This timely monograph is a revised version of Adrastos Omissi's 2013 dissertation, which seeks to understand the phenomenon of usurpation in the later Roman Empire (specifically a.d. 284–395) via a detailed examination of the oft maligned genre of imperial panegyric. The chronological scope is well chosen, as the political character of the post-395 period was significantly different, thanks to the rise of ‘child emperors’.
From the beginning O. is careful to note that his work is not a history of usurpation (ix) or a detailed exploration of the ‘mechanics’ of usurpation (for that one must look to J. Szidat's magisterial Usurpator tanti nominis (2010)), but instead a careful examination of the strategies of legitimisation, and indeed demonisation, of imperial rivals, revealed in the (near) contemporary narratives of panegyric.
The monograph is divided into two main parts. Part 1 is only two chapters long, but sets out the raison d’être for the project. Ch. I provides an overview of the basis of imperial power and just why the imperial succession process was so prone to civil war and the phenomenon of usurpation. O. comes to the conclusion that two criteria mark a ‘usurper’: being declared emperor while another emperor is still ruling without receiving the express consent of that ruler, and taking power in the wake of an imperial assassination in which they played a role (34). He also makes the extremely important point that imperial ‘legitimacy’ was an extremely fluid concept that lacked any real theoretical basis, but instead relied upon the ever shifting and extremely brutal power realities of imperial politics. In short, ‘legitimacy’ was the preserve of anyone strong enough to claim it. Illegitimacy, and usually the posthumous charge of being a ‘tyrannus’, was reserved for the defeated — no matter their actual status.
Ch. II is, as O. himself acknowledges, the most important of the entire work, as it seeks to justify the choice of panegyric as the medium to explore civil war and usurpation. In this chapter O. carefully defends his decision, noting that usurpation is a key interest for panegyrists and that panegyric is ‘an authentic contemporary voice’ (49) that represents ‘the ideas and ideology of a given moment which have not been made to conform to a later reality’ (48–9). Generally, O.’s argument that panegyric, despite its inherent challenges, remains uniquely positioned as a tool for understanding the phenomenon of usurpation is persuasive, particularly as he avoids the simplistic idea that panegyrists were fed information directly from the emperor and that speeches were vetted ahead of time (56).
Part 2 (chs III–X and a conclusion) forms the bulk of the monograph and examines the phenomenon of usurpation between 284 and 395 via the available panegyrical evidence. This investigation is undertaken chronologically, starting with the so called ‘British Empire’ of Carausius and Allectus and the civil wars of the later tetrarchy (Maximian's abortive rebellion against Constantine and the clash between Maxentius and Constantine), before addressing the turmoil that beset the House of Constantine, including the conflict between Constantine II and Constans and the usurpations of Magnentius, Vetranio and Julian. O. then tackles the unique circumstances of Jovian's accession in 363 and the usurpations of Procopius (365–366) and Magnus Maximus (383–388) against members of the House of Valentinian.
O. completes his study with a chapter detailing the political situation in the fifth-century empire and justifying, on both textual and historical grounds, his decision not to continue his narrative beyond 395. In a short conclusion O. reminds the reader that for every emperor ‘the need to demonstrate and aggressively assert legitimacy was a real one and the results of a failure to do so fatal’ (302), and that panegyric represents these imperial efforts in real time. Importantly, he makes the crucial point that the difference between a usurper and a ‘legitimate’ emperor was created not in the abstract, but by the cold, hard reality of military victory: ‘some men were made tyrants by the victories of others’ (306).
O. is careful to go beyond simply using the well-trodden examples of the genre such as the Panegyrici Latini and the orations of Themistius, and he makes good use of Julian's panegyrics dedicated to Constantius II, those of Symmachus to Valentinian I, and Ausonius’ Gratiarum Actio.
The biggest drawback of O.’s singular focus on panegyric as evidence for usurpation is that he is forced to almost completely ignore the revolt of Eugenius and Arbogast (392–394), an episode for which we have no extant panegyrical evidence beyond a few tangential references in the work of Claudian. Given the significance of this usurpation to the period itself and the impact it would have on the course of imperial politics in the fifth century, it is a notable omission.
The monograph is clearly written and generally free of spelling mistakes and other typographical errors. However, on multiple pages (49, 81, 82 and 84) the emperor Maximian is inexplicably referred to as ‘Maximus’. Likewise, O. notes (72) that Constantine led 40,000 men into Italy against Magnentius, where clearly he means Maxentius.
Overall, this is a very welcome work that deftly handles a vital yet contentious collection of source material in order to provide fresh perspectives on, and a greater understanding of, a phenomenon that in many ways shaped the expression of imperial power in the later Roman Empire.
