The volume's preface, signed by the two editors, explains the nature of the work and the motivations for its coming into existence. The book is the indirect result of a colloquium on PIR, its development and its completion and is meant to be an occasion of remembrance for its long history as well as a marker of the various facets of prosopography, within and beyond PIR.
The first chapter, by Eck, is a historiographical endeavour focusing on the often-complicated history of PIR – ‘Die PIR im Spiegel der beteiligten Personen. Geschichte eines Langzeitunternehmens an der Berliner Akademie 141 Jahre nach dessen Beginn’ (including fifteen photographic annexes). The title is indeed fit for Eck's intentions, as reading this remarkable account leaves one with the feeling of an academic homage to the people involved in developing PIR. The chapter is divided into six chronological sections. The official starting point for PIR is in 1874, when T. Mommsen presented the project to the Academy and asked for funding. However, the first two volumes were printed no sooner than 1897 and the third in 1898, mostly through the efforts of H. Dessau. The next milestone in PIR’s history is the decision on editing a second, enlarged and improved, edition and the beginning of the collaboration with E. Groag from the University of Vienna and A. Stein from the University of Prague in the 1920s. The contribution of the two researchers was crucial in envisioning a slightly different format for PIR than the one Mommsen and Dessau had in the past. One of the chapter's most touching parts is the description of the dismissal of Groag and Stein in 1938, as the Academy was no longer allowed to collaborate with scientists of mixed ethnical background. Stein, in a rather emotional letter, presents the prosopography as his life's work and expresses all the frustration it is normal to feel when facing such absurd odds. This episode is a perfect example of how a totally scholastic enterprise is subjected to political challenges, military tribulations and – ultimately – subordinate to an external context beyond the control of those directly involved in it.
After the War, PIR remained in the care of the Academy of the German Democratic Republic and survived through the almost wondrous efforts of L. Petersen. She was an editor for Böhlau, and under her leadership the publishing house obtained one of the first private company licences from the Soviet military administration in 1947. In 1961, she began working part-time for the Academy of Sciences and embarked on the PIR project. She brought collaborators together (notably H.-G. Pflaum, J. Burian, L. Vidman) and wrote entries herself. A warming story is that of the letter I volume: when nobody wanted to write the entrances for Augustus and Germanicus, Petersen wrote them herself. Therefore, PIR survived as an enterprise through the enthusiasm and sometimes luck of the people creating it. After the reunification of Germany, PIR continued to live as part of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences. In 2015, the last volume of the second edition was published. This opening chapter forms a cultural history of the tribulations of German scholarship over the last century, subtly presenting its connections with European politics and their effects on academic work.
The second chapter, ‘Die Träger der paganen Kulte im Imperium Romanum. Nutzen und Defizite der prosopographischen Methode’ by J. Scheid, deals with the priests of Roman official cults and tries to stress the benefits and limits of prosopographical investigation. Scheid focuses on the augures, pontifices and quindecemviri, generally men of high status and rank, holding civil offices as well. The analyses undertaken on the body of public priests are pertinent (with very interesting conclusions, such as the fact that the priests did not have better or more accomplished careers than other senators or knights), even if tributary to a specific elite prosopography, where the lack of certain data automatically leads to the questioning of the prosopographical approach as a whole. Scheid's main conclusion is, however, that without the prosopographic method – which combines sources – little would be known about the priests, their careers beyond priesthood, their families and their integration into certain social and/or political groups.
O. Salomies deals with the role of onomastics when reconstructing genealogies – ‘Die Bedeutung der Onomastik für die Rekonstruktion von Genealogien in Rom’. Salomies dwells on the changes in Roman onomastic structure and how they influence ‘pedigree’ reconstructions. In Republican times, two sons get different praenomina, while bearing identical cognomina: one obvious example is that of the brothers Marcus and Quintus Tullius Cicero. The latest pair of brothers with a hereditary cognomen that we know of is L. Volusius Saturninus and Q. Volusius Saturninus, who held the consulate in 87 and 92 ad. During the late Republic and first century of the Principate, the cognomen superseded the praenomen as identifier – as the example of the Titii Flavii eloquently proves. Nonetheless, the praenomina do not have to be identical between brothers in Imperial times – an obvious observation, if we bear in mind the example of Lucius Septimius Severus (the emperor) and Publius Septimius Geta. Very interestingly, Salomies also details the role female onomastics could play in the family's naming practices, either directly (cognomina of maternal ancestors for the boys) or indirectly (bearing names derived from those of the women in the family). Thus, Salomies demonstrates the prosopographical subtleties one can establish when possessing a sophisticated onomastic understanding.
F. Chausson's chapter, ‘Empereurs et sénateurs aux IIe–IIIe siècles: quelques remarques sur des réseaux de parenté’, is focused on the senatorial networks of the emperors. Chausson illustrates, concentrating on the theoretical side but also providing examples, the importance of senatorial support for the imperial power, as opposed to the difficulties faced by emperors who were not senators themselves. As the great families and networks of the late Republic continued, though transformed and adapted, until the late second century ad, it was unavoidable for a senator emperor to have a large network within the Senate, based on family, political allegiances, tradition etc. Of course, as a dynasty maintained power for a longer period of time, its support group became more divided. Chausson's conclusion is that, despite the changes and tribulations, the senatorial order remained the main support group an emperor needed in order to bring stability.
The following two chapters shift the geographical focus to Asia Minor. P. Scholz analyses the function and meaning of paideia/παιδεία for the city elites of imperial Asia Minor, ‘Gute und in jeder Hinsicht vortreffliche Männer. Überlegungen zur Funktion und Bedeutung der paideia für die städtischen Führungsschichten im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien’. Scholz moves beyond the ‘radar’ of PIR, as the men he investigates were only locally relevant elites. In the cities of Asia Minor, funding educational initiatives was profitable in terms of public recognition for local magistrates or elites. Scholz is inspired to link his analysis of the epigraphy of local elites to a remark of Diogenes of Oinoanda, who makes his readers conspicuous of the huge educational gap between the cities and their territoria; thus, it becomes clear that paideia was a value held dear by the upper-middle classes. In conclusion, Scholz states that the position of educated men is characteristic for the ‘bourgeoisie’ of the cities of Asia Minor. A. and P. Eich, in ‘Sagalassos – Die Entwicklung einer städtischen Gesellschaft unter römischem Einfluss, ihre Ritter und Senatoren. Eine Momentaufnahme’, deliver a prosopographical sketch of the knights and senators of Sagalassos. The study is a ‘Momentaufnahme’, a snapshot, of the elites of Sagalassos and their role as part of the Empire's leadership. In order to achieve this, the article offers a case study on the Neon Library and the men honoured with statues and inscriptions within it. The authors argue that the inscriptions within the library were most probably copies, the originals being displayed in the city. The inscriptions allow a prosopographical analysis of the characters who played a role in the Empire's administration (such as Julius Maximus – who might be the same as a iuridicus of Egypt), but the final conclusion of the authors is that the knights and senators of Sagalassos were mostly locally relevant and their influence was rather marginal.
The last two articles have a conclusive nature. Heil discusses the digitisation of PIR, ‘Eine digitale Prosopographie der Führungsschichten des kaiserzeitlichen Imperium Romanum (Senatorenstand – ordo decurionum): ihre strukturellen Notwendigkeiten’. Heil begins by reflecting on whether PIR should be regarded as a completed or rather as a continuing work. The second option necessitates PIR migrating to the virtual environment. Heil notes the main advantages of an online platform: its accessibility and the possibility to link different platforms, to make direct references to the source texts, inscriptions, photographs etc., which is of course impossible in a printed version. As a technical solution, Heil justly prefers, for a hypothetical virtual PIR, a text-based encoding system, developed from XML, rather than a SQL database. The conclusion is that a digital PIR is a viable option, but one that requires a great deal of effort, implying the restructuring of the PIR files and requiring long-term financial support. M. Horste, in ‘Perspektiven prosopographischer Arbeit’, sketches an overview of current prosopographical research. In the spirit of PIR, she mainly refers to elite prosopography and dwells on the difficulties of prosopographical reconstructions of the lesser echelons of Roman society, but acknowledges the possibilities that new approaches, such as the ones based on social network analyses (SNA), might provide. The article – and implicitly the book – closes with the idea that harbouring the enthusiasm of young researchers is one of the effective techniques that will lead to the future development of ancient prosopography.
The volume gathers papers tackling various aspects of prosopographical research, it is a valuable academic contribution, which comes as a well-deserved homage to all the scholars involved (over a century and a half) in the creation of PIR and in the development of the prosopography of the Roman Empire.
