The present monograph was originally presented as the author's PhD thesis at the University of Osnabrück in 2010/2011 and has now been published in the well-known series ‘Osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption’. Gering's main aim is a re-evaluation of the traditional view of Domitian as vir malus, established by classical historiography and only partially challenged by modern scholarship. Indeed, there is still no consensus as to how credible our anti-Domitian testimonies may be and if Domitian's principate represents either a revolutionary break or rather a continuation with previous dynamics. In order to achieve this goal, G. insists on the necessity of not focusing our understanding of Domitian's rule on his individual personality, but rather on a longitudinal analysis (‘Längsschnittuntersuchung’) which places his policy in the context of long-term continuities and discontinuities within the broader evolution of the first- and second-century principate (35).

After a very short preface and an introduction (7–9), G. discusses the credibility of our main sources (10–27), such as Martial, Statius, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Juvenal, Frontinus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and others. A systematic discussion of other than literary sources (i.e. the epigraphic, numismatic and archaeological material), however, is reduced to only a few lines (25–7), though in what follows the author thoroughly exploits these sources. A further introductory chapter deals with the history of modern research on Domitian since the nineteenth century and expounds the method proposed by G.

Then follow the three main chapters of the book. In the first (39–200), G. investigates the legitimation and representation of power during the rule of the Flavians. Only a few pages are devoted to the origins of the Flavian principate (39–56), whereas the majority of the chapter deals with the importance of the ‘dynastic principle’ for each of the three emperors involved (57–116). G. stresses that Vespasian's ability to exhibit two adult sons may have helped to stabilize his rule after the civil war and also deconstructs the alleged enmity between Titus and Domitian. He insists on the smooth transfer of power between the different members of the family, but also on the fact that the absence of an adult successor in a.d. 96 may have hastened Domitian's end and the downfall of the dynasty. There follows an investigation of the religious facets of imperial legitimacy which deals with Domitian's association with Minerva, evaluates the alleged importance of Isis and questions the supposed official use of the title dominus et deus. As the formula does not exist in contemporary epigraphy and is only attested through isolated examples of a panegyrical character, G. denies that Domitian ever imposed the title as an official form of address, though he may not have discouraged its individual use (117–39). G. then focuses on the representation of power, presenting numismatic evidence, titles, statues and images and analysing the reception of Domitian's rule in contemporary literature and provincial coinage (140–92).

A further chapter deals with the concrete exercise of imperial power under Domitian (201–305), looking first at Rome and Italy (201–31), where G. deals with topics such as Domitian's social measures concerning the plebs urbana, his agricultural reforms in Italy and his building programme. G. further underlines that Domitian's adoption of the title of censor perpetuus was a novelty, but that our sources do not suggest a decidedly anti-senatorial use of the right of the lectio senatus. Concerning the rôle of equestrian officials within the imperial administration, G. sees no evidence for a major break with the politics of Domitian's predecessors resulting in the disadvantaging of the traditional élite. As for the provinces (232–305), G. sketches the portrait of a successful and realistic administrator and politician who also managed a long-term stabilization of the Roman frontiers in Britain, on the Rhine and on the Danube.

G.'s attempt to show Domitian's anchoring in Flavian traditions as well as his competence in exercising power calls for an explanation of his downfall and subsequent maligning. Accordingly, G. devotes the final chapter of his book to the ‘senatorial opposition’ (author's apostrophes) (306–48). He first presents the three attested occurrences of opposition, i.e. the banishment of a certain number of Stoic senators which G. sees as an isolated event, the usurpation of Saturninus in a.d. 88/9 which seems to have been an initiative unrelated to any institutional opposition, and finally the assassination of the emperor, also not expressly related to the senate (306–31). Having thus refuted the thesis of widespread senatorial opposition, G. has to explain why the senate immediately proclaimed the emperor's damnatio memoriae and why all subsequent writers revelled in the decrying of the deceased emperor. G. therefore discusses, though very briefly (332–48), Domitian's interaction with the senate. He first insists that Domitian's efforts to attenuate the rivalry between the Flavian adlecti and the other senators by either slowing down individual careers (e.g. Agricola) or multiplying and thus weakening previously prestigious offices (e.g. the consules suffecti) may have been interpreted as interference with traditional career patterns and violation of the division of power between emperor and senate. Also, the inevitable increase of the monarchical aspects of the principate, the adoption of the title of censor perpetuus and the assumption of more extravagant forms of representation (338: ‘Stilfehler’), will have contributed to the development of a negative image of Domitian. Finally, G. insists that the dynastic change after a.d. 96 will have amplified the need for Nerva and above all Trajan to construct their own legitimation on the rejection of Domitian, and even more so as Trajan might have wanted to oppose the imperial ambitions of the governor of Syria, Curiatius Maternus, the highest-ranking Domitianic general.

The book closes with a short conclusion (349–58) organized around three theses: (i) Domitian based his legitimation and representation on continuity with his predecessors and by no means wished to transform the principate into a monarchy following the Hellenistic example; (ii) Domitian was an ambitious, serious and successful politician; (iii) there is no evidence for Domitian's conscious wish to abandon the consensus between emperor and senate by provoking the latter; diverse appendices follow (359–433).