SPQR — Mary Beard on the History of Ancient Rome, Historical Method and Narratives

AuthorAthenarium / Posted on

SPQR - Mary Beard - A History of Ancient Rome

Lessons from Mary Beard and ancient Rome

For a website with Minerva in its name, its contributors know surprisingly little about ancient Roman history and mythology. I thought this was a good excuse to read SPQR : A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard (SPQR is the Classical Latin abbreviation for Senātus Populusque Rōmānus – The Roman Senate and People).

Through SPQR, Beard takes readers on a brief tour of ancient Rome. From Cicero’s finest hour to Rome’s great leap forward, the history of ancient Rome is rich in drama and complexity. It’s an important case study, not only for historians, but for those concerned with the future rise and fall of great nations.

Some readers criticised Beard for not producing a compelling narrative of ancient Rome. I think this misses the point of Beard’s work. Sometimes the historical evidence is weak, and competing explanations must be explored. Beard shows us the complexities, messiness and different intepretations of ancient history. To do otherwise is to oversimplify, a disservice to our understanding.

There’s a lot for us to learn from Beard’s historical method. This post will summarise a few thematic lessons that I took from her work. This includes a look at the challenges of piecing history together, how ancient Romans shaped narratives to their advantage, and a brief case study on the Roman war machine.

Skip ahead

The historian’s jigsaw

I enjoyed Beard’s snippets into historians and archaeologists at work. She shows us how archaeological remains in settlements, cemeteries, urns, sunken warships and so on can reveal the “long and rich prehistory behind ancient Rome”. The proliferation of ivory bracelets, an Indian figurine at a house in Pompeii, and the Pantheon’s use of Egyptian columns, for example, hinted at ancient Rome’s contact with the ‘outside world’.

But there are grand challenges to archaelogy. People have built and rebuilt upon Rome for centuries. Useable evidence is sometimes limited to early settlements that remain undisturbed. And while modern scientific techniques such as radiocarbon dating gives us aid, much of history has happened behind closed doors – private discussions that were never recorded and forever beyond our grasp.

“Reconstructing the process, and part of the fun comes from wondering how some of the pieces of the incomplete jigsaw puzzle fit together and how to tell the difference between the fact and the fantasy.”

Mary Beard, 2015, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome

Tiny snapshots and micro-stories

As Beard puts it: “we have only tiny snapshots, never the big picture”. Interpretations and reinterpretations are often contested and sometimes controversial. Remember as well that it was often the medieval monks that preserved ancient literature by transcribing original texts by hand. They too were not devoid of bias or fallibility. You can see how the challenge (and fun) of archaeology and history can compound over time.

Beard describes the task of ‘squeezing’ as much insight as one can from surviving evidence. The challenge lies in selecting, ordering and combining the pieces in a representative way. For example, she highlights how there is no “single narrative that links, in any useful or revealing way, the story of Roman Britain with the story of Roman Africa”. It’s a collection of micro-stories and regional histories that don’t fit together neatly.

Survivorship bias and unreliable narrators

To add to this challenge, historians have to grapple with survivorship bias and unreliable narrators. While a good amount of ancient Roman literature has survived, much of their writers of their times were wealthy males. They often exclude the perspective of women, ordinary soldiers, the poor, slaves and so on.

The writings of Cicero for example dominated much of the modern evidence we have for mid-first century BCE. Cicero wrote frequently, sometimes daily – a tremendous gift to modern historians. But his works also contain a variety of “unsubstantiated rumours, second-guessing, hints of plots, half-truths, gossip, unreliable speculation and foreboding”.

Beard suggest it wise to review his version of Roman history “against the grain, to prise apart the small chinks in the story”. It’s also why biographers, historians and political analysts, both in modern and ancient times, look at the flaws, failings and hypocrisies of their subjects.

“Gaius may have been assassinated because he was a monster, but it is equally possible that he was made into a monster because he was assassinated. The end result was another emperor on the throne who was not all that unlike the one he had replaced.”

Mary Beard, 2015, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome

Alternatives at Actium

With unreliable narrators and tiny snapshots, is it possible tell an alternative story? In most cases, Beard says that it’s not possible to do so in detail. One problem she describes is that the evidence of “the victor’s perspective is so dominating that it is easier to be suspicious of the standard line than to replace it”.

Here, Beard highlights the “self-confident, self-justifying version” of Roman times that Octavian, his friends and their winners wrote. If Mark Antony had beaten Octavian at the Battle of Actium instead, the surviving literature and depictions of Octavian would be different.

Ancient Rome is often seen as a collection of stories of “big ideas” and “big men, from Scipio Aemilianus to Sulla”. As Beard puts it, “for that is how the Roman writers, on whose accounts we now depend, told it, focusing on the heroes and anti-heroes, the larger-than-life personalities who appear to have determined the course of both war and politics.” But she reminds us also that it is “the empire [that] created the emperors – not the other way round”.

Cattles to Cleopatra

‘Will anyone ever have the talent to put this all in writing so that it seems like fact, not fiction?’ one later Roman author asked, clearly expecting the answer no.

Mary Beard, 2015, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome

“There is often a fuzzy boundary between myth and history (think of King Arthur or Pocahontas).” Beard describes for example how “there is no single story of Romulus”. Instead, there are different and somewhat inconsistent versions of the same legend. We have to remember that stories are retold and reconstructed in the ideology, symbols and anxieties of their times. It’s also difficult to replace the tales with a coherent and factual narrative when much of the period’s literature didn’t survive.

The author also describes how the early kings of ancient Rome “straddle[d] the boundary dividing myth from history”. Their early institutions were ‘small, proto-urban’ settlements. Their operations were likely more ‘chiefly’ than ‘regal’, as their legends might otherwise suggest. Some battles were more akin ‘to cattle raids’ than legendary conquests.

Similarly, stories like the birth of the Roman republic was far from the smooth and simple narrative that some ancient historians have told. Beard also describes how Cleopatra’s partnerships with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony were more militaristic, political and financial in nature than the romantic legends make it out to be.

Swallows and serpents

Given the inequality between the ‘haves and the have-nots’ of ancient Rome, Beard describes how we might expect higher rates of social and political conflict than history has shown. This lends itself to multiple interpretations. “One answer is that there was probably more conflict than is recorded… Another answer is that, despite the vast disparities of wealth,… the two cultures prove to be more permeable than they first seem”.

Or perhaps we’d have the same expectation and question regardless of the historical record and surviving evidence? Regardless, I enjoyed Beard’s lines of reasoning and enquiry: To see how one can make educated guesses from the evidence we do and do not have. 

The language of liberators and order

Beard’s tour of ancient Rome also showcases the important role of narratives, legends and mythology in the power of individuals, and the organisation of people. Beard cites Polybius, the Greek historian during the Hellenistic period, who observed how religion and the “fear of gods” directed Roman behaviour, efficiency and organisation. Polybius described how childhood stories of Roman valour, self-sacrifice and heroism “encourage[d] the young to imitate the gallant deeds of their ancestors”, and “endure all suffering for the common good”. Beard also uses the story of Cicero and Catiline to show how self-interest, political paranoia and conspiracy can shape the course of events, and the ‘interpretative dilemma’ of Roman history.

Create desolation and call it peace

Beard describes how common it was to see the propaganda of ‘liberation’ surface each time a tyrant was assassinated or overthrown. In most cases, it only led to more civil wars and the rise of another dictator in its wake. While Roman authorities would write off “political rebellion as if it were treachery, riot or simple crime”, one didn’t need to look far to find dissatisfaction with ancient Roman rule. Beard cites Tacitus who described the Romans, in Beard’s paraphrasing, as “robbers of the world, insatiable for domination and profit”. It gave rise to his most famous aphorism: “solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant” (they create desolation and call it peace).

The many faces of Augustus

One of the more striking examples of these themes at play is the history of Octavian. His own writings were, according to Beard, “self-serving, partisan and often rose-tinted”. It “carefully glosses or entirely ignores the murderous illegalities of his early career”. His future title as the first Roman emperor, ‘Augustus’, “evoked ideas of authority and proper religious observance”.

Beard also describes one of Octavian’s most significant political innovations: “to flood the Roman world with his portraits”. This ranged from head stamps on coins to larger-than-life statues across Roman territories (from Spain to Sudan) in guises to suit the locale (“from heroic conqueror to pious priest”).

What’s amusing is that none of these works actually looked like Augustus. The author describes how they failed to match the written descriptions of his less than perfect physical features. While “the enigma of Augustus was the whole point”, it makes it difficult to learn about the Augustan regime behind the veneer. Octavian was a clever adaptor of idioms, narratives and perceptions to suit his politics and vision.

The Roman war machine

Narratives and archaeology aside, the history of the ancient Rome is an interesting case study in institutional design and the economics of organisation. Beard says it wrong to assume that ancient Rome was more belligerent or better builders than their neighbours and competitors. While their culture prized success in battle, this was not very different to other nations and societies at the time.

The Roman franchise

One unique feature of ancient Roman expansion was their singular demand: “provide troops for the Roman armies”. They did not attempt to take over or occupy their new territories in other ways. So as the “Roman empire expanded, so did its pantheon of deities”. Rome gave many territories full citizenship rights and privileges; and allowed them to share in the glory and spoils of future Roman victories.

“Local traditions flourished in everything from clothing to religion. It was a world full of gods and of festivals in a vast variety, whose strangeness lost nothing in the telling. The oracular snake with a human head does not look quite so odd when seen against the Egyptian Anubis”.

Mary Beard, 2015, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome

Rome’s “unprecedented scale” was based on “a network of more or less self-governing  towns”. Those with institutional power within these networks began to identify with Roman culture and politics. Many felt “they had a stake in the Roman project”. Some even “took a place, as Roman citizens, in the central government of Rome”. This combination of cultural preservation and economic incentives transformed the existing local hierarchies in servitude of Rome.

No grand master plan

As Beard describes it, the Romans did not have a master plan for militaristic conquest (although they did portray their empire as a product of “manifest destiny”). For starters, “they had no maps”. Their success in expansion rested on the way Rome organised its command, relationships, resources and manpower.

Beard doesn’t quite know why this model of control came about. Perhaps it’s the result of experimentation and an organic replication of something that works. Regardless, the Roman franchise described above did become a workable model to absorb “Rome’s defeated enemies into part of its growing military machine”.

Once it got underway, it was “self-sustaining”. And scale of course gave them their military advantage. At their peak, Rome’s troop size was many times greater than that of Alexander the Great’s. Their culture for battle, investment in warfare (between 10 to 25% of adult males served in their legions), and innovations like coinage also helped their system to flourish.

Scale and degeneration

However, the success and eventual scale of ancient Rome brought about its own destabilisers. Beard cites the “Roman moralists [that] worried about the dangerous effects of all this wealth and luxury”. It led to debates about the paradoxes of Rome, the blurring lines between civilisation and barbarism; and Polybius’s observation that Rome had built its success on a delicate political system.

As history goes, the stability of Rome’s political and economic institutions deteriorated over time. It culminated in a series of civil wars, the centralisation of power, and the rise of autocracy. This is best remembered in the ironic assassination of Julius Caesar, just a few weeks after he gained the official title of “dictator for life”.

Such transmissions of power were often met with violence, “behind-the-scenes manoeuvres”, “support of key interest groups”, “careful manipulation of opinion” and contingency. At this stage of history, Rome began to rely more on “the efforts and talents of individuals whose power, profits and rivalries threatened the very principles on which the Republic was based”.

Beard points out that several leaders did try to implement reforms in the interest of its people. Tiberius Gracchus for example, prior to his assassination, did try to restore land to the poor. As the author puts it, “we should not allow our hindsight, their ultimate failure or the succession of civil wars and assassinations to blind us to their efforts.”

Why nations fail

We’ve touched on these topics in previous posts too. In Why Nations Fail, Daren Acemoglu and James Robinson describe the role of inclusive economic and political institutions in the rise and fall of nations. Niall Ferguson offers a similar view in The Great Degeneration, describing the feedback loops that can emerge from the interplay between legal, political, economic and social institutions. The incentives, networks and scale that underpin these interacting systems, both at the individual and collective level, are important for us to consider.

The first millennium

While the Roman ‘war machine’ is a fascinating case study, my summary above is a gross oversimplification of collective history. Beard reminds us that there is “no simple Roman model”. They were as divided about the workings of the world as we are today. And to heroise or demonise them is to do the ancient Romans and history “a disservice”. We have to remember that we’re inferring a picture of history from the jigsaw pieces left behind.

If you’re looking to learn about ancient Roman history, you can’t go wrong with SPQR. Beard also shared a monstrous reading list for those seeking more. I highlight the three that peaked my curiosity:

  • Beard’s favourite biography of Cicero – Elizabeth Rawson’s Cicero: A Portrait (1975);
  • Simon Price and Peter Thonemann’s The Birth of Classical Europe: A History from Troy to Augustine (2011); and
  • Tom Holland’s Rubicon: The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic (2003).

To end this post with my favourite passage from her – Beard’s reflection after fifty years of research on the ‘first millennium Romans’:

“I no longer think, as I once naively did, that we have much to learn directly from the Romans… But I am more and more convinced that we have an enormous amount to learn – as much about ourselves as about the past – by engaging with the history of the Romans, their poetry and prose, their controversies and arguments. Western culture has a very varied inheritance. Happily, we are not the heirs of the classical past alone.”

Mary Beard, 2015, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome

References

Mary Beard. (2015). SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome. More from Mary Beard at:
<https://www.the-tls.co.uk/categories/regular-features/mary-beard-a-dons-life/> and
<https://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/directory/mary-beard>

Further reading