Mary Beard’s Emperor of Rome vs Olive Hekster’s Caesar Rules: The Emperor in the Changing Roman World
A few months ago, I gave a glowing review to Mary Beard’s SPQR. I thought it presented an excellent overview of ancient Roman history, society, and culture. It offered interesting arguments and insights that would be worthwhile to read for total newcomers to Ancient Rome as well as interested amateurs like me. For that reason, Her new book “Emperor of Rome” was one of my most anticipated books for this past year. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to my high expectations.
I don’t mean to imply this is a bad book by any means. It probably would be very interesting to a total newcomer to the subject. Beard is a talented writer who employs a breezy, almost conversational style, and obviously is an expert in the field. Also, one of her strengths as a historian is that she refuses to over-interpret the available evidence. She’s not afraid to admit that there are many things that we simply cannot know about the actual day-to-day lives of the emperors.
Problems with Mary Beard’s New Book
Unfortunately, that reticence to fill the gaps in the evidence led to a book that deals more in generalities and a kind of view from 10,000 feet than a detailed analysis of what emperors actually did. One section of the book, studying the changing styles of portrait busts to make dynastic statements, is essentially recycled material from another book of hers “The Twelve Caesars”. Her description of how the emperorship developed, with civil wars producing increasingly powerful warlords, from Sulla to Augustus, is likewise very familiar to readers of SPQR. New to me but not particularly interesting was the long section looking at the etiquette for seating and use of water features at imperial dinner parties.
Another problem I had with the book is that Beard only writes about the early empire. By contrast, Olivier Hekster’s recent “Caesar Rules: The Emperor in the Changing Roman World” covers the period through the 6th century. I think he’s better able to articulate what it meant to be a Roman Emperor by noting the ways it changed over the centuries.
Traditionally, historians have divided the empire into at least two phases: the principate, established by Augustus, in which the emperor cloaked his power in a sort of fiction whereby he was merely the first among equals with the senate, and the dominate, in which emperors broadcast their absolute power with increasingly elaborate court rituals, with the so-called barracks emperors, who spent their brief reigns during the crisis of the third century desperately fighting off constant invasions as a transitional period in between.
The Emperors of the principate oversaw a tiny bureaucracy, leaving much of the running of the empire to local elites in city councils, whereas the dominant oversaw an explosion of bureaucratic officials. The Central power took on more and more authority while local elites withdrew from civic responsibility. Hekster emphasizes that these were real long-term trends, but disputes the idea that there was any kind of neat dividing line between the eras.
He insists that all the supposed characteristic features of the dominant had precedents in the early empire. By tracing each new development in this way, I think he is able to shine a better light on what it meant to be Emperor.
Hekster’s vs Beard’s Approach to the Emperor’s
Both authors spend a lot of time discussing how emperors presented themselves to their public audiences, but Hekster approaches the subject more systematically and from more angles. For instance, In addition to studying portrait busts as Beard does, Hekster also uses numismatic evidence to examine the changing nature of imperial self-representation. Roman coins contain a wealth of information about how emperors chose to promote themselves.
For instance, the early emperors emphasized military, civil, and religious imagery in roughly equal percentages on their coins, while the fifth-century emperors hugely emphasized military symbolism, overcompensating real-world failures. Likewise, I was surprisingly interested in the changing uses of names and titles on Coins.
Roman imperial names can be confusing, especially given the frequency of adoptions and additions of titles and honorifics. The only constant over time was the use of Augustus. Other titles rose and fell in popularity depending on the dynasty. Caesar, Tribunicia Potestas, and imperator were common for the first few centuries, with Pius Felix and Dominus Noster becoming routine in the fourth century, reflecting a change of emphasis from civil to more authoritarian elements of the emperor’s persona.
I’m sad to say I didn’t learn much from Beard’s book, but I did learn a lot from Hekster’s. Beard’s description of the imperial cult, from its forebears in Hellenistic societies to its popular appeal was fine, but I was more interested to learn from Hekster how it continued even after the empire became officially Christian and other Pagan shrines were officially banned. As he says, Christian “Authors like Gregory of Nazianzus tried to formulate a way in which the worship of the imperial portrait could continue within a Christian context” and “strikingly, the Vandal invasions of the fifth century, which took much of North Africa out of imperial control, did not put an end to appointing a priest for the imperial cult.”
Hekster’s vs Beard’s Approach to The Relationship Between the Emperor and Senate
Likewise, the relationship between the emperor and senators comes into better focus in Hekster’s book when he examines two trends of the later empire. First, the exclusion of senators from army commands starting in the late third century, and secondly the rise of Christian bishops as another group of non-military elites that needed to be placated. The Roman senatorial elite were fantastically wealthy, owning estates spread out over many provinces, and whose networks of patronage gave them a hard-to-define source of influence.
In the early empire, Emperors were expected to spend time with senators and hear their concerns. When the emperors stopped residing in Rome in the third century, bishops gradually began to fill similar roles as imperial companions and as a corporate body that needed to be appeased. Emperors convened and presided over church councils in a way not too dissimilar to when they had presided over senatorial debates. He compares emperors routinely starting messages to the senate with “‘Me and my army are well’ emphasizing the potential for imperial violence” with the presence of imperial troops at church councils like the second council of Ephesus in 449.
Final Thoughts and Recommendations
To expand on the comparison between Mary Beard’s “Emperor of Rome” and Olivier Hekster’s “Caesar Rules,” both books offer insightful perspectives on the early Roman emperors, but they cater to different audiences and interests.
Mary Beard’s “Emperor of Rome” is renowned for its accessible narrative, making the complex history of Rome’s early rulers approachable for beginners. Beard, a respected classicist, has a knack for bringing history to life, weaving archaeological findings and ancient texts into a story that is both engaging and educational. Her work is particularly well-suited for those new to Roman history or those who appreciate history told through a narrative lens.
On the other hand, Olivier Hekster’s “Caesar Rules” delves deeper into the political and social nuances of the Roman Empire’s formative years. Hekster, with his intricate analysis, offers a more nuanced exploration of the power dynamics, propaganda, and policies that shaped the early emperors’ reigns. His approach is more analytical, incorporating a broad range of sources to challenge traditional interpretations of Roman history. This makes “Caesar Rules” ideal for readers with a stronger background in history or those seeking a more detailed study of Rome’s imperial mechanisms.
Furthermore, while Beard’s work often focuses on the emperors themselves, Hekster expands the scope to include the influence of lesser-known figures and the broader societal impacts of the emperors’ rule. This comprehensive approach provides a fuller picture of the period, highlighting the complexity of Roman society and the interplay between different social strata and the imperial court.
In summary, while Mary Beard’s “Emperor of Rome” serves as an excellent introduction to the early Roman emperors, offering a clear and captivating overview, Olivier Hekster’s “Caesar Rules” appeals to those seeking a more detailed and scholarly examination of the period. Both books are commendable, but your choice depends on your level of prior knowledge and what you hope to gain from the reading experience.
