What do you think?
Rate this book
Commodus: An Emperor at the Crossroads
The emperor Commodus (AD 180-192) has commonly been portrayed as an insane madman, whose reign marked the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire. Indeed, the main point of criticism on his father, Marcus Aurelius, is that he appointed his son as his successor. Especially Commodus' behaviour as a gladiator, and the way he represented himself with divine attributes (especially those of Hercules), are often used as evidence for the emperor's presumed madness. However, this 'political biography' will apply modern interpretations of the spectacles in the arena, and of the imperial cult, to Commodus' reign. It will focus on the dissemination and reception of imperial images, and suggest that there was a method in Commodus' madness.
300 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2002
1 person is currently reading
51 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
November 3, 2022
This is, as far as I know, the only biography of Commodus in existence in English. It is rather unfortunate then that the author describes his book as not a biography but a look at the way he was presented. Fortunately that isn't too big a difference since there isn't nearly enough information for a conventional biography anyway. Besides, Commodus' self-presentation is half the story. Why did this man dress up as Hercules and fight in the arena? That is the question that any biography of Commodus must answer.
The first part of this book is a conventional historical narrative of the events of Commodus' life. He was the first emperor born in the purple, which probably accounts for a lot of his problems. Hekster views this as foreshadowing the rise of the numerous child emperors during the first half of the third century. He also emphasizes that the non-dynastic nature of the second century emperors was overstated. Marcus Aurelius was a relative of Hadrian who had no sons, and Antoninus Pius was a stopgap measure. For Pius, the adoption of Marcus gave him legitimacy while for Hadrian, Pius gave Marcus time to come of age before becoming emperor. Unsurprisingly Hekster views Commodus' supposed failings in the north to be political propaganda from his enemies. After all, he may have ended the war without fighting any further battles but that frontier was to remain safe until the time of Valerian and Gallienus. The reason for the hatred against him was that Commodus removed senators from his circle of advisers. None of this is any great surprise, but it's nice to see it gone into in detail.
The second part deals with how Commodus displays himself. Chapter four is called 'Images of Divinity' and deals with his assumption of the attributes of Hercules. Hekster points out that Hercules was a very dangerous figure to imitate since his traits could be considered good or bad depending on who viewed them. Chapter four is called 'An Emperor in Display' and deals with his fighting in the arena. He considers this a way for the unmartial Commodus to display his valor to the Roman people. Martial virtue was an important requirement of an emperor so Commodus needed to demonstrate it in some way. It also emphasized his personal valor at the expense of the senate and more traditional system. Unlike in a normal gladiatorial bout, people had to side with the emperor when he was fighting. It was a superhuman form of display.
English is not Hekster's first language and it shows, but he can occasionally turn a pretty good phrase. "Only a few forms of representation cannot be parodied. Portraying oneself as Hercules is not one of them," was probably my favorite. It is worded poorly with a double negative, but beneath it there lies a witty statement. His last lines rather effectively sum up his opinion of Commodus’ reception in life: "Some people clearly understood what the emperor was trying to do. They just did not agree."
This book is a fine, if unambitious look at an infamous emperor. There is a slight problem of audience however. The book doesn't dig too deeply into events which suits a more public audience, but at the same time it includes many quotes in untranslated German. His Greek and Latin quotes include both the original text and a translation, so I'm not sure why he didn't bother translating the German text. Which is a shame because with a few simple changes and a different (cheaper) publisher this could have been a successful and popular book. As it is it seems rather disappointingly shallow for such an obscure book. It is worth a read, but certainly not the price.
The first part of this book is a conventional historical narrative of the events of Commodus' life. He was the first emperor born in the purple, which probably accounts for a lot of his problems. Hekster views this as foreshadowing the rise of the numerous child emperors during the first half of the third century. He also emphasizes that the non-dynastic nature of the second century emperors was overstated. Marcus Aurelius was a relative of Hadrian who had no sons, and Antoninus Pius was a stopgap measure. For Pius, the adoption of Marcus gave him legitimacy while for Hadrian, Pius gave Marcus time to come of age before becoming emperor. Unsurprisingly Hekster views Commodus' supposed failings in the north to be political propaganda from his enemies. After all, he may have ended the war without fighting any further battles but that frontier was to remain safe until the time of Valerian and Gallienus. The reason for the hatred against him was that Commodus removed senators from his circle of advisers. None of this is any great surprise, but it's nice to see it gone into in detail.
The second part deals with how Commodus displays himself. Chapter four is called 'Images of Divinity' and deals with his assumption of the attributes of Hercules. Hekster points out that Hercules was a very dangerous figure to imitate since his traits could be considered good or bad depending on who viewed them. Chapter four is called 'An Emperor in Display' and deals with his fighting in the arena. He considers this a way for the unmartial Commodus to display his valor to the Roman people. Martial virtue was an important requirement of an emperor so Commodus needed to demonstrate it in some way. It also emphasized his personal valor at the expense of the senate and more traditional system. Unlike in a normal gladiatorial bout, people had to side with the emperor when he was fighting. It was a superhuman form of display.
English is not Hekster's first language and it shows, but he can occasionally turn a pretty good phrase. "Only a few forms of representation cannot be parodied. Portraying oneself as Hercules is not one of them," was probably my favorite. It is worded poorly with a double negative, but beneath it there lies a witty statement. His last lines rather effectively sum up his opinion of Commodus’ reception in life: "Some people clearly understood what the emperor was trying to do. They just did not agree."
This book is a fine, if unambitious look at an infamous emperor. There is a slight problem of audience however. The book doesn't dig too deeply into events which suits a more public audience, but at the same time it includes many quotes in untranslated German. His Greek and Latin quotes include both the original text and a translation, so I'm not sure why he didn't bother translating the German text. Which is a shame because with a few simple changes and a different (cheaper) publisher this could have been a successful and popular book. As it is it seems rather disappointingly shallow for such an obscure book. It is worth a read, but certainly not the price.
October 16, 2020
Hekster studies Commodus as an emperor at a crossroads just as his title implies. He transforms the modern reception of Commodus by using evidence, such as coinage, architecture, sculpture, and spectacles to examine how Commodus truly was received by the Roman people. As modern scholars, we tend to think of Commodus (and other emperors like him) as ‘bad’ emperors. Hekster explains many different issues that Commodus encountered and introduces a new way of analyzing these occurrences as crossroads of emperorship. These crossroads give a new perspective on Commodus and his emperorship. I will discuss three crossroads, which are, changes on the frontier, senatorial powers and positions, and changes in visual imagery. Not only is it important to identify these crossroads and what they offer for a new perspective on Commodus, but these crossroads can also be applied to emperorship in the Roman World. In closing, I will address that Hekster’s ‘emperor at a crossroads’ has changed the modern perception of emperorship, and this can be applied more broadly to the reign of Augustus and Trajan.
Commodus was the first Roman emperor to be a true biological son to take the throne; he was ‘born of the purple’. One of the first crossroads Hekster brings up is Commodus’ decision to abandon the frontier campaign that his father, Marcus Aurelius had pushed for. In many senators’ opinion, undoing Marcus’ work by ending the campaign along the Danube in 178/179 AD was perceived as traitorous to Marcus’ reign and policies, but Hekster persuasively introduces a new perception, that Commodus implicitly encountered a crossroads. He presents two reasons why Commodus may have made the decision to end the campaign. Perhaps Commodus withdrew due to the plague and nothing at all to do with being malicious and wanting to destroy what Marcus had built on the frontier. Secondly, since he was the first to be born of the purple, he couldn’t be seen in his first few years of his reign losing a campaign. This crossroad is the first presented by Hekster to persuasively propose a new perception on Commodus’ decisions.
Next, Hekster writes about the senators and how they are losing their power and feeling threatened by the changes that Commodus imposed by selling off offices to the highest bidder and allowing non-elites to hold positions of power, specifically Cleander, and then later, Perennis. As we continue reading, we learn that those were the thoughts and feelings of senators from literary sources, but Hekster points out that those actually appointed to offices were already from “high municipal rank or from the equites, and not from amongst the freedmen.” (What really caused the prestige of the position and power of the senate to decline was the creation of so many positions within the senate. ) Hekster argues that Commodus actually kept officials in positions from the reign of Marcus Aurelius, such as C. Aufidius Victorinus, who was praefectus urbi and then later became consul ordinarius. Consulships and urban prefectures were still positions occupied by senators, but for the senators, the crossroads was Commodus putting Cleander and Perennis into positions of power that outranked the senate. They were threatened by these changes.
This threat led to Cleander’s downfall in 190 AD. Hekster cannot prove nor takes a definitive stance that because of Cleander’s death, Commodus changes his visual program, but it is a strong possibility. Commodus was faced with another crossroads because of this ordeal.
Up until the last three years of Commodus’ reign, Hekster argues that Commodus’ visual program was not much different than the standard imperial tradition. He mints coins of the gods and goddesses—Mars, Apollo, Venus, Jupiter, and Victoria—just like emperors before him. He mints coins and medallions with cornucopias, signifying abundance and prosperity of his reign. Furthermore, Commodus makes an association to Jupiter to show that Jupiter is the god of the heavens and he himself is god of the earth. His iconography of Janus is a symbolism of peace. Commodus’ visual program at this time was about a ‘Golden Age’. However, in order to recover from the riot and potential usurpation of Cleander and to ensure stability in the Roman Empire, Commodus minted new iconography on coinage; this crossroads was a change in visual image. This iconography changed in the last three years of his reign after Cleander’s death. Commodus not only associates himself with Hercules, he does more than that, he represents himself as the demi-god Hercules.
Hekster uses ‘emperor at a crossroads’ to push modern scholars to leave behind the hasty generalization of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ emperors and instead focus on visual programs of emperorship to see how emperors were represented and what part they played in fulfilling or securing that representation. From reading Zanker, Bennett, and Hekster, we know that Augustus, Trajan, and Commodus all changed their titles during their reign. They added on new titles and did away with others. Augustus adopted ‘Augustus’ as his name, no longer a title awarded on an annual basis. Trajan was titled, Pater Patriae to symbolize that he was divinely chosen ‘Father of the Country’, and Commodus chose Felix Pius. They also minted new symbols on coinage, which changed their visual program during their emperorships. Augustus added Apollo, and symbols of stars and vines to associate to celestial signs and growth, Trajan minted coins of Jupiter and of him holding a globe to symbolize providentia, and Commodus chose Hercules.
They each used visual imagery to represent a connection to a mythological past. For Augustus, all emperors following him would take on the title of tribunicia potestas, and after Commodus, other emperors would use the title, Felix Pius. They were emperors at crossroads. They changed their self-representation, which changed the elites and plebs’ reception of them. Each of them at their crossroads paved the way for emperors to come.
Commodus was the first Roman emperor to be a true biological son to take the throne; he was ‘born of the purple’. One of the first crossroads Hekster brings up is Commodus’ decision to abandon the frontier campaign that his father, Marcus Aurelius had pushed for. In many senators’ opinion, undoing Marcus’ work by ending the campaign along the Danube in 178/179 AD was perceived as traitorous to Marcus’ reign and policies, but Hekster persuasively introduces a new perception, that Commodus implicitly encountered a crossroads. He presents two reasons why Commodus may have made the decision to end the campaign. Perhaps Commodus withdrew due to the plague and nothing at all to do with being malicious and wanting to destroy what Marcus had built on the frontier. Secondly, since he was the first to be born of the purple, he couldn’t be seen in his first few years of his reign losing a campaign. This crossroad is the first presented by Hekster to persuasively propose a new perception on Commodus’ decisions.
Next, Hekster writes about the senators and how they are losing their power and feeling threatened by the changes that Commodus imposed by selling off offices to the highest bidder and allowing non-elites to hold positions of power, specifically Cleander, and then later, Perennis. As we continue reading, we learn that those were the thoughts and feelings of senators from literary sources, but Hekster points out that those actually appointed to offices were already from “high municipal rank or from the equites, and not from amongst the freedmen.” (What really caused the prestige of the position and power of the senate to decline was the creation of so many positions within the senate. ) Hekster argues that Commodus actually kept officials in positions from the reign of Marcus Aurelius, such as C. Aufidius Victorinus, who was praefectus urbi and then later became consul ordinarius. Consulships and urban prefectures were still positions occupied by senators, but for the senators, the crossroads was Commodus putting Cleander and Perennis into positions of power that outranked the senate. They were threatened by these changes.
This threat led to Cleander’s downfall in 190 AD. Hekster cannot prove nor takes a definitive stance that because of Cleander’s death, Commodus changes his visual program, but it is a strong possibility. Commodus was faced with another crossroads because of this ordeal.
Up until the last three years of Commodus’ reign, Hekster argues that Commodus’ visual program was not much different than the standard imperial tradition. He mints coins of the gods and goddesses—Mars, Apollo, Venus, Jupiter, and Victoria—just like emperors before him. He mints coins and medallions with cornucopias, signifying abundance and prosperity of his reign. Furthermore, Commodus makes an association to Jupiter to show that Jupiter is the god of the heavens and he himself is god of the earth. His iconography of Janus is a symbolism of peace. Commodus’ visual program at this time was about a ‘Golden Age’. However, in order to recover from the riot and potential usurpation of Cleander and to ensure stability in the Roman Empire, Commodus minted new iconography on coinage; this crossroads was a change in visual image. This iconography changed in the last three years of his reign after Cleander’s death. Commodus not only associates himself with Hercules, he does more than that, he represents himself as the demi-god Hercules.
Hekster uses ‘emperor at a crossroads’ to push modern scholars to leave behind the hasty generalization of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ emperors and instead focus on visual programs of emperorship to see how emperors were represented and what part they played in fulfilling or securing that representation. From reading Zanker, Bennett, and Hekster, we know that Augustus, Trajan, and Commodus all changed their titles during their reign. They added on new titles and did away with others. Augustus adopted ‘Augustus’ as his name, no longer a title awarded on an annual basis. Trajan was titled, Pater Patriae to symbolize that he was divinely chosen ‘Father of the Country’, and Commodus chose Felix Pius. They also minted new symbols on coinage, which changed their visual program during their emperorships. Augustus added Apollo, and symbols of stars and vines to associate to celestial signs and growth, Trajan minted coins of Jupiter and of him holding a globe to symbolize providentia, and Commodus chose Hercules.
They each used visual imagery to represent a connection to a mythological past. For Augustus, all emperors following him would take on the title of tribunicia potestas, and after Commodus, other emperors would use the title, Felix Pius. They were emperors at crossroads. They changed their self-representation, which changed the elites and plebs’ reception of them. Each of them at their crossroads paved the way for emperors to come.
February 10, 2021
È il classico libro "revisionista", cioè che si chiede se una certa vulgata storica su di un imperatore sia vera oppure no. Dunque, Commodo era davvero così pessimo come le fonti (che ovviamente provengono dall'unico ceto in grado di produrre opere letterarie e storiche) ce lo descrivono. Pazzo, sanguinario, folle ecc.? La risposta è grigia.
Il libro è diviso in due parti. La prima è cronologica e ripercorrere, con i dovuti dettagli ma senza sprofondare nel particolare, la vita di Commodo con attenzione alle lotte politiche, partendo dalle fonti letterarie. Si possono individuare tre fasi: 180-182, in cui l'influenza dei consiglieri lasciati dal padre è ancora presente ma non fortissima; 182-190 il dominio dei sottoposti (Perenne e Cleandro); 190-192: la fase finale, in cui Commodo tenta il nuovo modello erculeo, con cui interagire direttamente con la plebe. Ho scritto modello, ma dovrei essere più preciso (come l'autore, fortunatamente, è): Commodo si credeva, con tutta probabilità, la "vera" la reincarnazione di Ercole.
La seconda parte del libro è non meno succosa: è l'analisi del materiale non letterario di Commodo, dunque è costituita dalle analisi delle monete, delle opere d'arte e altri aspetti giunti fino a noi. Ho così scoperto con sorpresa che il famossissimo busto di Commodo Ercole (che tutti abbiamo presente in mente) è un bell'enigma perché Commodo vi appare ancora con la barba lunga (cioè il modello paterno) e non con il taglio gladiatorio (capelli corti) che si vede sulle altre monete.
La discesa di Commodo nell'arena occupa ampio spazio, ma qui l'autore divaga un po' raccontando i modelli antropologici e moderni che vogliono, in qualche modo, "spiegare" il rapporto tra i Romani e i giochi nel circo.
La conclusione della seconda parte è che Commodo era folle (probabile ma non sicuro) ma per niente folle era la sua politica, che voleva creare una figura di "imperatore superumano" che, come Ercole, divenuto da uomo dio, fosse il salvatore del genere umano. La necessità di una simile figura affonda le sue radici nella crisi del regno di Marco Aurelio (guerre e pestilenze).
In sostanza, un ottimo libro su Commodo davvero ben documentato e argomento, che inoltre, credo, si possa rivolgere anche a chi ne sa poco di questo imperatore.
La conclusione è che la "pazzia" di Commodo era basata su due cose:
Il libro è diviso in due parti. La prima è cronologica e ripercorrere, con i dovuti dettagli ma senza sprofondare nel particolare, la vita di Commodo con attenzione alle lotte politiche, partendo dalle fonti letterarie. Si possono individuare tre fasi: 180-182, in cui l'influenza dei consiglieri lasciati dal padre è ancora presente ma non fortissima; 182-190 il dominio dei sottoposti (Perenne e Cleandro); 190-192: la fase finale, in cui Commodo tenta il nuovo modello erculeo, con cui interagire direttamente con la plebe. Ho scritto modello, ma dovrei essere più preciso (come l'autore, fortunatamente, è): Commodo si credeva, con tutta probabilità, la "vera" la reincarnazione di Ercole.
La seconda parte del libro è non meno succosa: è l'analisi del materiale non letterario di Commodo, dunque è costituita dalle analisi delle monete, delle opere d'arte e altri aspetti giunti fino a noi. Ho così scoperto con sorpresa che il famossissimo busto di Commodo Ercole (che tutti abbiamo presente in mente) è un bell'enigma perché Commodo vi appare ancora con la barba lunga (cioè il modello paterno) e non con il taglio gladiatorio (capelli corti) che si vede sulle altre monete.
La discesa di Commodo nell'arena occupa ampio spazio, ma qui l'autore divaga un po' raccontando i modelli antropologici e moderni che vogliono, in qualche modo, "spiegare" il rapporto tra i Romani e i giochi nel circo.
La conclusione della seconda parte è che Commodo era folle (probabile ma non sicuro) ma per niente folle era la sua politica, che voleva creare una figura di "imperatore superumano" che, come Ercole, divenuto da uomo dio, fosse il salvatore del genere umano. La necessità di una simile figura affonda le sue radici nella crisi del regno di Marco Aurelio (guerre e pestilenze).
In sostanza, un ottimo libro su Commodo davvero ben documentato e argomento, che inoltre, credo, si possa rivolgere anche a chi ne sa poco di questo imperatore.
La conclusione è che la "pazzia" di Commodo era basata su due cose:
March 23, 2010
Romanophiles band together!
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews