After the fall of the old Republic and the rise of the Empire the members of the Roman aristocracy had to position themselves in the new political order while simultaneously defining their self-conception in the service to the princeps and the res publica. This reorientation has been a popular topic in recent years.Footnote ¹ With this slightly revised dissertation G. has now joined the ongoing discussion on the aristocratic existence in the Roman Empire.

The book consists of three parts. The introduction and a synthesis frame the central analysis in Chapter 2 (‘Literarische Selbstdarstellung von Senatoren der trajanischen Zeit’). It is followed by three appendices: on the careers of consular governors, on references to the past in Pliny's Panegyricus and on the senators mentioned in Tacitus’ Annals. The book concludes with a bibliography and an index.

The study starts with the question how the formation of the imperial elite was accomplished. G. discusses the so-called viri militares (Chapter 1.1), a group of Roman aristocrats who, according to R. Syme, had a standardised and military career pattern. He shows persuasively that prosopographic methods alone cannot depict the imperial elite sufficiently and therefore have to be complemented with literary sources. This introduction is followed by a description of G.’s own approach (Chapter 1.2): his work centres on the literary self-presentation of Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. G.’s hypothesis is that both senatorial authors did not only make references to constitutive parameters of the Trajanic system of rule, but also participated actively in the optimus princeps discourse in order to influence the emperor's relationship with his elite.

This theory is tested thoroughly in Chapter 2, which consists of five thematic sections. The first section, ‘Strategien retrospektiver Desintegration – der Agricola des Tacitus’ (Chapter 2.1), focuses on the Agricola, which G. identifies as a contemporary contribution to the elite's efforts to cope with the past. It was designed especially to guide the senators from Domitian's rogue regime and Nerva's uncertain reign towards Trajan's stable Principate. By using the example of his father-in-law, Tacitus demonstrates, according to G., how ideal aristocratic behaviour could be maintained under a malus princeps. While other senators gave in to a rotten system Agricola stayed independent and continued to fulfil his duties for the res publica (not for the tyrant) with modestia. Thereby he obtained the function of a role model, which is introduced into the discourse when Tacitus presents him as an ‘unabhängiger Systemträger’ (p. 82) to release the aristocracy from its complicity with collective amnesty.

Chapter 2.2, ‘Der Panegyrikus des Plinius – das Hineinschreiben in den optimus-princeps-Diskurs’, examines senatorial interactions with the new princeps. First, G. analyses the Arch of Trajan in Beneventum with its introduction of the agnomen optimus to the emperor's name and the display of equality between princeps and the senate. Even more significant is G.’s hypothesis that Pliny exonerated his work from any accusation of flattery by locating it in the otium, where one could act more independently than in the highly regulated negotium, and therefore emphasising its literary and allegedly non-political character. In his Panegyricus Pliny presents another aspect of the elite's coming to terms with its past: using the method of ‘affirmatives Fordern’, he praises the new age and ascribes characteristics of the ideal aristocrat to the ruler Trajan (optimus princeps), which transforms the emperor into a role model for Pliny's senatorial peers.

The next section, ‘Zwischen Opposition, Affirmation und Imitation – die Unabhängigkeit des briefeschreibenden Konsulars’ (Chapter 2.3), deals with Pliny's epigraphical and literary self-presentation. Analysing the famous inscription from Comum (CIL V 5262), G. argues that Pliny imitates the emperor by using his own alimenta to rise virtually to the ‘princeps von Comum’ (p. 146). The study then turns to the Epistulae (excluding Book 10), which are read as a product of the otium (honestum). In the light of Pliny's sense of duty in the obsequium, his otium and studia gained a special kind of quality for the senator. Especially his letters enabled Pliny to stage himself as the ideal orator in various social roles – all the more, as G. argues convincingly, since Pliny implemented his aristocratic world view into the optimus princeps discourse. Thus Pliny and Trajan evolved into role models for the imperial elite – a fact that bestowed a considerable amount of social prestige on Pliny.

Chapter 2.4, ‘Selbstbewusste Kaisermacher? – Die Funktionselite in den Historien des Tacitus’, concentrates on senators and their relationship to the various throne-aspirants during the civil war of 69/70 c.e. Based on the so-called ‘Akzeptanzsystem’ as a model for the Principate's political order, G. deals almost entirely with senatorial individuals (the senate as a whole rarely makes an appearance). Their competition for proximity to the emperor was admittedly a purely aristocratic issue, but nonetheless controlled by the ruler. G. analyses this topic in three different fields: military engagement, interactions between senators and senatorial interaction with the princeps. Even though his analysis becomes a bit redundant at this point, G. can persuasively outline his ‘Kernnarrativ’: ‘Die senatorische Funktionselite bestimmt den Kaiser, der aus ihren Reihen kommt, während der Kaiser wiederum seine Elite konstituiert’ (p. 285). Trajan and his elite were shaping the new imperial age together as partners.

By analysing the maiestas lawsuits, the book finally turns to the negative excesses of the senatorial competition for proximity to the princeps (Chapter 2.5, ‘Der Tyrann als Gegenbild – der optimus-princeps-Diskurs in den Annalen’). G. portrays the development of the charges under Tiberius, who encouraged the discordia within the elite with his own ambiguous behaviour and is thus marked by Tacitus as the normative counterpart of the optimus princeps. As already seen in the Agricola, Tacitus uses the past as a positive template for the Trajanic reign in the Annals as well. He asks the elite to continue serving the res publica while keeping up their independence from the emperor so that similar events could be prevented in the future.

The study is completed with a synthesis in Chapter 3, ‘Senatorische Selbstdarstellung und hierarchische Distinktion – eine Synthese’, in which G. juxtaposes his two authors to compare their self-representation within the scope of the optimus princeps discourse. While Tacitus uses his newly acquired securitas under Trajan to resume his work as a historian, the new libertas allows Pliny to focus on his persona as orator. By avoiding excessive flattery they express an ideal, which probably most of their contemporaries would approve of: the senatorial elite was supposed to render dutifully their performance for the res publica and make an autonomous contribution for the benefit of the empire under an optimus princeps.

G.’s book provides scholars with an excellent analysis of senatorial self-representation in the High Empire. It is well structured, has strong arguments, a highly conceptual conclusiveness and demonstrates an extraordinary expertise in dealing with the sources. Overly critical readers may find fault with the fact that Tacitus and Pliny were both homines novi and therefore had a literally existential interest in their public image. However, it was neither G.’s intention to provide a complete map of the aristocratic world, nor does it have a negative impact on the study. He aimed to (and succeeds in providing) an analysis of senatorial self-representation as part of the optimus princeps discourse, in which both of his key witnesses located themselves clearly ‘zwischen princeps und res publica’.