The cultural historian Jerry Toner here builds on his introductions to Popular Culture in Ancient Rome (2009) and Roman Disasters (2013), in both of which he focused on history ‘from below’ and examined how the Romans dealt with daily challenges and dangers (military threats, fire, collapse of buildings, natural disasters). This work established the high resilience and variety of coping mechanisms that strengthened the social and political system, contrasted with a low awareness of precaution and a high acceptance of risks attributed to divine forces.
In this volume, T. again challenges the view that antiquity was less exposed to risks than the modern world and so adopted a predominantly fatalistic attitude (15, 31). Instead, he discusses the variety of strategies with which the Romans responded to risk and how they thought about it, developing a highly theoretical approach that draws primarily on the sociological concepts of Ulrich Beck (Risikogesellschaft, 1986). T. repeatedly shows that, although the Romans did not have the calculative possibilities of modern times, which counter technology-enhanced dangers with mathematical probabilistic calculations, they certainly had measures to reduce and control future threats (15, 60, 109–10). A significant difference is that modern thinking anticipates a better future, whereas the ancient focus was on restoring and safeguarding the previous, disrupted order (112–13, 124).
In ch. 1, T. presents a broad definition of risk, emphasising the uncertainty of outcome, but as something which can have not only negative but also positive effects (7–9, 13). In contrast to uncertainties, risks are calculable (7), and show not only how a society deals with uncertainties, but more generally what their nature is (10–11). The Romans, it turns out, planned for the uncertain future and drew on lawyers, sailors and priests as experts, alongside traditional knowledge. The longevity and diversity of the Roman empire is emphasised, so that we cannot expect homogeneous views and behaviour (14). The focus is on the early Empire, although examples from the early Republic up to the sixth century a.d. are included, along with parallels from Ancient Greece.
In ch. 2, T. investigates ‘different types and degrees of risk’. Using Cicero as an example, he explores how the Romans did not only rely on fatum and fortuna but considered fate to be controllable (16–19). In a comparison (acknowledged to be problematic) with the modern nuclear risk, he notes the high mortality rate in antiquity, inevitably exposing the population to great dangers (24–5), contradicting Beck's claim that premodern times faced lower risks (31). Grave inscriptions clearly show what dangers lurked in war, robberies and shipping, although the health risks must have been the greatest (26–7, 29–30).
Ch. 3 develops T.'s concept from Roman Disasters of a Roman ‘risk culture’, contrasted with the individualised, calculating ‘risk society’ of modernity; this culture countered threats to survival with collective and expert knowledge, especially in law, logistics and finance (33–4). The Romans also practised pragmatic, diversified forms of behaviour in religion (sacrifices, oracles, curses, magic), family (child planning, wage labour) and society (patronage). T.'s reading of Aesop's fables as warnings of danger is far-fetched (39, 48–9, 59) and he overstates the idea that funeral processions (pompa funebris) were an incentive for the young to take future risks for the community based on the examples of the old (50–1).
Ch. 4 deals with risk management, with examples from architecture, logistics, legislation and financial budgeting, and a particular focus on maritime loans (89–93). T.'s conclusion that the construction defects of the builder Atilius, which led to the collapse of the amphitheatre of Fidenae in a.d. 27, were classified as harmless as they were ‘only’ punished with exile (63–4) is unconvincing. The calculations in the Falcidian law of 41 b.c. concerning ‘annuities’ in connection with inheritances are also not very useful (95–8). In connection with defensive religious practices, the oracle of Astrampsychus (101–6; cf. Popular Culture 46–52) and dream interpretation in general (106–8) play an important role. They ultimately helped the individual to build up resilience in dealing with danger (108–9).
Ch. 5 again argues that what a society categorises as a danger reflects its basic structures and, in the Roman case, reflects their hierarchy, conservatism, military successes and belief in divine support (112). In addition to new religions, sexual behaviour and luxury encroaching from the empire also endangered the social order, so that appropriate legislation was needed to restore order. Augustus emerged as the supreme guardian of the fatherland with his marriage legislation to the detriment of women (119–23). These moral constructs were intended to channel fears of the future into manageable paths by looking back (124).
The conclusion emphasises again that risk management encompassed traditional practices, intuition and collective experience, but that future uncertainties were also controlled by laws and finances (125). Modernity is different not because old certainties were lost, expert knowledge was questioned and risks increased, but rather because the focus is placed more on the individual and the future is seen prospectively as an opportunity (126–7). Apart from calculative possibilities, Roman coping mechanisms were similar and already showed longer-term perspectives in the fields of military and urban planning; by managing risk, Rome sought to counteract the danger of deviation and maintain the privileges of the rich (128–9).
Whether ‘risk’ represents a ‘key theme’ for ancient Rome is a separate question. It is true insofar as risks cover almost all areas of life and therefore provide interesting insights into Roman society. However, the selected examples are not always significant, and T. sometimes engages in speculative calculations and over-detailed descriptions. Even if this readable book does not deal systematically with all risks and contains some redundancies, however, it offers stimulating ideas on Roman thought and behaviour.
