Review: A Scandalous History of the Roman Emperors by Blond

Overview and Approach

In A Scandalous History of the Roman Emperors (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2000), originally published in 1994, Anthony Blond appears to have written a history of Rome for the current tabloid age — though in truth, the Roman emperors lived that sort of life and were not shy about letting the world know it. The book is both a history of the emperors and a characterization of the era, and Blond manages to create a vivid picture of ancient Rome against which to set his stories of the emperors from Julius Caesar to Nero. This is followed by a discussion of Rome as a city and an empire.

The book covers the subject in a shorter space than many other works have done, and the tone is less reverent than that of many other authors. Blond himself states in his apology that there is nothing original in the book, but in truth there is — the approach he takes to the material is original, even though he may have borrowed stories and other material from many earlier historical writers.

The stories of the emperors are clearly a selling point for the book, but of even greater interest are the chapters concerning Roman society, which really explain why the emperors behaved as they did. They were not simply rogue individuals imposing their will on the populace; rather, they drew inspiration from the people and reflected the prevailing attitudes and ideas of the age. While the scandalous behavior of the emperors makes for colorful stories, it is also clear that Roman society created many institutions, concepts, and ideas that remain relevant today and that demonstrated the high degree of civilization achieved in the formation of the Empire.

Roman Law and Social Structure

The section on Roman law maintains the rather flip attitude of the rest of the book but also manages to offer considerable information on the nature and structure of that law. Blond begins with the statement, "Roman Law bound Rome like Roman cement" (34), and then shows just how pervasive and strong Roman law was. He also reveals interesting paradoxes in the social structure of Rome. For instance, he notes that the law in its earliest form was based on the authority of the paterfamilias — "the head of the family, who had the right, until the end of the Empire, to sell his children" (35). The head of the family could and did insist on certain virtues, such as dutiful service, chastity, and respect for superiors. His control was absolute on certain matters:

"He could and did punish adultery in his children with death. The Romans were always monogamous, though later divorce was easy" (36).

In some ways, this contrasts with the chapter on "Sex," which also acknowledges the power of the paterfamilias yet seems at odds with the prevailing temper of the age, which was "randy, permissive and tolerant of fairly bad behavior," though "not vicious or orgiastic" (2). Again, while the paterfamilias could and did punish adultery in his children with death, Blond notes that in Roman society the "husband was not expected to be faithful and there is no reference in Roman literature to 'cheating on the wife'" (6). Does this mean that the paterfamilias was only punishing daughters, or that he punished his children in this harsh manner despite the spirit of the age and the way husbands were generally viewed? Blond refers to the ready availability of prostitutes and concubines, which also raises the question of whether dalliance with these was considered adultery. These interesting questions are not answered, making it difficult to determine whether these seemingly different modes of behavior were genuinely paradoxical or simply reflected a more complex understanding of words like "adultery."

There were two levels of law in Rome. The first consisted of laws governing debt and certain obvious crimes — laws derived from the original Twelve Tables that "could be chanted by schoolboys" (17). The second level consisted of laws that required study in law schools, along with the art of rhetoric, with Cicero serving as a prime example of such a student. This level involved more complex statutes and the later legislation passed to supplement the basic law of the Twelve Tables. The law was also invoked for political changes, such as the decision to institute the triumvirate, which Blond says was "enacted by the Senate with 400 centurions and soldiers hovering around to help them make up their minds" (35).

Blond also notes that the five emperors he discusses all respected the laws of Rome, at least in their fashion, though readers encountering these stories without guidance might think otherwise. He observes how Augustus "followed the forms of the Republic and in being elected consul thirteen times demonstrated that his authority came from the senate and the People of Rome" (38). This statement gives a clear sense of how the people of Rome viewed their leadership as representative of them — as gaining power because the people granted it. Blond also argues that when compared to real dictators like Hitler, "Roman Emperors were restrained in their treatment of conspirators, having no secret police and only rarely holding trials in camera" (39). The picture that emerges is of a society based on law and broadly adhering to it, with only occasional lapses on the part of the leadership. As Blond writes: "The Roman Empire could not have lasted so long had its subjects not believed in the efficacy and eventual justice of Roman Law" (39).

While the Romans may have been a law-abiding people, many of their laws and customs separate them from us today and can make them seem more primitive and less law-abiding than they were. The practice of slavery, for example, is something our age views as contrary to a deeper human law, just as the bloody games in which the Romans indulged — with and without enslaved participants — also place them outside the pale by modern standards. Blond shows that our assessment is based in part on our more complex and nuanced view of human nature, while many of the concepts by which we would judge the Romans were entirely unknown to them and therefore meaningless. As Blond writes: "The joy in cruelty, the cruel joy wafting up from this hostile telling of the Romans at play, shows that the crowd was sadistic, like many crowds, though that concept, with its sexual undertones and subsequent possible feelings of guilt, would have been, like masochism, unknown" (59–60).

The Games and Public Life

Blond also notes how significant the Games were for Roman society at all levels, for they provided an opportunity for citizens "to voice with impunity their grievances to officials and to the emperor" (61). This gives the Games a political dimension that is genuinely interesting. Of course, the Games were also — and perhaps primarily — a form of entertainment, and they were important for this reason given that many Roman citizens had no regular employment and little else to occupy them unless they were wealthy.