Julie Langford's Maternal Megalomania analyses the rôle played by Septimius Severus' wife, Julia Domna, in the régime's image-making policies. L. is not interested in recovering the ‘real’ Julia, an undertaking which she recognizes is unattainable. Instead, L. examines how the empress's position as the biological mother of Caracalla and Geta, and the metaphorical mother of the army, the Senate and the Roman people, was promulgated by the administration and interpreted throughout the Empire (3–5). L.'s argument that the empress's image was largely manipulated by men is plausible, but many of the conclusions designed to support this over-arching thesis are undermined by methodological problems.

Ch. 1 examines Domna's position as Mater Castrorum, a title previously awarded to Faustina the Younger. L. argues that this title was not directed at the army, but at the civilian population of the Empire (23–4). The idea that this title, like the honorifics of the emperors themselves, was intended for a wide and diverse audience, is not inherently implausible. However, L.'s use of the epigraphic evidence to argue that the army was unreceptive to Domna as Mater Castrorum is problematic. Her research reveals that soldiers dedicated only 6 per cent of inscriptions featuring Domna. We are provided with no indication as to how this compares with other empresses in order to determine whether or not it is exceptional. Furthermore, L. states that 77 per cent of the inscriptions use the title Mater Castrorum, which she characterizes as ‘hardly an enthusiastic outpouring of esteem’ (24). This percentage seems to indicate that when soldiers referred to Domna, they did in fact use her title more often than not. In the latter part of this chapter, L. proposes (42–4) that Domna was unpopular with the army, based solely on one remark attributed to the tribune Julius Crispus by Cassius Dio (76.10.2). This relationship is said to have improved after Severus' death, since the military was now more willing to honour Domna, particularly her pietas (44–7). In support of this argument, L. cites only two inscriptions from Britain (RIB 976; AE 1980, 603), which is insufficient support for such a broad conclusion.

In ch. 2, L. analyses the empress's maternal image in the city of Rome itself, arguing that she received a mixed reception (50). L. turns to coin hoards, which Carlos Noreña (Imperial Ideals in the Roman West (2011)) and Clare Rowan (Under Divine Auspices (2012)) have effectively used to examine the circulation of imperial ideals throughout the Empire. However, having presented this methodology, L. largely eschews its potential. She instead focuses on one coin hoard found in Rome itself, the Via Tritone hoard, which was buried after a.d. 244. There are only seventy-five coins of Domna in the hoard, the most common type being PIETAS PVBLICA, with a mere ten coins. Since the empress's ‘maternal’ types such as MATER AVGG, with the Magna Mater, do not feature in this hoard, L. argues that these types ‘were not so well circulated in Rome’ (74). But can we really make such a broad argument about the reception of the empress's image on the basis of only seventy-five coins, from one hoard buried long after the empress's death?

L.'s use of the epigraphic evidence is equally problematic. She argues that the ‘administration was not always consistent in using all the titles the empress had been officially awarded’ (79). But this is based on only three inscriptions, two of which do in fact use Domna's full titles. L. uncovers variation in the way in which her titles were recorded in inscriptions erected by other individuals and groups. This could have been improved by greater discussion of the contexts in which the inscriptions appear. For example, L. notes that Domna's titulature is recorded in full on a marble tablet in the schola of the kalatores (79). But what of the other inscriptions? Were they on statue bases? If so, what was their size, and how did this affect the amount of room for recording the titles? Without discussion of the context, it seems unjustified to argue that the Romans had a mixed reaction to Domna's maternal image because of the ‘inaccuracy and apparent carelessness’ in the way her titles were recorded (83).

Ch. 3 argues that the ‘maternal propaganda’ about Domna was not positively received by the Senate. However, after Severus' death, the curia turned to her as an ‘ally and peacemaker’ in the conflict between Caracalla and Geta (86–7). Some of the evidence for senatorial hostility, such as Domna's omission from the Severan arch in the Roman forum, is very tentative (102–3). L. is on firmer ground in other areas, such as her thought-provoking comparison of Domna's forceful coin types with the more ‘intimate’ representations of Faustina the Younger (104–7). The argument that the award of the Mater Senatus and Mater Patriae titles in 211 was a desperate measure on the Senate's part to secure Domna's support is interesting, though without firm evidence to back it up (111–12). Indeed, this move need not have represented the dramatic about face that L. presents. Could it not instead have been a way of showing honour and respect to a grieving widow? There was certainly precedent for this with Livia, as L. herself notes (136).

Overall, this book represents an ambitious take on the public image of Julia Domna, but the numismatic and epigraphic evidence does not always support its conclusions.