Andrea J. Horbinski (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ahorbinski) wrote2014-03-17 10:54 am
ahorbinski) wrote2014-03-17 10:54 am
Entry tags:
Book review: Imperial Ideals in the Roman West
Bibliographic Data: Noreña, Carlos F. Imperial Ideals in the Roman West: Representation, Circulation, Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Main Argument: This book argues that, in the period 69-235 CE, "the dissemination of specific imperial ideals was more pervasive than previously thought, and indicates a high degree of ideological unification amongst the aristocracies of the western provinces. The widespread circulation of a particular set of imperial ideals, and the particular form of ideological unification that this brought about, not only reinforced the power of the Roman imperial state, but also increased the authority of local aristocrats, thereby facilitating a general convergence of social power that defined the high Roman empire" (frontispiece).
Historiographical Engagement: Syme, The Roman Revolution; many others
Chapter 1: Argument, Sources, Examples Noreña notes that the overall experience of the empire, even during the 250 years of its height, was one of diversity and fragmentation. In contrast, two features that distinguished it from the centuries before and after was that it shared a central monarchy, and "a broadly shared conception of the ideal emperor as an ethical and beneficent ruler" and "the absence of competing symbols of equivalent distinction and empire-wide reach" (1). Noreña argues that there were significant constraints on the power of the emperor, that does not mean that there was no change in the empire in the Augustan transition--here he argues with Syme in The Roman Revolution, who saw no change in the oligarchy in control behind the scenes as it were. Noreña argues that part of the problem is the tendency to conflate the reigning emperor with the institution of monarchy; in other words, "it was not so much the political dimension of the change that mattered, but the symbolic one" (8). This transition came at the same time that Rome changed form a conquest state to a tributary empire, a cultural revolution took place at Rome, and the western empire witnessed a cultural transformation usually called "Romanization." In Noreña's view, "the vital link that enabled the convergence of social power in the Roman world was forged between the central state, on the one hand, and the local aristocracies of the empire, on the other:" the local potentates helped maintain order and collected taxes for the central state, which provided the local bigwigs with status markers such as Roman citizenship and the armed force to support tax collection as necessary (11). Civic benefaction also was a key engine of the process and of urbanization in general; overall, high aristocrats managed the empire from Rome and local aristocrats managed the provinces from municipal centers. The trick to the whole thing was that the emperor as administrator and as beyond the law the emperor fostered the redirection of certain violent forces towards the maintenance of the state: "political, military, and economic power, and the networks within each was organized, were harmonized to a degree that had never been reached under the Republic" (13). As a symbol, the emperor was useful to all the beneficiaries of the imperial system because it could generate ideological unity, "helping to universalize the particular claims of the Roman imperial state and to legitimate the social and political order upon which the state was based" (ibid). Noreña focuses on the Roman west for several reasons, not least of which is that this sort of ruler worship and monarchy were essentially de novo in that sphere, with the result that "the municipal epigraphy of the western provinces…is a very sensitive indicator of the extent to which specifically Roman imperial ideals were circulating beyond Rome and by unofficial channels" (25).
Chapter 2: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter looks at the "ethical profile" of the emperor and concludes that, over the period in question, "the five core virtues of aequitas, pietas, virtus, liberalitas, and providentia" defined the same for a good Roman emperor. These virtues together encompassed the military, religious, and material realms and promoted dynastic continuity (an ideal honored at least as often in the breach as in the observance, but usually more or less peacefully). These values are also quite pragmatic, rather than transcendent; as Noreña puts it, "the valuation of Roman imperial virtues depended ultimately on the tangible, visible, and concrete results that flowed from them" (100).
Chapter 3: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter looks at the quantitative evidence of coin types to examine what the (ideological) benefits of empire and monarchy were. Coinage, in Noreña's view, was the most expressive medium available to the central state ideologically speaking, and coin types could and were minted strategically to disseminate fairly topical ideological messages even as the continued circulation of coins for up to a century "helped to generalize and universalize the messages transmitted by individual coins" (176). A diverse list of qualities and goods were celebrated on the coinage, "ranging from tangible things to desirable conditions to cheerful emotions, all united, visually and ideologically, by the cornucopia, a deeply resonant symbol that subtly forged a board continuum of ideals advertising the concrete, material goods that came with Roman imperial rule" (ibid). What was lost was libertas, which Noreña shows based on the quantitative evidence was (contra earlier scholars who argued it was a key imperial virtue) actually minted rather infrequently--unsurprisingly, since "monarchy and freedom were inherently incompatible" (177).
Chapter 4: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter looks at the diffusion of imperial ideals in time and space and argues that this was accomplished through coins and inscription in three phases: in the Flavian period these two were united, but mostly lacked content of imperial virtues; from Trajan to Marcus Aurelius, the coins and inscription continue to converge, but that idiom "is now characterized by the centrality of the ethical paradigm of imperial authority and the attendant values of virtuous behavior and personal generosity" (242-43). Indeed, for Noreña, "it is this combination of virtues and civic benefaction, in fact, expressed on both coins and official inscriptions, that defines the imperial ideology of the high Roman empire" (243). In the third phase, the Severan period (bridged by the reign of Commodus), the coins and inscriptions begin to diverge, with the coins "continuing to emphasize virtues and benefaction, and the latter military conquest and absolute power" (ibid). It seems that chronological changes are more important than geographical variation. Note, however, that these are merely the two most durable media of "official" communication, and that diffusion is only the first step in a multi-stage process.
Chapter 5: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter looks at central communication and local response, which is, in other words, the epigraphic record of honorific terms for the emperor in municipal inscriptions, among other media. This highlights again the shift from a discourse of ethical value and civic benefaction to one of militarism and autocracy from the Antonine to the Severan period, as well as a deeper structural change over the whole period in the form of the change from naming the emperor optimus to dominus: "it becomes clear that there was, over the long term, a slow change in the way the local dedicators of these honorific inscriptions represented and conceptualized the emperor, a profound shift in which they went from representing the emperor as being the best to representing him as being, simply, a master" (286). The axial shift for this change occurred in the reign of Commodus and took off in the Severan period. Why? It becomes clear that in the C2 there was a convergence between ideology and practice in that optimus, the imperial honorific, could be and frequently was used to refer to local elites who donated civic benefactions and which "not only confined their power, wealth, and elite status in the local community, but also legitimated it" (293). Crucially, this symbolic economy depended on the availability of the emperor as a model, which was obviated when the emperor began to be addressed as "master," a term that cannot be borrowed, which had no ethical content, and was also weirdly generic (the term is how slaves addressed their owners). Thus, since the emperor was no longer the model benefactor, "the power, wealth, and status of these local notables would no longer be legitimated primarily through civic benefaction and local patronage," with unfortunate consequences, "since the emperor depend on the vitality of its cities and the municipal aristocracies who controlled them" (295). This etiolation did not cause the third century crisis, but it surely did not help it either, for the third century crisis is defined almost above all by "the disappearance of the traditional practices of civic benefaction, monumental construction, and urban development" (297).
Chapter 6: Argument, Sources, Examples Noreña concludes that the "communication and replication" of Roman imperial ideals indicates not "propaganda" but "the intensity of ideological unification within the Roman empire, reflecting, in turn, the achievement of a finely calibrated equilibrium between two distinct, but ultimately compatible, sets of interests: those of the central state, and the imperial aristocrats who controlled it, and of the empire's municipalities, and the local aristocrats who controlled them" (300). For Noreña, since the masses were excluded from the systems of power, the degree to which these ideals diffused to them is unimportant next to the question of ideological unity at the top, and the content of the ideals themselves; he argues that "the underlying ideas that made up what we call 'Roman imperial ideology' were in fact critical" (312). These were dynamic, and legitimated by the fact that they were extracted from the philosophical tradition stretching back to classical Greece; it is also important to note that "an important element in the historical distinctiveness of the high Roman empire was the extent to which the imperial court was embedded within aristocratic society," a configuration in which the ideas discussed in earlier chapters coalesced (316). Note, however, that this entire process was not by itself a necessary condition for the functioning of the Roman imperial state as a whole, and it is not indeed clear that it was necessary at all. But the convergence of social power in the Roman world at this time period was broader and deeper than any before or since and was especially conducive to the overall functioning of the Roman imperial state, making it more efficient in general. Thus, some degree of ideological unification was necessary, "along with the instruments of coercion, for the long-term maintenance and reproduction of this larger configuration of power" (324). Moreover, "there was a structural relationship between the degree and, more critically, the particular form of ideological unification on the one hand, and the extent and depth of Roman imperial power, on the other" (ibid).
Critical assessment: It's useless to pretend that I am any kind of objective about this book, as Noreña is a professor of mine, and in my opinion one of the best in our department. So, both by training and inclination, I think he's largely right here, and I think it's interesting to see in particular, in the epigraphy/coinage divergence beginning with Commodus, some of the ancestry of the transformation of the emperorship after the 3rdC crisis.
Further reading: Syme, The Roman Revolution; Grey, Constructing Community in the Late Roman Countryside
Meta notes: "…systematic exploitation on the grand scale is consistent with the logic and normative claims of ideals and values to which many of us still subscribe" (324).
Main Argument: This book argues that, in the period 69-235 CE, "the dissemination of specific imperial ideals was more pervasive than previously thought, and indicates a high degree of ideological unification amongst the aristocracies of the western provinces. The widespread circulation of a particular set of imperial ideals, and the particular form of ideological unification that this brought about, not only reinforced the power of the Roman imperial state, but also increased the authority of local aristocrats, thereby facilitating a general convergence of social power that defined the high Roman empire" (frontispiece).
Historiographical Engagement: Syme, The Roman Revolution; many others
Chapter 1: Argument, Sources, Examples Noreña notes that the overall experience of the empire, even during the 250 years of its height, was one of diversity and fragmentation. In contrast, two features that distinguished it from the centuries before and after was that it shared a central monarchy, and "a broadly shared conception of the ideal emperor as an ethical and beneficent ruler" and "the absence of competing symbols of equivalent distinction and empire-wide reach" (1). Noreña argues that there were significant constraints on the power of the emperor, that does not mean that there was no change in the empire in the Augustan transition--here he argues with Syme in The Roman Revolution, who saw no change in the oligarchy in control behind the scenes as it were. Noreña argues that part of the problem is the tendency to conflate the reigning emperor with the institution of monarchy; in other words, "it was not so much the political dimension of the change that mattered, but the symbolic one" (8). This transition came at the same time that Rome changed form a conquest state to a tributary empire, a cultural revolution took place at Rome, and the western empire witnessed a cultural transformation usually called "Romanization." In Noreña's view, "the vital link that enabled the convergence of social power in the Roman world was forged between the central state, on the one hand, and the local aristocracies of the empire, on the other:" the local potentates helped maintain order and collected taxes for the central state, which provided the local bigwigs with status markers such as Roman citizenship and the armed force to support tax collection as necessary (11). Civic benefaction also was a key engine of the process and of urbanization in general; overall, high aristocrats managed the empire from Rome and local aristocrats managed the provinces from municipal centers. The trick to the whole thing was that the emperor as administrator and as beyond the law the emperor fostered the redirection of certain violent forces towards the maintenance of the state: "political, military, and economic power, and the networks within each was organized, were harmonized to a degree that had never been reached under the Republic" (13). As a symbol, the emperor was useful to all the beneficiaries of the imperial system because it could generate ideological unity, "helping to universalize the particular claims of the Roman imperial state and to legitimate the social and political order upon which the state was based" (ibid). Noreña focuses on the Roman west for several reasons, not least of which is that this sort of ruler worship and monarchy were essentially de novo in that sphere, with the result that "the municipal epigraphy of the western provinces…is a very sensitive indicator of the extent to which specifically Roman imperial ideals were circulating beyond Rome and by unofficial channels" (25).
Chapter 2: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter looks at the "ethical profile" of the emperor and concludes that, over the period in question, "the five core virtues of aequitas, pietas, virtus, liberalitas, and providentia" defined the same for a good Roman emperor. These virtues together encompassed the military, religious, and material realms and promoted dynastic continuity (an ideal honored at least as often in the breach as in the observance, but usually more or less peacefully). These values are also quite pragmatic, rather than transcendent; as Noreña puts it, "the valuation of Roman imperial virtues depended ultimately on the tangible, visible, and concrete results that flowed from them" (100).
Chapter 3: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter looks at the quantitative evidence of coin types to examine what the (ideological) benefits of empire and monarchy were. Coinage, in Noreña's view, was the most expressive medium available to the central state ideologically speaking, and coin types could and were minted strategically to disseminate fairly topical ideological messages even as the continued circulation of coins for up to a century "helped to generalize and universalize the messages transmitted by individual coins" (176). A diverse list of qualities and goods were celebrated on the coinage, "ranging from tangible things to desirable conditions to cheerful emotions, all united, visually and ideologically, by the cornucopia, a deeply resonant symbol that subtly forged a board continuum of ideals advertising the concrete, material goods that came with Roman imperial rule" (ibid). What was lost was libertas, which Noreña shows based on the quantitative evidence was (contra earlier scholars who argued it was a key imperial virtue) actually minted rather infrequently--unsurprisingly, since "monarchy and freedom were inherently incompatible" (177).
Chapter 4: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter looks at the diffusion of imperial ideals in time and space and argues that this was accomplished through coins and inscription in three phases: in the Flavian period these two were united, but mostly lacked content of imperial virtues; from Trajan to Marcus Aurelius, the coins and inscription continue to converge, but that idiom "is now characterized by the centrality of the ethical paradigm of imperial authority and the attendant values of virtuous behavior and personal generosity" (242-43). Indeed, for Noreña, "it is this combination of virtues and civic benefaction, in fact, expressed on both coins and official inscriptions, that defines the imperial ideology of the high Roman empire" (243). In the third phase, the Severan period (bridged by the reign of Commodus), the coins and inscriptions begin to diverge, with the coins "continuing to emphasize virtues and benefaction, and the latter military conquest and absolute power" (ibid). It seems that chronological changes are more important than geographical variation. Note, however, that these are merely the two most durable media of "official" communication, and that diffusion is only the first step in a multi-stage process.
Chapter 5: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter looks at central communication and local response, which is, in other words, the epigraphic record of honorific terms for the emperor in municipal inscriptions, among other media. This highlights again the shift from a discourse of ethical value and civic benefaction to one of militarism and autocracy from the Antonine to the Severan period, as well as a deeper structural change over the whole period in the form of the change from naming the emperor optimus to dominus: "it becomes clear that there was, over the long term, a slow change in the way the local dedicators of these honorific inscriptions represented and conceptualized the emperor, a profound shift in which they went from representing the emperor as being the best to representing him as being, simply, a master" (286). The axial shift for this change occurred in the reign of Commodus and took off in the Severan period. Why? It becomes clear that in the C2 there was a convergence between ideology and practice in that optimus, the imperial honorific, could be and frequently was used to refer to local elites who donated civic benefactions and which "not only confined their power, wealth, and elite status in the local community, but also legitimated it" (293). Crucially, this symbolic economy depended on the availability of the emperor as a model, which was obviated when the emperor began to be addressed as "master," a term that cannot be borrowed, which had no ethical content, and was also weirdly generic (the term is how slaves addressed their owners). Thus, since the emperor was no longer the model benefactor, "the power, wealth, and status of these local notables would no longer be legitimated primarily through civic benefaction and local patronage," with unfortunate consequences, "since the emperor depend on the vitality of its cities and the municipal aristocracies who controlled them" (295). This etiolation did not cause the third century crisis, but it surely did not help it either, for the third century crisis is defined almost above all by "the disappearance of the traditional practices of civic benefaction, monumental construction, and urban development" (297).
Chapter 6: Argument, Sources, Examples Noreña concludes that the "communication and replication" of Roman imperial ideals indicates not "propaganda" but "the intensity of ideological unification within the Roman empire, reflecting, in turn, the achievement of a finely calibrated equilibrium between two distinct, but ultimately compatible, sets of interests: those of the central state, and the imperial aristocrats who controlled it, and of the empire's municipalities, and the local aristocrats who controlled them" (300). For Noreña, since the masses were excluded from the systems of power, the degree to which these ideals diffused to them is unimportant next to the question of ideological unity at the top, and the content of the ideals themselves; he argues that "the underlying ideas that made up what we call 'Roman imperial ideology' were in fact critical" (312). These were dynamic, and legitimated by the fact that they were extracted from the philosophical tradition stretching back to classical Greece; it is also important to note that "an important element in the historical distinctiveness of the high Roman empire was the extent to which the imperial court was embedded within aristocratic society," a configuration in which the ideas discussed in earlier chapters coalesced (316). Note, however, that this entire process was not by itself a necessary condition for the functioning of the Roman imperial state as a whole, and it is not indeed clear that it was necessary at all. But the convergence of social power in the Roman world at this time period was broader and deeper than any before or since and was especially conducive to the overall functioning of the Roman imperial state, making it more efficient in general. Thus, some degree of ideological unification was necessary, "along with the instruments of coercion, for the long-term maintenance and reproduction of this larger configuration of power" (324). Moreover, "there was a structural relationship between the degree and, more critically, the particular form of ideological unification on the one hand, and the extent and depth of Roman imperial power, on the other" (ibid).
Critical assessment: It's useless to pretend that I am any kind of objective about this book, as Noreña is a professor of mine, and in my opinion one of the best in our department. So, both by training and inclination, I think he's largely right here, and I think it's interesting to see in particular, in the epigraphy/coinage divergence beginning with Commodus, some of the ancestry of the transformation of the emperorship after the 3rdC crisis.
Further reading: Syme, The Roman Revolution; Grey, Constructing Community in the Late Roman Countryside
Meta notes: "…systematic exploitation on the grand scale is consistent with the logic and normative claims of ideals and values to which many of us still subscribe" (324).