Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire

 


Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire is edited by David S. Potter and David J. Mattingly. The first edition was published in 1999; a second edition appeared in 2010. The second edition of the book is longer than the first edition, because the editors added a chapter about slavery (written by Keith Hopkins) as well as an appendix about two ancient texts:

* First edition, 1999 – xvi + 353 pages – 7 chapters

* Second edition, 2012 – xx + 401 pages – 8 chapters

My references are to the second edition of the book.

In the preface, David Potter says:

“We would like to thank Jill Wilson, the copy editor for this volume, for her fine work on the manuscript.”

If you ask me, the copy editor did not do a fine work, because there are many flaws in this book (factual mistakes, misprints, unfortunate statements and omissions). Oddly enough, the flaws are not everywhere. This book is so uneven. The level of accuracy is:

* HIGH - in chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 [i.e. no flaws]

* MEDIUM - in chapters 5 and 7 and the index [i.e. only a few flaws]

* LOW - in the introduction and chapters 1 and 8 [i.e. many flaws]

Let me document this claim with some examples:

A General Observation

The editors are presented on the back cover of the book. What about the other six contributors? They are not presented anywhere, not on the back cover, and not inside the book. This is a strange omission.

As far as I know, all contributors are still alive, except Keith Hopkins, who died in 2004. His contribution appears in the second edition, but the editors do not mention the fact that he died in 2004. This is unfortunate.

About the Introduction to the New and Expanded Edition

On page 3 we are told the Byzantine Empire lasted “until 1452 AD,” when Constantinople was captured by the Ottoman Turks, who changed the name of the city to Istanbul. The letters AD are usually placed in front of the date, while the letters BC are usually placed after the date. More importantly, the date is false. Constantinople was captured by the Turks in AD 1453. This is a famous date in ancient history, the end of an era. How can a professor of the Classics get it wrong? How can a professional copy editor fail to spot and correct this mistake?

Potter seems to have a problem with the word “capital” and the word “capitol.” He uses the latter when he should use the former.

[The word “capital” marks the main city, while the word “capitol” is short for “Capitolium,” the Capitoline Hill in Rome, where the Romans built a temple for the supreme Roman god Jupiter Optimus Maximus.]

Potter makes this mistake three times in the introduction (pp. 5, 7, 9) and six times in chapter 8 (pp. 290, 297, 325 (twice), 326, 345).

[Surprisingly, the word “Capitol” is used correctly on page 184. This case is in chapter 5, also written by Potter.]

About Chapter 1:

The Roman Family

Ann E. Hanson seems to have a problem with chronology: she says Trajan died in AD 118 (page 35). But this emperor died in 117.

[The correct dates for Trajan appear on pp. 157, 304, and in the index.]

On page 38 Hanson mentions the famous church father Augustine of Hippo. She calls him “Saint Augustine.” But she refers to something that he did while he was alive. While he was still alive, he was not yet a saint. In order to be a saint you must be dead.

Hanson seems to have another problem with chronology: she says Vespasian died AD 78 (page 49). But this emperor died in 79.

[The correct dates for Vespasian appear in the index.]

On page 54 note 36 Hanson gives a cross-reference: “… Checklist of Editions (cited above, p. xii).” But the reference should be to page xiv.

Hanson seems to have a problem with geography as well: on page 61 we are told that Hadrian built his famous villa at the foot of the Alban Hills “southeast of Rome.” The Alban Hills appear again on page 64, only this time they are located “east of the city.” The Alban Hills are located ca. 20 km south of Rome, and Hadrian did not build his villa there. His villa is located near Tibur (modern Tivoli) ca. 30 km east of Rome.

On page 63 Hanson mentions the famous Greek doctor Galen (Aelius Galenus), who was asked to take care of the young Commodus. In this connection she mentions “one of the emperor’s relatives, Annia Faustina, who was concerned about the boy.” Who is this woman? Hanson does not tell us. We know three women with this name:

* Faustina I, also known as Faustina the Elder, was married to Antoninus Pius. It cannot be her, because she died in 140. Commodus was born in 161. This episode must have taken place ca. 165 when Commodus was just a boy.

* Faustina II, daughter of Faustina I, also known as Faustina the Younger, was married to Marcus Aurelius. It could be her, but if it is, we have to ask: why is she described as one of the emperor’s relatives? She is the emperor’s wife and the mother of Commodus.

* Faustina III, daughter of Faustina II, was born in 147. In 165 she would have been ca. 18 years old. It could be her, I think it must be her, but if it is, we have to ask: why is she described as one of the emperor’s relatives? She is the emperor’s daughter and the sister of Commodus.

Perhaps Hanson does not know who this person is. If this is the case, I think she should just come out and say so. It is not a good idea to avoid the question by using a vague expression as “one of the emperor’s relatives.”

About Chapter 5:

Roman Religion: Ideas and Actions

In chapter 5 about Roman religion the word “augur” is mentioned several times, because it is the title of a Roman priest. Potter seems to have a problem with this word: sometimes he writes “auger” [singular] or “augers” [plural] (pp. 153, 168, 175). The word is listed in the index, where the spelling is correct.

On page 181 Potter mentions the sacrifice of different animals: sometimes cattle, sometimes sheep, and sometimes a pig. He does not mention the special ceremony in which the Romans sacrificed three animals at the same time: a pig, a sheep and a bull. In Latin: SUS, OVIS, TAURUS. The ceremony is known as SUOVITAURILIA.

On page 190 Potter says:

“… Constantine established the Christian faith as the central faith of the empire, the Christian god (who permitted no rivals) as the protector of emperors.”

This statement is unfortunate, because the status of the Christian religion is not clear. Did Constantine make the Christian religion the official state religion or not?

The answer is Constantine recognised the Christian religion, but he did not make it the official state religion. This did not happen until much later, ca. 391, during the reign of Theodosius I. This fact should be stated clearly, with no room for misunderstanding.

About Chapter 7:

Amusing the Masses: Buildings for Entertainment and Leisure in the Roman World

On page 229 note 1 there is a cross-reference to chapter 7. This cross-reference was not updated from the first edition. The note should refer to chapter 8.

On page 243 Hazel Dodge refers to “IRT.” This abbreviation is not explained anywhere. The letters stand for Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania. It is the title of a book published by the British School of Rome in 1952. Since 2009 “IRT” has been a searchable database on the internet. Here is a link: Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania.

About Chapter 8:

Entertainers in the Roman Empire

On page 292, note 27, there is a cross-reference to chapter 4. This reference was not updated from the first edition. The note should refer to chapter 5.

On page 308, note 57, there is a cross-reference to chapter 6. This reference was not updated from the first edition. The note should refer to chapter 7.

On page 299 Potter mentions a festival celebrated in the east which he calls “Maiouma.” This festival is also mentioned on page 260 by Dodge who calls it “Maiuma.” Both spellings may be acceptable, but it is unfortunate that one word is spelled in two different ways in the same book. The word is listed in the index where it is spelled “Maiouma.”

[A search on the internet seems to indicate that most people who cover this topic prefer the spelling chosen by Dodge: “Maiuma.”]

Potter seems to have a problem with chronology: on page 305 he says Lucius Verus ruled 161-168. But this emperor ruled 161-169. For Gallienus, Potter has two different dates: on page 307 he says 253-268 (true); but on page 324 he says 253-270 (false).

The following passage on pp. 312-313 is a clear case of poor editing:

“… Tacitus’ observation is a very much more interesting for the study of the Roman psyche…”

The three words “a very much” should have been deleted by the author or by the copy editor. Apparently, none of them noticed this awkward passage.

On page 326 we are told the famous Roman charioteer Porphyrius was honoured “with two monuments” in Constantinople’s hippodrome. Potter refers to Alan Cameron’s book Porphyrius: The Charioteer (OUP, 1973) pp. 121-126. The reference is correct. But if you follow this reference, you will see that Cameron presents a list of not two but seven monuments for Porphyrius in the hippodrome. The statues are lost, but two of the seven bases are preserved.

On page 326 Potter says:

“The ability of circus performers to mix with members of the highest aristocracy resulted in the daughter of a bear keeper of the Green faction becoming the empress Theodora.”

Theodora’s father was a bear keeper for the Greens, and she did become an empress when she married Justinian. But something is missing here, because Theodora is known as a supporter of the Blues. How, why and when did she go from the Greens to the Blues? Potter does not tell us the full story: when Theodora’s father died, the Greens refused to help the remaining family. In desperation, they turned to the Blues, begging for help. The Blues took them in, and from that moment Theodora was a firm supporter of this faction. Justinian supported the same faction. On this point Theodora and Justinian always agreed.

The caption to figure 28 on page 334 describing a Roman mosaic from Africa mentions a person called Mageirius. The name is given twice. But the name of this person is Magerius. The name is also misspelled on page xii (the list of illustrations).

[When Potter mentions this mosaic in his recent book about sport in the ancient world, he uses the correct spelling of the name, Magerius: The Victor's Crown, 2011, pp. 234-235.]

In chapter 8 there are two references to “Potter 1996,” page 332 (note 93) and page 337 (note 104). But this work is not listed in the bibliography. Donald Kyle mentions this oversight in his review of the first edition in Bryn Mawr Classical Review (1999.10.36). An excerpt from this review is quoted on the back cover of the second edition. Obviously, the publisher is well aware of this review; but the publisher did not take the time to correct the oversight which Kyle mentions in his review.

The forgotten work – a contribution to Roman Theater and Society edited by W. J. Slater (1996) - is listed in the bibliography of Potter’s recent book The Victor’s Crown.

About the Index

The index is flawed because it is incomplete (several persons and places mentioned in the text are not listed here), and because it gives false dates for the following emperors:

* Antoninus Pius, 137-161, instead of 138-161

[The correct dates for this emperor appear on pp. 304 and 305.]

* Domitian, 71-96, instead of 81-96

* Hadrian, 117-137, instead of 117-138

[The correct dates for this emperor appear on page 304.]

The Final Judgement

I have mixed feelings about this book:

On the positive side I can say: the second edition is better than the first because it is more comprehensive, and because it provides a lot of useful information; not too technical; readable and accessible.

 

On the negative side I can say: the second edition is worse than the first because the editors and the publisher allowed factual mistakes - even misprints - from the first edition to be repeated in the second edition.
 

When it was decided to publish a second edition, the editors and the publisher had a golden opportunity to improve the quality of the book. Unfortunately, they did not take it.
 

Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire is uplifting and disappointing at the same time. The interesting essays written by prominent scholars are uplifting; this calls for five stars. But the striking lack of accuracy found in some of these essays is disappointing; and this calls for one star. On balance I have to go with three stars.
 

PS. A slightly different version of this review was sent to one of the editors (David Potter) and to the publisher (University of Michigan Press) in September 2012. None of them responded.

 

* * *
 

David S. Potter & David J. Mattingly, editors,

Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire,

University of Michigan Press, second edition, 2010, xx + 401 pages

 

* * *