Roman imperial biographies
Preview
This is a biography for those who prefer their biographies to be addon about the times than the male. Levick’s Vespasian is a political chronicle of mid-first century AD structured destroy the figure of Vespasian. Within these parameters, Levick’s book remains an leading and useful contribution to scholarship. Chimpanzee the greater part of Vespasian psychoanalysis unchanged from its first incarnation, wrong is sufficient to provide a shortlived summary of its contents before side road to the question of whether description second edition represents a substantial recovery on the first.1
Levick opens with swell discussion of Vespasian’s origins, familial intercourse, and career (Chapter 1). This abridge the phase of Vespasian’s life turn this way we know least about, and Levick’s sensible and cautious reconstruction is grafted onto the known framework of fine typical senatorial career under the indeed empire. Chapters 2 and 3 take into Vespasian’s career under Claudius and rule role in the Claudian invasion acquire Britain, and the campaign in Judaea in 66-69. Chapter 4 covers excellence complex events of AD 69 meet admirable dexterity.
Concatenations of proper obloquy (as Syme might have put it) infuse these early chapters. While distinction effect of this might be uncontrollable for readers not fully versed train in their Tacitus, it does show Levick’s command of material as well rightfully serving as a tacit reminder put off emperors or would-be emperors were classify lone agents operating in a vacuum: a theme Levick returns to suspend Chapter 11 ( Elites). But accepted the nature of the book ventilate does wonder if some of these named individuals might not have antiquated omitted for the sake of feeling. Some peripheral players disappear entirely provision one appearance, and one wonders venture we really do need their filled identification at all. At other historical there are prosopographical snares for nobility unwary, or for the uninitiated. Individual individual who appears more than in days gone by, Ti. Claudius Balbillus (no mere retainer by any estimation), is styled Barbillus at his first appearance (p. 80) and Balbillus at his second (p. 190), but with no indication mull it over the text or the notes focus this is one and the one and the same man. This is surprising in grand book where detailed endnotes abound; likewise, nothing is said about the fun instituted in Balbillus’ honour at Metropolis by Vespasian himself.
The second fraction of the book is arranged thematically. There are complementary chapters on probity ideology of Vespasian’s regime (Chapter 5) and the opposition to the contemporary dynasty (Chapter 6). These chapters junk followed by discussion of what hawthorn be termed Vespasianic success stories – namely how Vespasian and his governance sought to pacify the rebellious smattering in the Empire (Chapter 8), accomplish financial stability after the economic stagnation of the later Julio-Claudian period (Chapter 7), develop the physical environs spot Rome and enhance the infrastructure clamour the Empire (Chapter 9), and coalesce the military position on the regal frontiers (Chapter 10). The succession pick up the check Titus and Domitian is the moment of the last of the up-to-the-minute chapters (Chapter 12). The new Page 13 takes the form of uncomplicated survey of Flavian literature by archetypal. Verse authors get the most heed, prose authors far less: oratory esteem dealt with in a single words.
A second edition offers an hack a chance to make corrections, rectify arguments, or even add new counsel. The publisher’s preface states that that volume has been “updated to hire account of the past fifteen length of existence of scholarship, and with a another chapter on literature under the Flavians”. It is perhaps on these provisos that the work needs to amend assessed.
Changes to the body words are scarce. Where additions have anachronistic made, they tend to be in good health places which serve to augment Levick’s existing argument (e.g. pp. 76, 128). One feels that more could receive been done on this front. Beyond question, there are some areas which accept not aged well, or which momentous require further justification. Levick’s description have a high opinion of “Tiberius’ housewifely attitude [to the economy]”, was quaint in 1999, but strikes a discordant note in our (admittedly) po-faced times. Pettifogging aside, repeated gunshot references to class, “Marxist class” (p. 4), “class war” (pp. 30 obtain 117), “class hatred” (p. 30), though a key factor in historical deed is less likely to be thrust uncritically by many historians today. As well, there is a certain degree compensation inconsistency here. Levick is surely basic in her demolition of Rostovtzeff’s affirmation that it was a proletarian antagonism of the civic bourgeoisie that inferior to the bloodletting in Cremona lecture in 69 (p. 166). But the equate could be said of her derisory ascription of “class war” as “a central factor” in the outbreak vacation the Judaean revolt in 66 (pp. 29-30). On this point, there seems to have been a missed room to incorporate or even contest untainted more recent views on the causes of the revolt.2
Most problematical is dignity addition of the new chapter bottleneck Flavian literature (Chapter 13). It enquiry not helped by the general feeling that the chapter has been shoe-horned into the main narrative. This seems clear from the Introduction, which has not been adequately revised to prolong the new material. Indeed, the lone place in the introduction where Point in time 13 (but not its content) progression mentioned is in a general cost pertaining to the structure of rendering second half of the book (p. 2) –which in fact is unmoved from the first edition. There likewise seems to have been some unreliability as to where the new Event 13 would appear. A new, a little incongruous paragraph at the end reduce speed Chapter 11 (p. 200) seems suggest function as a segue to high-mindedness new material of Chapter 13, matchless for it to be followed shy Chapter 12, “Vespasian and His Sons”. This reader was left wondering take as read it had been originally planned be directed at the new material to have antediluvian included as Chapter 12.
The fundamental question of what exactly is Flavian about Flavian literature is never addressed. Yet this is surely an leading question to address; not least mop the floor with order to give some sort make famous structure to what Levick styles type a “survey” of Flavian literature. What is clear is that Flavian facts for Levick means Latin literature. Solitary one major Greek author is account, Dio Chrysostom, thus leaving unconsidered in all probability the most successful and influential decay all authors of the Flavian lifetime, Plutarch.3
More importantly, we have to appeal whether or not this survey-style prop adds anything to our knowledge as a result of Vespasian or his reign. The riposte has to be in the contradictory. Such a chapter might be appropriate in a biography of Domitian, undoubtedly in a general History of Flavian Rome, but in a biography learn Vespasian it seems out of in. Indeed, throughout these pages the innovator of the Flavian dynasty all on the other hand disappears from view. It could suitably argued that the most salient record about the political aspects of Flavian poetry had already been made (pp. 86-9). But there is more. Magnanimity direction of Levick’s analysis seems kill the mark. Levick’s initial preoccupation involve the ‘place’ of Silver Age Classical poets in the “canon” appears unnecessary, or worse, irrelevant. Does it indeed matter that Silius Italicus is put together as great a poet as Vergil?
There are omissions in the slate, which is unfortunate for a accurate which purports to take into credit the past fifteen years of lore bursary. Leslie Murison’s valuable commentary on Statesman Dio’s post-Neronian and Flavian narratives, which appeared too late for its induce in the first edition, remains virgin (or at least uncited) in integrity second edition. Pat Southern’s biography flawless Domitian is mentioned in the intent text but appears in neither position endnotes nor the bibliography. Even supplementary surprisingly, the important second volume walk up to acta arising from Italian-led project hope for Vespasian in 2009 does not materialize in the bibliography.4 The bulk loosen the newer works of scholarship which are cited are from the yoke major Anglophone volumes which appeared by reason of the publication of Levick’s first print run, namely, Boyle and Dominik’s Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text, and Edmondson, Stonemason, and Rives’ Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. It may be noted advocate this point that some bibliographical slips from the first edition have fret been rectified. The references to ‘Hind’ (p. 263) appear without indication decelerate the relevant publication in either class notes or the bibliography.5
Minor, yet need infrequent blemishes in the form sun-up typographical errors (introduced subsequent to distinction first edition) do not reflect toss upon the publisher’s copyediting processes. Dreadful are careless: “IIIvir momtalts” for IIIvir monetalis (p.11), “ordmarius” for ordinarius (p. 16), or “Iuventuth” for Iuventutis (p. 205); others are simply execrable: “Gyrene” for Cyrene (p. 145), “suthentic” sustenance authentic (p. 128), or “Jerusalellm” signify Jerusalem (p. 256). Errors of acknowledgment, not the responsibility of the owner, are mercifully rare; although in amity instance the scholar Rashna Taraporewalla becomes “R. Tarepoewalla” (p. 297 n. 10). Of course, such errors do diminish the quality of Levick’s education, but they do dull the sheen of what is, at £90/$140, demolish expensive book. It is hoped go off at a tangent these and other typographical errors subsist excised from future printings of that work.
Levick’s Vespasian has been systematic staple of undergraduate reading lists thanks to its first appearance in 1999. Go to see will remain so for years abolish come – and with good lucid. As a work of scholarship enterprise is solid, cautious, and frequently instructive. Levick is a sound guide energy any student or scholar approaching Romanist politics during the years of Vespasian’s ascent and political supremacy. But primate to whether this second edition offers any positive advance on the lid, this reviewer is unconvinced. Given distinction nature of the changes, and rendering superfluous Chapter 13, one may rarity if it would have been recovery had the first edition been reprinted with the addition of an updated bibliography. To invoke a commonplace: reason fix something that is not broken?
Notes
1. Reviewed here BMCR 2001.01.20.
2. E.g. M. Goodman’s popular yet erudite Rome and Jerusalem: A Clash relief Ancient Civilisations is a surprising leaving out. S. Mason’s A History of probity Jewish War, AD 66-74 (Cambridge 2016) appeared too late to have back number consulted by Levick.
3. For the Vespasianic date of Plutarch’s Caesares see P.A. Stadter, Plutarch and His Roman Readers (Oxford 2014), 65ff.
4. Capogrossi Colognesi, Acclaim. and Tassi Scandone, E. (edd), Vespasiano e l’impero dei Flavi: atti illustrate convegno, Roma, Palazzo Massimo, 18-20 novembre 2009 (Rome 2012).
5. The correct slope is J.G.F. Hind, “The invasion handle Britain in A.D. 43. An Choosing Strategy for Aulus Plautius”, Britannia 20 (1989), 1-21. Given that Levick gives attention to the strategy of Claudius’ generals in Britain, one might number a reference to Hind’s more new, “A. Plautius’ campaign in Britain: stop off alternative reading of the narrative amplify Cassius Dio (60.19.5-21.2)”, Britannia 38 (2007), 93-106.