Enemies of the Roman Order

Ramsey MacMullen (born 1928) is a classical scholar from the United States. He was Professor of History and Classics at Yale University from 1967 until he retired in 1993, and he is the author of several books about the history of the ancient world. His first book was published by Harvard University Press in 1963: Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire.

His second book (which is under review here) was published by Harvard University Press in 1966 (and reprinted by Routledge in 1992): Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire.

The topic of this book is not the external enemies of Rome, who attacked the Roman state from the outside (such as Hannibal, Attila the Hun, or several kings of the Persian Empire). The enemies discussed in this book are internal. They lived in the Roman Empire, they were part of Roman society, but they did not accept its rules and regulations. They came into conflict with the Roman authorities. The result was treason, unrest, and alienation.

The main text is divided into six long chapters followed by a short conclusion. Here are the chapter headings:

I. Cato, Brutus, and Their Succession

II. Philosophers

III. Magicians

IV. Astrologers, Diviners, and Prophets

V. Urban Unrest

VI. The Outsiders

These six chapters cover ca. 240 pages. The average length of a chapter is 40 pages. When a chapter is so long, it should be divided into shorter sections by subheadings. Unfortunately, this is not done here. The layout of the text is not reader-friendly.

At the end of the book we find the following items:

** Appendix A – Famines

** Appendix B – Brigandage

** Bibliography

** Abbreviations

** Notes

** Index

Appendix A is closely related to chapter 5 about urban unrest, while appendix B is closely related to chapter 6 about the outsiders.

The bibliography is quite extensive (24 pages). The notes with references and additional comments are quite extensive as well (71 pages). By contrast, the index is very short: only four pages.

A brief note placed at the beginning of the index says:

 

“minor place names may be sought under major areas, Antioch under Syria, Carthage under Africa.”

I am deeply surprised. I have never seen anything like this before. When Antioch or Carthage is mentioned in the text, there should of course be a separate entry for these cities in the index. Why is Antioch buried under Syria? Why is Carthage buried under Africa? This system is not user-friendly. It is simply hopeless. In other words: the index is not only short, it is also incomplete.

The author and the publisher showed poor judgement when they decided that having a short and incomplete index was good enough for a book published by Harvard University Press.

What about illustrations? There are only six illustrations in this book. What is more, they are all in black-and-white. Since the number is so low, I can list them here:

* Frontispiece – an unknown philosopher (a fresco)

* Plate 1 – a bust of Seneca (one side of a double bust)

* Plate 2 – a bust of an unknown philosopher (today in Istanbul)

* Plate 3 – a battle in the amphitheatre at Pompeii (a fresco)

* Plate 4 - law enforcement: an officer in Thrace (a stele)

* Plate 4 – “hero of the force” (a stone relief) (this illustration is also used on the front cover of the dust jacket of the hardcover version from 1966)

While other ancient images are mentioned in the text, they are not shown in the book. One example is a stone relief showing Vorod “wearing a riding caftan and loose trousers, richly decorated, with a sword belt round his waist.”

The author continues:

“No less than six statues of this same man lined the colonnade down the main street.”

Vorod, an important official in Palmyra around AD 260, is mentioned on page 225, but his image is not shown in the book (and his name is not listed in the index).

The author and the publisher showed poor judgement when they decided that having only six illustrations in black-and-white was good enough for a book published by Harvard University Press.

As you can see, there are problems with the structure and the layout of this book. Unfortunately, these minor flaws are only the beginning. When I turn to the contents of the book, I find some serious problems, as I will explain below.

The author is a famous and highly respected historian.  I do not understand why. His high standing in the academic world cannot be based on this book, which is a huge disappointment. It is not well written. I struggled to get through the first four chapters. While I was reading them, I could not understand where the author was going with his text. I almost gave up on the book because of the poor quality of the writing. It was a good thing I did not give up, because when I got to chapters 5 and 6, I found that they are quite good. Suddenly, I could understand where the author was going with his text. Suddenly, the writing made sense.

Unfortunately, chapters 5 and 6 constitute less than one third of the whole book. Two good chapters can lift up the quality of the book, but only to a limited extent. When weighed against the four hopeless chapters, the net result is still quite sad.

In the good part of the book (chapters 5 and 6) the author mentions several modern concepts, such as the struggle of the social classes, social revolutions, and nationalism. He wants to issue a warning: modern concepts such as these should not be used to study and interpret ancient history. If we do this, he says, we are guilty of anachronism (see, in particular, pp.189-190, 197-200, and 203).

We should not use “anachronistic theories of social justice.” It is better, he says on page 206, “to take the past on its own terms.”

I agree with him on this point. His warning is important and relevant. Unfortunately, this message is only a minor element of the whole book. When weighed against the four hopeless chapters, the net result is still quite sad.

The topic of chapter 5 is urban unrest. The author mentions the problems connected with the Roman theatre, the Roman amphitheatre, and the Roman circus (also known as the Roman hippodrome). This topic is the subject of a book written by Alan Cameron, who is (in my opinion) a better writer than MacMullen. Cameron’s book Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Constantinople was published by Oxford University Press in 1976 (and reprinted in 1999).

How many stars does this book about the enemies of the Roman order deserve? I realise MacMullen is a famous historian, but I cannot allow this fact to affect my judgement. Looking at chapters 1-4, my rating is one star. Looking at chapters 5-6, my rating is three stars. Looking at the book as a whole, I will have to settle for two stars.

* * * 

Ramsey MacMullen,

Enemies of the Roman Order:

Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire,

Harvard University Press (hardcover), 1966, 370 pages

 

* * *

 

In 1992, the book was reprinted as a paperback by Routledge. Here is the cover: 

 

* * *

 

 

* * *