Comparative studies of the ancient Graeco-Roman world and ancient China have in recent decades become increasingly common, and thank goodness for that. Such comparative works have the potential to open up new perspectives, pose new questions, and push us to reconsider old answers. Yet they also present considerable challenges. Speaking for myself, it has been no simple task for me to acquire sufficient mastery over the two ancient languages as well as the plethora of different types of data, each requiring some familiarity with a different set of methodologies, that I have needed in order to gain some insight into Roman imperial culture. Just the thought of doing the same for ancient Chinese culture as well is enough to make me weary. Yet I perhaps exaggerate the level of mastery that is needed in order to produce valuable insights by means of a comparative study. It is certainly the case that, as the discipline of world history becomes increasingly well established, even graduate students are starting to undertake comparative projects for their doctoral research. The current book, which began as a doctoral dissertation at McGill University, is a case in point. Nevertheless, despite the fact that, as Robinson herself notes in her preface, she began the project as someone “who at the outset had no training in ancient Mediterranean history or languages” (p. ix), she has succeeded in producing a thoughtful and well-researched book that does indeed open up new perspectives and pose new questions.
As the subtitle of her monograph indicates, Robinson brings a comparative lens to bear on “the relationship between religion and politics during the formation of empire in early China and Rome” (p. 2), focusing in particular on the reigns of Augustus and the Han Emperor Wu (Han Wudi or Wu-ti, reigned 141-87 BCE). The two make a suitable pair: although Emperor Wu, unlike Augustus, did not establish a new form of government, he did much to transform the empire that he had inherited by greatly extending its territory, centralizing its power structures, and shifting its ideological basis. Robinson’s overall argument is that in both cases “the reforms made to religious institutions and the new established ceremonies and sacrifices placed each ruler at the centre of all religious authority, and that this was a fundamental part of securing the rulers’ personal authority over their empires” (p. 2). By undertaking a systematic comparison of these two rulers’ religious reforms, her goal in this book is to demonstrate “that a comparative approach can not only reveal similar trends in the formation of ancient empires, but also that new perspectives on familiar material can be found by engaging in dialogue with other societies” (p. 3).
The book has a clear structure that allows the reader to follow the development of Robinson’s argument with ease. After setting out the goals of her project, the introductory chapter situates it in earlier comparative work on ancient Chinese and Graeco-Roman history and culture, briefly discusses the term ‘religion’, surveys the primary sources, and provides a preview of the chapters to come. All these chapters are carefully balanced: after a brief introductory section, each contains one section on Han China and one section on Rome and ends with a short conclusion that highlights similarities and differences. Chapters 2 and 3 provide a mise-en-scène that will be essential for most of the book’s readers, of whom the majority, I assume, will like me be conversant with either the Roman or the Han empire, but not both. Chapter 2, ‘Transitions to Empire in Early China and Rome’, provides brief summaries of the historical background to the reigns of Augustus and Emperor Wu, and Chapter 3, ‘State Cult in Early China and Rome’, does the same for the religious institutions on which she will focus. It also clarifies a matter of terminology that readers of BMCR may initially find a bit confusing. The ‘imperial cult’ of Robinson’s title refers not to cult directed towards the person of the emperor, but rather “any cult patronized by the emperor or worshipped on his instruction” (p. 35). Although this is not what classicists and Roman historians usually mean by the term, it is entirely sensible. The institutions that she singles out are, on the Chinese side, the sacrifices offered to a range of powers at particularly sacred locations throughout the empire, sometimes by representatives of the emperor and sometimes by the emperor himself, and, on the Roman side, the major priestly colleges that superintended public cult in the city of Rome. The contrast between these two sets of institutions is striking, in that the Chinese dataset involves the full geographical spread of the empire while the Roman dataset concern the city of Rome. This is a contrast to which I revert at the end of this review. In both chapters, her presentation of the Roman material is crisp, sure-handed, and well-informed; although I am not qualified to assess her treatment of the Chinese material, it is equally crisp and gives every appearance of being equally well-informed.
The four chapters that follow constitute the core of the book, with each dedicated to the analysis of a key topic. Chapter 4, ‘Reshaping Religious Institutions’, focuses on the different ways that both Emperor Wu and Augustus installed men from outside the traditional elite in positions of religious authority. Emperor Wu, in expanding the range of spirits to whom he offered sacrifice, took as his advisors men described in the sources as fangshi, “specialists in a variety of different technical arts, fang shu, including divination, numbers and numerology, alchemy, and communication with immortals” (p. 51); these men were generally looked down upon by the traditional aristocracy. For his part, Augustus took advantage of the numerous vacancies in the priestly colleges of Rome that resulted from the violence of the civil wars to appoint men loyal to himself. In Chapter 5, ‘Expanding Influence’, Robinson discusses the results of these moves. In both cases, “incorporating new men into their respective religious institutions helped the two rulers solidify their positions at the helm of state religious activities” (p. 60). Yet it did so in very different ways. The increased geographical spread of the sacrifices that Emperor Wu incorporated into imperial cult both reflected and reinforced the territorial expansion of his empire, whereas Augustus’ expansion of his religious authority through management of the traditional priestly colleges was largely confined to the city of Rome.
Chapter 6, ‘Communicating Imperial Authority’, shifts the focus away from personnel to what Robinson analyzes as media events, which served “to broadcast each ruler’s dominance in all religious affairs, as well as their supreme position in matters of state” (p. 76). Again, there is a striking contrast in the frames of reference for the two case studies that she chooses. On the Roman side, she discusses Augustus’ building program in the city of Rome, especially the neighborhood shrines of the lares compitales; as always, her discussion is well-informed and sensible. On the Chinese side, she examines Emperor Wu’s ‘inspection tours’, grand processions that took the emperor and his court across the empire as he visited and sacrificed at the various sacred localities that he had incorporated into imperial cult. In Chapter 7, ‘Redefining Ceremony’, Robinson compares ritual innovations in the two empires. In China, Emperor Wu established new sacrifices for a range of spirits that had previously not been worshipped in imperial cult, many of them at sites in formerly independent or quasi-independent kingdoms. In Rome, Augustus revived many traditional ceremonies that had been allowed to lapse, thereby associating them with his own position in the state. This chapter culminates in one of the best sections in the book, ‘Epoch-Making Sacrifices: The Feng and Shan Sacrifices and the Ludi Saeculares’, which summarizes an article that she published in 2018. Both the Feng and Shan sacrifices and the Ludi Saeculares were allegedly ancient rituals that took place so infrequently that the two rulers had considerable leeway to recreate them in ways that would serve to define their unique imperial roles. At the same time, tradition imposed some constraints. Given their very different histories, “as well as the differences in performance culture within each society, it is unsurprising that the two spectacles were performed with very different relationships with the people” (p. 113). A comparison of these differences provides insight into the nature of imperial power in the two cultures. “In Rome, consensus, or the appearance of consensus, was needed from the masses, while in the Han, it was necessary to demonstrate that the emperor was supreme amongst all of the regional lords, and for both, that they had received the sanction of supernatural powers” (p. 113). Chapter 8 is a short conclusion that rounds out the argument and looks briefly ahead to developments after the deaths of Emperor Wu and Augustus.
Robinson’s writing throughout is crisp and clear.[1] She takes care to explain her terminology and analytical framework, and her conclusions are sensible, well-supported, and often insightful. That said, for me they also raise a number of questions, especially about the contrast, which runs throughout the book, between the empire-wide scope of Emperor Wu’s innovations and Augustus’ focus on the institutions of the city of Rome. To what extent does this contrast reflect fundamental structural differences between the two empires or simply follow from her choice of datasets? Robinson is cognizant of this issue, as when she notes that “this is of course not to say that Augustus did not seek to expand his influence outside of the city of Rome – he certainly did – but that he did not use the traditional state religious institutions to do so” (p. 60). Well, yes: those institutions were inherently tied to the civic structures of Rome and, as she notes (p. 81), could not effectively be extended or transferred to other parts of the empire. Could Augustus have done as Emperor Wu did, and brought cults in other locations under the auspices of the emperor? Can we, for example, imagine Augustus initiating a similar practice of inspection tours, on which he would preside over ceremonies at, say, the temples of Artemis at Ephesus and Serapis at Alexandria? Well, no. Why not? The cultic institutions of the Graeco-Roman world, most people would probably reply, were inherently civic or at least local. But the rituals over which Emperor Wu presided also seem to have been tied to specific locales. What were the structural differences that allowed him to incorporate them into imperial cult in a way that Augustus could or would not? On the other side of the equation, there is imperial cult in the sense that Graeco-Roman specialists use the term. As Robinson rightly observes, “while it was difficult to export Roman cults, the image of the ruler was less difficult to export” (p. 81), and as scholars have long noted, cults centered on the person of the emperor played a crucial role in constructing the emperor’s position throughout the empire. Was there anything comparable in Emperor Wu’s empire? If not, why not?
Yet the fact that this book leaves me with as many questions as answers is not a sign of its weakness but of its success. As Robinson stresses, one of her main goals in juxtaposing her two datasets from the China of Emperor Wu and the Rome of Augustus was to “open up new perspectives on familiar material.” She has done that very effectively, and has given students of Roman imperial religion, and presumably of ancient Chinese imperial religion as well, much to ponder in the future. I look forward to seeing how she and others build on the foundation that she has provided in this well-constructed and stimulating study.
Notes
[1] There are a few typos, especially in Latin words (e.g., princepes on p. 55, comptia on p. 81, Cicero’s De Divinatore on p. 99).