Rome: A Cultural History [Kindle Edition]

Firstly, let us be clear. As a writer, Robert Hughes is endlessly entertaining, does thorough research and expresses himself in ways that deal with historical moments as if they were immediate political drama, imbuing them with contemporary preoccupations and dispositions to liven them up. In dealing with his subject, whatever it is, he unfailingly manages to bring alive the context and the tensions of the time, even if this isn't exactly accurate. When that subject is as rich and historically significant as the ancient capital of Western culture, he does not disappoint.

Hughes' 'Rome' is an historical and not a contemporary one. He shows, with patience and in depth, the relationship between what the Romans made in the forms of art and architecture, and how that embodied their aspirations, their politics and their cultural dynamics. From the original founding legends to the high point of the rule of Augustus, to the mess it was in as the Renaissance got going, its reshaping in the Baroque and the tensions between Church and State unleashed by the Risorgimento, Hughes' narrative foregrounds the creative, artistic Rome that so profoundly determined and influenced Western culture during these centuries. Unsurprisingly, he is at his best when dealing with the delicious combination of venal corruption and aesthetic beauty that typfies the Roman Baroque, or in admiring the patrician cultural benefits of Augustan rule. His assessment of modern Rome is bleak, and heavily influenced by Fellini's frustrations that a country so rich in creative history could degenerate into a vapid culture of media and celebrity.

His point is that this is where Rome, the Eternal City, ends; in a mess of tawdry television, endless games of calcio and an indifference to the decline and destruction of Rome by mass tourism of the most ignorant kind. If you know Rome, intend to visit it, or are interested in the art and architecture it spawned, this book is a great read. It will also have you booking a ticket there, before all that Hughes tells you about is swept away by the shifts in historical forces that put it there in the first place.

In many a large book there is often a smaller book screaming to be let out. Such is certainly the case with the latest work of Robert Hughes.
Few much better qualified writers would attempt anything so ambitious as to encompass a subject as wide-ranging as Rome in a single volume.
The book improves (but only after 200 pages) when Hughes finally reaches territory with matches his own expertise, such as the Renaissance, although careless errors still crop up. The book is a perfect example of a writer trying to punch well above his weight.
If you want a readable and reliable book on Rome, I would recommend Christopher Hibbert's classic account, which Hughes fails, for some reason, to mention in his bibliography.

All the reviews I have read concerning this book, appear to be unanimous in their bagging of the first part of the book. I have soldiered through to past the Renaissance. I have to say, I agree with all those who condemn the first couple of chapters as a bit of a muddle - considering Hughes wonderful skills as a writer, there is a sense he just got a little tired and bored with the early history or Rome, in places it is flat but picks up and you do see glimpses as to what he is capable of and what you can expect once he gets back into familiar territory. For example, in "Medieval Rome and Avignon" he does a wonderful job of demolishing the superstitious attachments we (some) have to to supposedly holy relics. I would be surprised if even the most devout Christian could resist the temptation to chuckle at Hughes' description of the scourged Jesus leaving venerated spots and smears everywhere as he climbed the stairs of Scala Santa or Holy Staircase. And how he resisted not labelling Giovanni Bruno a red-hot Copernican is a mystery to me! Yes, there are a few mistakes regarding dates of birth and dates of death, and certainly typos, while annoying are of no real consequence to the purpose - you just have to keep your wits about you when reading.

The book picks up beginning with the Renaissance, this is where Robert hits his straps, and it is worth buying the book just for the chapters covering the" Renaissance"," Rome in the Seventeenth Century" its in these sections that you witness just how an outstanding writer he is, his descriptions of many of the paintings, architecture and sculptures defy t comparison. I think his interpretation of "Atalanta and Hippomenes" is so powerful and evocative when he observes that "..but his gesture towards her is one of repulsion and banishment...even though his victory in the race will, according to the myth entitle him to claim her - he is racing for a prize he does not desire". You wish after reading each of his passages that you could have included every painting and sculpture he describes. Alas, you will need to visit the galleria or get on line. Which makes me think, I wonder if Hughes has on his mind such a project. It would be wonderful if he could find the time to pick say his top 100 works in architecture, paining and sculpture and devote a page or so to each - it would be a wonderful experience.

In summary, it is very well worth persevering after the minor stumble of the first few chapters. If I now look back I would question his decision to attempt an early history of Rome, it was not needed as the pieces of Rome's history that he was able to reveal were uneven and it would have been far better to not go deep into some characters, for example Caligula, and to leave others obscured. Which reminds me of a famous quote, attributed to the mathematician, Alfred Whitehead, who after Bertrand Russell having given a hard and earnest talk on new quantum mechanics, Professor Whitehead, who presided, thanked him for his efforts, and not least for 'leaving the vast darkness of the subject unobscured'. I hate to say it, but that is how I feel about the history of Rome after having read the earlier chapters of Hughe's book.

Lastly, one thing that may annoy some readers is the perceived need to bow to political correctness and confuse the reader with an inconsistent use of BCE and CE in place of BC and AD. This inane attempt at obfuscation, I can only surmise, was not Hughes' and more likely a last minute spasm on the part of the publishers, because all the plates still have their dates annotated as BC and AD. Clearly this was not planned from the outset, and the application of a modicum of common sense on behalf of the publisher could have avoided this silly mess. Whether you believe in Christ or not there is no getting away from the fact that there was a defining period in world history that influenced the way we fix events in history, we can't change that, so how in the name of all things sensible does relabelling of BC and AD change the significance of the coming of Christianity? I am not a Christian, so I am not trying to defend Christianity, but common sense.