This volume offers a general introduction to important institutions in ancient Rome and early China, with the goal of providing students and researchers who work in one of the two fields with an accessible overview of the institutions and culture of the other, as a framework for future comparative studies. The book was written by L. (1922–2025) and edited by Brennan and Nylan, due to the onset of sudden blindness in L. According to Nylan, the two editors worked with a light touch, and, despite the triple attribution, the work ‘is Michael’s, through and through’ (pp. xii–xiv). The book is thus a posthumous publication of L., the foremost expert in the field of early Chinese history, and who, it would not be an exaggeration to say, has been largely responsible for the development of early Chinese history in the west. Imperial Institutions is the product of his lifelong scholarship on early China, combined with a revived interest in Classical Studies that he pursued in his youth. The book will provide a handy introduction to scholars of Rome or China interested in engaging in comparative study. As the goal of the book is to provide an overview of the different institutions, rather than new research, this review will introduce readers to the main subjects of the monograph.

The introduction lays out some of the basic similarities and differences between the two states, noting, for example, the differences in the received and archaeological traditions, the role of the emperors, the influence of the people on the state, and the governing institutions of the two states. These subjects are treated at greater length in the subsequent chapters. The first chapter provides a brief discussion of the main historians of Rome and Han as well as the sources available to them, noting, for example, that the Han historians had access to, and frequently made use of, state administrative documents, unlike their counterparts in Rome. L. notes the abundance of excavated materials now available to historians. The chapter conclusion reflects on the different areas of interest preserved in the sources in the two societies. Chapter 2 turns to the question of monarchy. L. describes the major difference between the two societies – that monarchy was generally accepted in early China but generally abhorred in Rome (p. 27). The chapter outlines, using specific examples, the ways in which monarchs came to power, maintained it and occasionally lost it. Three tables supplement the chapter with further dates and details, on: dynastic change, Roman and Qin-Han emperors. Chapter 3, ‘Some Religious Aspects’, provides brief overviews of the religious landscapes of China and Rome, and how the religious institutions and beliefs were integrated with imperial institutions. The second half of the chapter compares the role of omens and divination in both societies, and how they were interpreted and employed by rulers to demonstrate the legitimacy of their rule. As regards this section in particular much more evidence is presented for the Han case. ‘Social Structure and Changes’ (Chapter 4) outlines the different structures of each society, noting that the major difference between the two was the question of who participated in the state. In Rome, with citizenship clearly defined as including the privilege and responsibility of participating in affairs of government, naturally a greater proportion of the population participated, though real influence was generally limited to the higher classes of society, the senators and the equestrians. In Han, although people could rise through the ranks of the civil service, participation in government was significantly more limited to the imperial household and top officials. As Han bureaucratic power expanded, the people were ‘subject to the will of the officials’ (p. 63), and a strictly delineated system of ranks determined the social order. The chapter ends with a comparison of the men who carried out the important administrative tasks of state, noting that in Han greater effort was spent on recruiting and training civil servants, whereas in Rome the practical tasks of administration were handled by military officers or enslaved individuals. Chapter 5 discusses the ‘Structure and Conduct of Government’, placing the two states’ administrative structures in comparison and noting the greater number of officials and more elaborate bureaucratic structures in Rome. This chapter is supplemented by tables outlining the roles of magistrates and officials in Rome and Han, which provide easy reference to these complicated structures.

Chapter 6 deals with economic issues: ‘Monetary Practices, Population, and the Use of Coins’, subjects of great interest to historians but for which, in the case of both societies, we lack adequate sources on which to base a comprehensive analysis. The chapter provides an overview of the types of sources available for Han and Rome as well as tables with population and fiscal figures considered reliable. An overview of the types of coins in use in Rome and Han concludes the chapter. ‘The Land and the Cities’, Chapter 7, discusses some of the differences in conceptions of land tenure, noting, for example, that Romans could ‘own land as personal property’ whereas in Han subjects received permission ‘to work specified plots’ that they could not ‘regard as entirely their own possessions’ (p. 113). The ways in which land was incorporated into the states and divided amongst its members is also considered, as well as issues regarding land reform. The chapter concludes by briefly noting the principal characteristics of cities in Han and Rome, including maps of the Western and Eastern Han capitals (Chang’an and Luoyang). Chapter 8 turns to the subject of military organisation and conscription, an area where the differences between the two societies are stark. This chapter is one of the shortest in the book; it provides a brief overview of the two military systems as well as some of the specifics of each state’s military and the available sources. ‘The Laws of Rome and the Statutes and Ordinances of Han’, Chapter 9, lays out some of the difficulties of studying ‘law’ in the ancient world as well as the cultural differences in ideas of law and legality in Han and Rome. The chapter offers a comparison of the sources available to historians for each society, noting that there are more detailed records for the Roman imperial period. The chapter then outlines some of the laws and legal institutions in Rome and in Han, for the latter using legal documents excavated over the last 50 years, which have greatly contributed to our understanding of early Chinese society. The final chapter, ‘The Growth of the Empires’ discusses the expansion of each state as well as their ways of relating to foreigners, considering not only the military campaigns, but also the means of organising newly conquered territories and different attitudes towards the military and military rule. The chapter’s final section ‘On the intervening spaces’ considers the ways in which Han and Rome conceived of the ‘others’ at their borders; it includes lengthy extracts of writings by Han and Roman authors on the subject.

On the whole, the book delivers on its ambitious project to outline the grounds for comparison and will allow experts in China studies to approach the Roman empire, and vice versa. It is concise enough that readers will not get discouraged by minutiae, but neither does it fall into the trap of making broad generalisations about the two civilisations. As L. notes, specialists of Rome may find the book’s tendency to treat the Republic and the Empire together problematic (p. xii), but it is the opinion of this reader that there are fertile enough grounds for comparison between the Republic and early Chinese empires that this dual focus is warranted. Due to the circumstances under which the book was completed and edited for publication, the manuscript feels at times incomplete – for example, some chapters have formal conclusions, while others do not. However, this does not detract from the overall value of the book, and the editors are to be commended for not imposing their own voices or structure on L.’s last major work.