julius Caesar. She notes that many of the features that came to make up the official person of the emperor such as repeatedly holding ostensibly Republican offices like the consulate and extraordinary grants of personal power were first held by Pompey and that in many ways he set the pattern that was followed by his more successful rival, Julius Caesar.

* Beard also points out that while “bread and circuses” were available in ancient Rome and did play an important role in maintaining the social system, a public dole and ready access to entertainment like gladiatorial games were still very restricted, with the vast majority of the people being either unable to afford the games or excluded due to their inferior status as slaves or women.

* She contrasts the relative stability of the first two hundred years of the Principate when only fourteen emperors ruled with the increasing chaos and rapid turnover in who wore the purple in the third and fourth centuries CE. While Beard agrees with other scholars that the “adoptive” system of succession did seem to work successfully for a while, she disagrees emphatically that it could have worked in preference to dynastic succession, arguing that any effort by Marcus Aurelius to pick any inheritor other than his own son, Commodus, would have been doomed to failure.

This book can be enjoyed both by those already acquainted with Roman history and novices who would like a well written general introduction to the subject. Beard writes clearly and, best of all, without any pretension whatsoever. While still plainly devoted to her subject, the author has long ago dispensed with any romantic notions about the superiority of ancient culture or history and is consequently able to examine them lucidly and unemotionally while retaining her original enthusiasm. I recommend this book highly to anyone interested in Rome or ancient history in general.