The Emperor and the Gods (review)

The works of Fishwick, Macmullen, Etienne and Vermaseren, among others, have, in the last twenty years, redirected scholarship away from the idea of a monolithic Roman imperial cult toward the study of local variations. Following the lead of S. R. F. Price (Rituals and Power [Cambridge, 1984]), whose descriptive “web of power” has greatly influenced this discussion, Daniel Schowalter analyzes the Panegyricus of Pliny the Younger for its complex, “images of relationship between the Emperor and the gods” (3–4). These results are compared with images in the broader socio-political context that is, quoting Price, within the “traditional symbolic system” of Rome (4). Schowalter then promises to discuss how his analysis informs, “the broader context of developing Christian communities in the early second century” (6).

In this work Schowalter critiques J. Beaujeu, Y. Shochat, and, above all, J. Rufus Fears, each of whom finds evidence of Trajan’s “Jovian theology” or “imperial” policy in the Panegyricus (12, 27, 30). Schowalter convincingly argues that Pliny communicated a Senatorial perspective, not that of the PRINCEPS. “To whatever degree Pliny was supportive of Trajan’s regime, he was not about to endorse the Principate wholeheartedly” (35). Writing early in the reign Pliny sought to, “embrace the moderation that Trajan had shown, while pressing for more involvement in the governing process” (37). The relationship between the emperor and the gods is therefore expressed in a speech which describes the relation of the emperor to the social order, “the inhabitants of the empire, the people of Rome, and especially the Senate” (51).

Schowalter’s analysis of cultic expression in the Panegyricus includes the duty of the emperor to pray and sacrifice as well as that of the people to entreat the gods on his behalf. The emperor, while not divine in life, acted as mediator (Pontifex Maximus) between the gods and the people as well as between the gods and the Senate. Pliny’s task was to, “persuade Trajan to see himself in a balanced power relationship with the gods and thereby with his subjects” (75). Pliny praised the emperor’s moderation while warning him of his accountability to heaven (and the Senate who divinized dead emperors).

Schowalter concludes that Pliny’s Panegyricus, while clearly reflecting a social order, illustrates a situation wherein, “the actual relationship between the emperor and the gods is described not in simple terms of Jupiter protecting Trajan, but in terms of mutual support and responsibility, which holds the emperor accountable” (80). Schowalter describes similar complexities in literary evidence, numismatics, epigraphy and monumental art. This confirms that while Trajan’s letters (in Pliny’s collection) included ideas of moderation, as in the Panegyricus, coin issues could suggest a similar mutuality or at times a more autocratic tendency. Monuments, too, provided mixed messages. The Arch of Beneventum illustrated a strong divine presence alongside Senatorial and probable Hadrianic influences. However, the Column of Trajan included only occasional, but important, divine appearances amidst a strong emphasis on the emperor’s military achievements. While common themes existed, such as the imperial (and community) obligation to acknowledge divine assistance, Schowalter concludes, “there was not any single portrayal of the relationship between the emperor and the gods” (125).

Despite Schowalter’s excellent treatment of Pliny’s Panegyricus there are aspects of his thesis that need questioning. Price’s “web of power” should be better defined. Simon Price himself seems unsure of whether the imperial cult(s) of Asia Minor reflected a “process of flexible adaptation of the traditional cults” (Price, 47), or reflected more the peculiarities of the Roman period (Price, 24). What, more exactly, can be included in the “traditional symbolic system” of Rome? What defined the possible expressions of the relationship between the emperor and the gods? Surely, Fears’s “Jovian theology” (PRINCEPS A DIIS ELECTUS: The Divine Election of the Emperor as a Political Concept at Rome [Rome, 1977]) can assist us with these questions.

There is little doubt that Schowalter is right to reject...