Book Review: Republicanism during the Early Roman Empire

Abstract

The book Republicanism during the Early Roman Empire by S. Wilkinson is reviewed.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 529

Roman literary and cultural historians should read this book, and it will also be widely influential in many other fields of ancient studies. The volume places Roman evidence in the broader fields of comparative history and post-colonial studies and so will encourage interdisciplinary discussion. In short, there is a great deal to like in it. W. has provided a vigorous and exciting investigation of a major set of problems at the heart of the Roman imperial experience, and he deserves the highest praise.

Rice University M I C H A E L M A A S mailto:[email protected]

Web End [email protected]

R E P U B L I C A N I S M A N D E M P I R E

W I L K I N S O N ( S . ) Republicanism during the Early Roman Empire.

Pp. vi + 263. London and New York: Continuum, 2012. Paper, 19.99 (Cased, 65). ISBN: 978-1-4411-2052-6 (978-1-4411-3793-7 hbk).

doi:10.1017/S0009840X13001042

Scholarship on the history of ancient Rome has traditionally been kept to two very distinctive categories one either writes on the Republic or on the Empire. Even though scholars generally understand that the Roman Republic, as a governing institution, ended more or less officially with Octavians victory at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C., there is still considerable evidence, both literary and material, which indicates that the spirit and memory of the Republic lingered well into the first century of the rule of emperors. W.s book comes upon a wave of recent concentrated interest in the Roman Republic, its systems of government (F. Pina Polo, The Consul at Rome: the Civil Functions of the Consuls in the Roman Republic [2011]), its imperialism (N. Rosenstein, Rome and the Mediterranean, 290 to 146 BC: the Imperial Republic [2012]) and its ultimate demise (C.S. MacKay, The Breakdown of the Roman Republic: from Oligarchy to Empire [2009]). The legacy of the Republic in the early Roman Empire has already been given consideration in A.M. Gowings The Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture (2005), but primarily from the perspective of memory. But in contrast to these other works, W. brings to bear the legacy of the Roman Republic and its impact on the early Roman Empire from the very important standpoint of ancient authors writing about the early Empire, who provide evidence that the ideologies of the Republic still influenced the social and political consciousness and actions of the emperor and the senatorial elite during the first century A.D.

W.s book contrasts with that of other scholars who have dismissed the role of Republican ideology in early cases of opposition to the emperors by individuals and groups as simply motivated by personal ambition. By placing the ancient written sources of Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Seneca, Pliny the Younger and others under close scrutiny, W. shows that there is ample evidence for a persistent ideology of the Republic, one which was used by emperors and their opponents alike. Therefore, a methodology regarding ideology, one which is rooted in the theory of ideology as a system of symbols representative of social values, forms the mode of analysis throughout the book. Social semiotic theory is not directly incorporated into the methodology of the book, butW. makes clear that the ideology of the Republic during the early Empire was represented symbolically in literary sources by Republican virtues and behaviour, the mos maiorum.

Part 1, The Evidence for Republicanism, is set within the framework of opposition to imperial rule which, according to the Republican ideology of the early empire, had

The Classical Review 63.2 529531 The Classical Association (2013)

530

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

departed from the political and moral integrity of the Republic. W. conducts a meticulous survey of the literary sources for evidence of such opposition, the motives of which were a desire to restore the Republic or establish an imperial government more in line with the Republic. Conducting a reign-by-reign analysis, W. maps out the state of Republican opposition over the course of the first century A.D. whilst contesting the assumption made by earlier scholars such as Syme, Wirszubski and MacMullen that there was little or no such opposition, given its lack of any kind of significant constitutional impact. Using examples such as A. Cremutius Cordus (as cited by Tacitus), whose historical writings under Tiberius reign praised Brutus and Cassius and led to his prosecution and suicide, as well as the various conspiracies against Caligula, Claudius and Nero,W. demonstrates that there was clear evidence for an ongoing Republican ideology and accompanying social and political activities. W. also argues that actions could speak louder than words through evidence, primarily in Tacitus, linking behavioural and moral acts, as well as philosophical views of Stoics such as Thrasea Paetus, with the Republican ideology of the time.

Part 2 focusses on the discourse of the first century A.D. regarding particular ideological issues associated with the moral code of the Republic, the mos maiorum, by examining ancient historical sources concerning Law, Morality and Behaviour. Again,W. conducts a reign-by-reign analysis in each of the three chapters contained in this section. He establishes the concepts of Law and Morality as defining features of the Republic, which under the Empire were used as part of the ideology of various imperial regimes, for example in Augustus restoration of the Republic or as part of Galbas efforts to legitimate his right to rule during the civil wars of A.D. 6869. W. then considers how these concepts were presented through the Behaviour of the emperors by analysing them against normative behaviours of the Republican elite expressed in the writings of Livy, Sallust and Cicero. W. refers to this Republican elite as a collective throughout much of this section, a term which needs further definition and synthesis in relation to the concepts covered. Particular behaviours and activities of the emperor are targeted: consultation with the senate, accessibility, patronage and beneficia, pietas, dress, and buildings and palaces, to name a few. Despite the distinction made by W. between Morality and Behaviour, the concepts naturally overlap, with the emperors being measured by their portrayals in the ancient historical, biographical and philosophical writers of the time as either good or bad rulers. Yet, it is very clear that a number of Romes early emperors, in particular Augustus, Tiberius and Galba, tapped into the ideological moral code of the Republic when defining their individual regimes.

While W.s analysis of the ancient historical evidence indicates clearly the presence of a Republican social and political ideology during the early Empire, the degree to which it was prominent or accepted in light of the increasing imperial ideologies needs to be considered further. A comparison of traditional Republican versus the new imperial ideologies would provide an assessment of the popularity and effectiveness of the Republican ideologies, as well as the manner in which they were being redefined or were disappearing from the popular ideologies of the time. Consideration of other evidence, such as coinage, is a significant source for the emperors use of Republican ideology, which is only discussed occasionally. At the end of Part 2, W. concludes that . . . the behavioural code used to assess an emperor is that of the Republic . . . (p. 176), when it can also be readily argued that the Republican ideology was being incorporated into a new imperial ideology and code of behaviour, which essentially redefined and ultimately marginalised what was once known as the Republican mos maiorum.W.s work provides the most comprehensive and critical examination to date of the Republican social and political ideology found in the historical, philosophical and

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 531

biographical writers of the first and very early second centuries A.D., and is an important

contribution to the scholarship on the role and impact of the Republic in the early Empire.

University of Saskatchewan T R A C E N E H A R V E Y mailto:[email protected]

Web End [email protected]

R E P U B L I C A N M E M O R Y A N D E M P I R E

G A L L I A ( A . B . ) Remembering the Roman Republic. Culture, Politics and History under the Principate. Pp. xiv + 319, ills, maps. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Cased, 60, US$95. ISBN: 978-1-107-01260-8.

doi:10.1017/S0009840X13001054

Scholars of the ancient world have shown increasing interest in memory as a topic of study in the last two decades. G.s richly documented and carefully considered study of the Republic as a mnemonic focus during the Principate offers important contributions to the field. This topic was the basis of A.M. Gowings Empire and Memory: the Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture (2005). The present volume differs in the period it covers and has the slightly different analytical aim of exploring specifically the negotiation and active positioning of individual and collective identities within the context of cultural memory. G. limits discussion to the period from the last year of Nero through to the Principate of Trajan (68117 C.E.), and the chronological parameters cover two focal points where the reshuffling of memories was prime: the end of the Julio-Claudian and Flavian dynasties respectively. The bulk of the book consists of six case studies in which G. places himself in the role of an anthropologist of sorts providing thick description of various episodes of memory reactivation (p. 8).

In a relatively short introductory chapter, G. lays out the theoretical framework that informs the rest of the book. The intellectual lines drawn, and the theoretical approaches that ground the study more broadly, will be familiar to students of historical studies of memory. Starting from the French sociologist M. Halbwachss notion of collective memory, and relying substantially on Egyptologist J. Assmanns concept of cultural memory,G. argues that just as identities are fungible in the wake of historical change, the social memory that serves to define those identities is necessarily fluid. G.s principal focus is on the tension created by, on the one hand, the cultural imperatives that insist on the Republics alterity, and on the other, the social necessity of imagined continuity with that same Republic.

Chapter 1, Freedom, examines the importance of libertas as a political message employed by Vindex and Galba at the end of Neros reign. Deeply rooted in the Republican past, libertas was still a value to be fought for and defended in the present(p. 14). As such, claims of renewed freedom were served by the reactivation of certain mnemonic markers that specifically recalled Republican exempla. Here, the numismatic evidence is used to great effect. G. demonstrates, with succinct clarity, how coins functioned as efficacious communicators of memory (pp. 268). The importance of libertas in framing the relationship between the Principate and the Republic is a thread that is carried throughout the book. While its heuristic importance in questions of elite identity formation under the Empire has had a place in the study of Roman history since at least Tacitus, G. adds much to our understanding by demonstrating the depth to which libertas penetrated the discourse of remembrance. This discussion is among the books greatest

The Classical Review 63.2 531533 The Classical Association (2013)