Augustus: First Emperor of Rome (Adrian Goldsworthy, 2014)

It's hard to believe it's been over five years since my last Goldsworthy, that being How Rome Fell, also known by its British (?) title, Fall of the West. I remember that book fondly because it was the first one I read after moving back to the Bay Area, and it also put in place the reading programs I've been following ever since. Meanwhile, Goldsworthy has been keeping busy, with beefy biographies of Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, and now Augustus, a.k.a. Gaius Octavius, a.k.a. Gaius Julius Caesar, a.k.a. Octavian (frowned upon by the author), a.k.a. Little Caesar (kidding), plus a heap of honorifics like Pater Patrae and all that jazz.

The biggest challenge in writing about Augustus, other than managing his multitude of names, is how to stand out and offer something fresh for one of the most documented portions of Graeco-Roman history, both in terms of primary and secondary material. One big help is that Goldsworthy had been working up to this through his last two books, and it was probably hard not to turn to Augustus after writing about his (adoptive) father and his fellow triumvir-turned-archrival. He is good about being clear about what sources say what about Augustus and how reliable they are. Although I didn't learn anything particularly shocking, his synthesizes his research well and the narrative flows easily. He manages to be accessible to the ancient history newbie as well as the wizened scholar, although the latter may be thirsting for something more niche and in-depth.

To return to the names, Goldsworthy does not use the name "Octavian" in his narrative, although it occasionally appears in the sources he quotes. In fact, if I had to point to what distinguishes this book from other other works on Augustus, it would probably be the careful attention to names. Now, the downside to saying "young Caesar" in lieu of "Octavian" is that it can be a little jarring for readers that are used to the Octavian-Augustus dichotomy. He does impose a few ground rules on himself, though. For example, his adoptive father is always "Julius Caesar", and if readers keep that in mind it helps with the Caesar or Caesar question. Names are also important in other ways. Most obviously, Goldsworthy divides up his narrative into parts named after what name Augustus was using at that time of his life, swinging from Gaius Octavius to Imperator Caesar Augustus Divi Filius Pater Patrae (basically, Emperor Caesar Augustus son of the divine Julius, Father of his Country, nothing fancy). He is good about noting when a source is far enough in the future to "mangle" the titles a bit; although we retrospectively see Augustus as the first Roman emperor, he never classed himself as one (there is a subtle distinction in the office of Emperor which developed much later, and the title of Imperator). Goldsworthy correctly assesses the programs of Augustus as those of a man who attempted to both "restore" the Republic and develop a new structure of governance. How Roman history turned out in the future clearly was not as Augustus envisioned it.

It looks like I'm going to have to get back to the original Caesar and Mark Antony and everyone's favorite Egyptian queen to make the trilogy complete. If they are as absorbing and comprehensive as this book, it should make for a good time. As for this book, all I had to do was walk downstairs to the stacks and pick it up from my own library. If you are not as fortunate to run your own library, fear not. These books are widely held and readily available from most every public and academic library with a slightly-above the poverty line budget. Check out Worldcat to find a library close to you.

The Anglican Spiritual Tradition (John R. H. Moorman, 1983)

It seemed only fair to give my own denomination some air time in light of all of the Catholic history and Catholic-leaning writings I've read over the past year or so. Given we are outnumbered 70 million to 3 million, it can be a little hard to find equivalent Anglican resources. Therefore, while this was very informative, it wasn't the most gripping book I've read. England was a very complex society religiously, and post-Reformation a clear split in the new order soon took shape with the upper classes sticking with an all-but-the-Pope high Anglicanism and Protestant-leaning "low" church catching fire among the common people. It is interesting how sometimes even more extreme results came out of both sides, with some returning to the Catholic Church and others breaking away to new forms of Protestantism, such as Methodism.

Anglicanism differs from its fellow Protestant denominations (even the mainline ones) in that it is apostolic, so, particularly among the high-church types, is the belief that the Church of England is the real continuation of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church", not the Roman Catholic Church. Other Protestants tend to observe the "get back to Jesus" idea and throw out the whole Catholic Church back to the beginning. As Luther and Calvin seeped into the lower classes of England, this was an appealing notion.

Also, Anglicanism, by its nature as a fused church-state entity, was strongly influenced by whoever happened to be sitting on the throne. Even though the conventional wisdom was that it emerged fully developed from Henry VIII's reign, most the more differing characteristics from Catholicism came during the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth I. Intervening monarchs would prove to be more Catholic, particularly Mary I and James II, but from Elizabeth onward it was its own church, Oxford Movement sentiments or not.

It was interesting to read about all of the changes over time (some of which early on were very violent and aptly illustrated by a fictional account of a very confused priest), as well as the varying strains of thought that exist in Anglicanism (and we aren't even talking about the Anglican Communion here). Again it's fairly dry reading, so a little historical background in English history and the Reformation would be useful before approaching it.

My copy, strangely enough, came from my church's library. Most library copies are usually only available in academic libraries, so it may be worth tracking down second-hand on the cheap if you aren't familiar or comfortable with interlibrary loan. Of course if you are Episcopalian or feel comfortable visiting one and it is not too "low church" I bet you will find a copy there. Consult Worldcat for a library near you that carries a copy.