This is a fascinating volume, which brings together fourteen chapters (in addition to an introduction) exploring different aspects of Roman society during the Civil War period of the late Republic, defined here as 133–29 bce. The real strength of the collection is the exceptional quality of the contributions, which are all innovative and thought-provoking, consistently managing to find new ways to travel along what is now a well-worn path. The period from the Gracchi to Augustus has never struggled for scholarly attention, so it takes real quality – which this volume has – to stand out in this crowded field. While there are always going to be some chapters that capture individual readers more than others – this reader was particularly struck by those by K. Welch, A. Russell and C. Rosillo-López, which appear in succession in the opening half –, there was something of real value in every contribution. Anyone interested in the Civil War period, even tangentially, will likely find something of interest here.
This is not to say that the volume is always a straightforward read. Perhaps fittingly, given the chaotic period under study, the volume feels a bit eclectic. Although obviously unified by the period under discussion, the contributions venture off in a startling number of disparate directions that only occasionally intersect. Even those grouped together under one of the four broad subheadings (‘Political and Social Repercussions of Civil War’, ‘Shaping the Memory of Civil War’, ‘A Transformation of Norms and Values?’, ‘A Language of Civil War’) engage with the material and themes in very different ways. While a certain amount of variability is common in edited volumes, this collection takes things a step further.
This diversity is something that the editors certainly seem to have noticed and may have even intended. As noted above, the period in question has always been a topic of intense study, and there exists a veritable mountain of scholarship on it – from T. Mommsen to the present day. However, despite its quantity and quality, and as the editors note, ‘previous studies … share a rather narrow political and institutional scope, which has increasingly been subjected to scrutiny in recent years’ (p. 8). In contrast to this, the editors argue that ‘in order to fully understand how [this period] shaped the lives of those who had to experience it, it is necessary to write a cultural history of Roman civil war – or rather: a history of the Late Roman Republic as a “culture of civil war”’ (pp. 9–10). They suggest that ‘the contributions collected in the present volume … illustrate possible starting points for a comprehensive cultural history of the Roman civil wars’ (p. 18). The phrase ‘possible starting points’, with emphasis on the intended plurality, is noteworthy. The volume self-consciously positions itself as the beginning of a new and consciously diverse conversation. This, it seems, is the true goal. To pursue a (rather subtle, and even undeclared) polemic against more traditional, political and state-based approaches to the late Roman Republic and to highlight the potential that other approaches might have for this period. In this, the volume is undoubtedly successful.
This sort of subtle polemic does have some drawbacks. While the collection clearly demonstrates how limiting the traditional political and institutional focus was, it does not chart a clear path forward. Instead, it seems intent on showing how many different lenses could be applied to the period, although never long enough or consistent enough to get a proper look. Additionally, while it highlights the limitations of the previous approach, it also clings, perhaps subconsciously, to many of its core principles. With a few notable exceptions, like the chapters by Welch and D. Maschek, this remains a study of elite Roman men who operated within the political and institutional structures and spaces defined by previous scholarship. Indeed, the volume struggles to develop an independent framework to advance the conversation beyond these traditional structures. Havener notes in the introduction, after arguing for a new ‘cultural’ approach to the Civil Wars, that ‘usually, this would be the place where terms like these have to be defined in order to make them operable as analytical tools. In both cases, however, this proves notoriously difficult, as there do not exist any unequivocal or uncontested definitions either of the term “culture” or the term “civil war”’ (p. 10). While ‘civil war’ is subsequently worked through as a heuristic concept, ‘culture’ remains nebulous – perhaps because it is already so well entrenched as a political construct in the existing scholarship on this period. Hölkeskamp's conceptualisation of ‘political culture’ remains a touchstone throughout (K.-J. Hölkeskamp, Reconstructing the Roman Republic. An Ancient Political Culture and Modern Research [2010]). Further, and given the background of the editors and the project, it is likely that the political connotations inherent in the German ‘Kultur’ – instead of the more anthropological basis of the modern English ‘culture’ – complicate matters as well, as noted by another reviewer (J.E. Lendon, Historische Zeitschrift 319 [2024], 371–4). The closest the editors seem to come to defining ‘culture’ is as ‘a whole set of novel structures of perception and collective as well as individual self-description’ (p. 18). However, it is noteworthy that they pair ‘political communication’ with ‘bellum civile’ in the title of the book. There remains, therefore, a strong political and institutional bias.
These points should not take away from what the volume offers as a whole or from the excellent arguments presented in the individual contributions. The first section, ‘Political and Social Repercussions of Civil War’, begins with a very useful chapter by H. Mitchell, who explores the concept and, indeed, even the possibility of elite neutrality in the Civil Wars, using the case study of Cicero in 49 bce (with excellent context going back to Sulla). This is followed by C.H. Lange's thought-provoking analysis of how naval triumphs did (and did not) fit into elite self-representation in this period, and then Welch's stand-out offering, illustrating the vitally important role of elite women in crafting and maintaining social memory.
The second section, notionally entitled ‘Shaping the Memory of Civil War’, is one of the more eclectic sections. It starts with Russell's discussion of the spaces of civil war, presenting a compelling argument for how many features of the urban landscape would have become significant lieux de mémoire simply due to the events that transpired there. Rosillo-López deals with family memories, connecting with Welch's chapter from the previous section (one of the few notable examples of internal connections in the volume), using the case study of Labienus. H.I. Flower and Gotter round out the section, both looking at literary texts, the former reconstructing P. Rutilius Rufus’ De vita sua and the latter reinterpreting Caesar's Bellum Civile.
The third section, ‘A Transformation of Norms and Values?’, starts off as one of the more cohesive in the collection. It begins with Havener's discussion on exemplarity, exploring how traditional exempla may have worked in exceptional times. F. Santangelo discusses Roman pietas, taking a novel line of argument and demonstrating how important this traditional virtue was in maintaining relationships in this period of social stress and tension. K. Morrell tackles Roman legal culture, showing how vital legal traditions were, particularly when the laws and norms associated with them were being broken. Maschek's chapter, although excellent, is something of an outlier in this set (and the volume), focusing on material culture and offering (rather grisly) examples of the turmoil and violence of civil wars from outside of Rome and Roman elite society.
The final section, ‘A Language of Civil War’, begins with Börm's study of stasis and the impact of Hellenistic literary and historical traditions on the Romans’ conception of what was occurring in the late Republic. C. Steel discusses how Roman orators in the period from 133 to 88 bce framed and discussed the tensions and violence of their period, highlighting their innovative use of specific terms and phrases. The volume ends with M. Cadario's discussion of Roman statuary, using the examples of Pompey, Caesar and Augustus to show how Roman portraiture was utilised in this political context.
Each of the chapters in the collection is well-written, useful and compelling. There are some minor typos and editorial inconsistencies throughout; but, in general, the quality of the expression and editing is good. Indeed, the editors do an excellent job of giving the contributions a relatively consistent voice throughout, despite the varied backgrounds (and original languages) of the contributors.
In sum, while superficially disparate, the chapters of this volume come together to present an interesting kaleidoscope. Returning to the question posed by both the title of the volume and the introduction, this reader was not sure whether it illustrates a ‘culture of civil war’ or rather ‘culture through civil war’. The volume certainly offers an absorbing discussion of the various ways in which core aspects and tensions within Roman society were revealed during the Civil War period and the ways in which Roman authors grappled with the particular and problematic concept of bellum civile. If ‘culture’ is defined quite tightly as ‘political communication’, one could arguably see some coherent themes emerging – the importance of family, of shared spaces, of shared ideals, of shared legal institutions etc. – in helping Roman elites navigate these tumultuous times. However, none of these were new in the Civil War period. Indeed, their stability and longevity are part of what granted them increased importance in this period. Whether this shifting emphasis in political communication amounts to a new ‘culture’ is uncertain and probably depends on how one would define that. However, it is, ultimately, an interesting question to ask – and the editors and contributors should be lauded for doing so, and in such an interesting way.
