This is an unusual book. Michael Loewe, one of the most prominent scholars of early China, had worked on it for several years when, in his nineties, he lost his sight. His efforts seemed destined to remain unfinished, but he accepted the offer from Michael Nylan, his former student and later colleague in sinology, and T. Corey Brennan, a Roman historian with an interest in early China, to edit the manuscript and take it to publication. As Nylan states in her preface, she and Brennan confined their contribution to technical matters, such as checking references and correcting typographical errors, with the result that “this publication … is Michael’s, through and through” (xiii-xiv, Nylan’s emphasis), even though, as we may observe, he died shortly before the book’s appearance, at the age of 103.[1]
According to Loewe the “book arises from the question of how two parties who ruled over many peoples and wide areas in a pre-modern world each contrived to govern and control a population of some sixty million men, women, and children” (viii). His answer to this question takes the form of a comparative study. As his concrete undertaking he states modestly, “to do no more than treat a few specialized topics that loomed large in the historical development of the two cultures ” (viii).
The thematic spectrum of these topics is impressive. Unsurprisingly, Loewe starts with “Historical Sources and the Attitudes to the Past” (Ch. 1). But then, besides subjects one expects to be discussed in a book on imperial institutions, such as “The Concept and Practice of Monarchy” (Ch. 2), “The Structure and Conduct of Government” (Ch. 5), “Military Organization and Conscripted Service” (Ch. 8) and “The Growth of the Empires” (Ch. 10), he deals also with themes that are less obviously ‘imperial’, such as “Some Religious Aspects” (Ch. 3), ”Social Structure and Changes” (Ch.4), “Monetary Practices, Population, and the Use of Coins” (Ch. 6), “The Land and the Cities” (Ch. 7), and “The Laws of Rome and the Statutes and Ordinances of Han (Ch. 9).
As impressive as the variety of topics is the competence with which they are discussed, both on the Chinese side, where Loewe can lean on his own research, and the Roman side, where he is clearly familiar with the pertinent primary texts and the standard interpretations of each topic, and at times refers to specialized research on particular issues as well.
All ten chapters have more or less the same structure. Loewe starts with an introductory section, in which he presents the topic to be investigated; then he describes the situation in Rome followed by the situation in China; and ends with some supplementary or conclusive remarks. The main weight of each chapter is borne by the two central descriptions, since they form the basis for the comparison. Remarkably, each of them presents its subject, i.e. the situation in either Rome or China, in its own right and often in great detail and beyond what is strictly necessary for comparison.
Nevertheless, comparison is still the aim of the enterprise, and accordingly in each chapter Loewe offers comparative observations. Thus in Ch. 1 on “Historical Sources and Attitudes to the Past” we learn about the respective importance of different kinds of primary sources that open up different avenues of investigation: inscriptions on the Roman side (11), strips of wood and bamboo on the Chinese side (21); and we read about the predilection of Roman historians and their readers for “accounts of military leadership, the conduct of campaigns, or the valiant exploits of a hero on a field of battle”, a predilection not shared by their Chinese counterparts (22). In Ch. 2 on “The Concept and Practice of Monarchy” Loewe, on the one hand, demonstrates that in the Roman world kingship was considered “an institution that was to be distrusted”, which compelled Augustus to make “a show of ‘restoring’ the government of the Republic” (27), a concern that never exercised the minds of the Qin- and Han-rulers. On the other hand, he concludes the chapter by observing that, towards the end of their careers, both imperial founding figures, Qinshihuangdi and Augustus, proclaimed their achievements so convincingly that “with so much begun so properly by such diligent and conscientious emperors, it is a wonder that the monarchy in China and Rome ever ended” (41). In Ch. 3 “Some Religious Aspects” he aims to show that “in both Rome and Han, religious beliefs and practices played a vital role in authorizing and supporting the exercise of rule” (43). He does so by first discussing the rather similar Roman and Chinese concepts of the relationship between emperors and divinity (44-51), then describing the efforts of divination, which in both cultures was pursued with equal intensity, but—at least partly—based on very different techniques (51-56).
Similar comparative material is also found in the following sections of the work. Thus, on the whole, Loewe can be said to offer a wealth of factual information and comparative observations on numerous aspects of the working of both empires. On the other hand, given the chapters’ thematic variety and independence from each other,[2] it may also be said that what he has given us is, entirely consistent with his aim of treating “no more than … a few specialized topics”, not a seamlessly structured, coherent analysis but rather a copious and multifaceted overall picture of the phenomena.[3]
This is also in line with his stated aim of writing for “undergraduates, general readers, and experts whose primary engagement lies with either one of the two cultures that are under examination” (ix), so that “students of both Rome and China should have the opportunity to learn something from an alternative vantage point” (ix-x). There is no doubt that the book fulfills this intention, notwithstanding the possibility that the undergraduate and the general reader may at times feel overwhelmed by the amount of detail and the variety of aspects it provides. However, the expert on one of the two empires who is looking for information about the other will feel especially well served by it.
But how will this book be of benefit to those already engaged in the Rome-China comparison? The question arises because in the last two decades the comparison between ancient China and Rome has developed into one of the fastest expanding subfields of—at least Western—Roman history, producing a continuously increasing number of publications.[4] Loewe refers to these publications only rarely. Therefore readers should not expect his book to bring them up to date with the latest research on every subject.
On the other hand, however, they will realize that it fits in surprisingly well with the new subfield. Its treatment of a broad spectrum of different topics closely resembles the approach adopted by recent comparative studies. In both cases the underlying perception is that the working of the two empires depended not only on the imperial “hardware” of constitutional regulations and power structures, administrative apparatuses and military organization, etc., but also on the “software” of social relations, economic practices, value systems and ideologies, religious orientation etc., and that only the analysis of all these factors together can bring us close to a satisfactory understanding of the history of the two polities. The only difference is that in one case we have the contributions of a large number of authors and editors and in the other the work of a single scholar who, thanks to his comprehensive knowledge, was able independently to formulate well-founded opinions on a range of different subjects.
That this work is now available should be welcomed by comparatists for two reasons. First, it is encouraging to see that a scholar of Loewe’s stature was drawn, in the last years of his life, to engage in this exciting new field of research. Second, it is illuminating to see where and how he felt the emphasis should be put and to understand his views on individual subjects and questions. The book allows future research to draw inspiration from his ideas and to critically examine them.
Notes
[1] The particular circumstances of the book’s coming into being have left their mark on it. In a few places the reader meets with statements that Loewe probably would have reconsidered, repetitions he probably would have removed, and lines of argument he probably would have tightened, if he had had the opportunity to put his own finishing touches to the text. It is, however, difficult to see how this problem could have been avoided and it is anyway compensated by the fact that, thanks to the work of Brennan and Nylan, we have the book.
[2] This variety and independence are emphasized by the arrangement of the chapters, of which only 4 and 5 show a certain thematic proximity. Nylan comments on this arrangement as “a way that challenges us to rethink the standard academic divides” (xii). This is correct, but it also contributes to the impression described here.
[3] This does not mean that some topics receive more attention than others. Thus e.g. the two administrative apparatuses, the Roman one, taken over from republican times, relatively loosely knit and much less personnel intensive, and the highly sophisticated Chinese one, organized into sixteen hierarchical levels are both analyzed in detail and with the help of elaborate tables in chapter 5, the longest chapter in the book. Similarly, the different appreciation of military and civilian achievements on the Roman and Chinese side appears not only in Ch. 1 on attitudes towards the past (see above p.2), but also in Ch. 4 on “Social Structure and Changes”, with respect to their relevance to “one’s position in relation to the throne or place in public life” (57, cf. also 67), and in Ch. 8 on the military, concerning the reputation even of the emperor himself (134).
[4] Cf. Mutschler, F.-H., China and Rome Compared—a Report, Museum Sinicum 5, 2023, 296-357, and Wang, Zh., Beijing, wenti, fangfa, lilun he anli—tan Zhongguo-Luoma bijiao yanjiu (Contexts, Problems, Methods, Theories, and Cases—on the Comparative Study of China and Rome), in: Zhang, W. (ed.), Gudian wenming bijiao yanjiu zhinan (A Companion to the Comparative Study of Ancient Civilizations), Shanghai 2025, 151-174.