In the introduction C. presents this work as ‘the first comprehensive study of the narrative, structural and thematic patterns in Herodian's History of the Roman Empire’ (p. 1). C. focuses not only on Herodian's narratological technique of presentation of imperial history, but also upon readers’ engagement and response to it. These two related aspects are highlighted in the analysis of the prologue, where Herodian presents the subject matter of his work, the aim of which was to establish a pleasurable knowledge of truth. Despite the Thucydidean echoes found by scholars analysing Herodian's criticism of other historians and his purpose of searching for truth, C. also identifies differences between the two historians, such as the pleasure experienced by Herodian's readers, which was an important goal in his writing. In this sense C. underlines how, evoking Aristotle's theory, Herodian's writing of history is tragic: concentrating on the emotional engagement of readers, the historian refers in the prologue to the extraordinary events narrated, from the death of Marcus Aurelius to the accession of Gordian III.
The book is structured in five chapters dealing with the main topics of Herodian's work. Chapter 1, ‘Character Introductions’, examines how Herodian introduces emperors and usurpers, and analyses the impact of these literary portraits on the development of the plot and readers’ response to the characters. Chapter 2, ‘Accession Stories’, highlights the interconnections of these stories, explaining to readers the sources of imperial power. Chapter 3, ‘Warfare and Battle Narratives’, considers the recurring fixed and formulaic elements of ancient historiography in Herodian, particularly the function of battle scenes for the interpretation of individuals and events. Chapter 4, ‘Trans-Regnal Themes’, looks at specific patterns of political acts that cross various reigns and lend unity, such as the emperor's interaction with his surroundings, eunoia, imperial self-representation, theatricality and appearance. Chapter 5, ‘The Emperor's Finale’, presents the common patterns in the account of the emperor's death, with regard to the ideal of emperorship and imperial succession.
C. explains how Herodian's narrative strategies should not be interpreted as rhetorical embellishments, but as elements of historical interpretation. Following the scholars quoted in the introduction (H. Sidebottom, M. Zimmermann, T. Hidber, J. Ward, A. Kemezis, G. Andrews), who opened the field to the study of Herodian's narrative, albeit from different perspectives, C. systematically applies the current methods of narratology. According to C., patterning is the ‘way in which Herodian orders chaotic history’ (p. 19), a feature that characterises the subject of his book, making it ‘both distant and attractive’ for readers (p. 20). Particular attention is paid, first, to intratextual relationships between events and episodes and to the ever-recurring narrative patterns, secondly, to intertextuality: both are regarded as instruments of representation of historical reality.
It is clear that C.'s narratological approach can appear, at first sight, distant from the historical one, which sets out to investigate the historian's sources and to compare diverse evidence. Quellenforschung issues are not specifically addressed in the book; instead, literary analysis prevails, focusing on the reader's perspective. Intertextual links imply a particular cultural level of the audience and its ability to understand these relations, which sometimes turn out to be not wholly compelling. Thus, for instance, with regard to Marcus Aurelius, who invites his advisers to take care of his son as ‘fathers’ (1.4.4), C. mentions Tiberius’ adoption of Nero and Drusus and his recommendation of them to the senate, as related by Tacitus (Ann. 4.8.5): he identifies a possible intertextuality as readers may perceive Commodus as an unsuccessful heir, like Nero and Drusus. C. prudently presents this intertextual relationship as a hypothesis, specifying the difference between the two instances. Supposing that readers had knowledge of the quoted passage, they could at best have recalled the experienced practice of entrusting young imperial heirs to the protection of senators or advisers parentum loco.
Intratextuality is a more useful method that yields important results, and some examples show how this analysis can work for historical understanding. C. notes that each emperor is to be understood by readers as related to others and that the different episodes are linked by relationships of contrasts or comparisons. So, in the first accession story C. highlights the multiple interconnections between Marcus’ last speech before his death and Commodus’ first speech to the soldiers. He underlines that these relationships invite readers to link father and son and their reigns, and that they mirror the perspective of contemporaries, but the continuation of the plot encourages readers to evaluate the distance between the two men and between the ideal and the real emperor. We can see that Herodian's portrayal reflects the self-representation of Commodus supported by Marcus’ advisers for the purpose of legitimising the innovation of a young emperor born in the purple. Marcus is the positive model of leadership, and the pattern of analogies and antithesis between emperors is continuously applied. The instance of Pertinax is meaningful: the opening description of his character evokes Herodian's statements in the prologue about mature rulers and their political experience and suggests that the emperor is an embodiment of Marcus’ virtues, contrasting with Commodus’ youth and rule. For C., readers aware of Pertinax's short and unsuccessful reign are pushed to reflect upon the reasons for the fall of the virtuous emperor. The intratextual connections between the accession story and the death of the emperor provide a lesson on the responsibility of the praetorians in the demise of Pertinax. The different groups of Roman society (soldiers, populace and senate) are determining factors in the accession stories, and C. highlights how readers understand the characters perceived by these groups and the reasons for political shifts. The emotional state of the soldiers is crucial for readers in the recounting of many of the emperors’ deaths.
In Chapter 3, ‘Warfare and Battle Narratives’, much space is understandably reserved for the campaigns of Septimius Severus against his political rivals, together with his Eastern and British expeditions. The crux is the coherence of the emperor between speeches and actions, an element that differentiates him from Commodus. For C., in Herodian's pattern, the superior mental and physical skills of the emperor not only suggest to readers the key factor of military success, but also divine favour. Furthermore, since civil and foreign wars are represented by Herodian as a unit, readers are encouraged to consider them together as well. In this regard, we shall remember, on the one hand, the reference to ‘the mutable fortunes in civil and foreign wars’, indicated in the prologue as an element of the work, and on the other hand, the self-representation of the emperor, who in the Roman triumphal arch erected by the Senatus and the Populus Romanus is honoured for the defeat of rival claimants and the extension of the empire, and for civil and military virtues (CIL VI 1033). As stressed by C., glory and the erection of victory monuments recur as motifs supporting Severus’ acts in war. Severus’ visual narrative of victory gives us an important perspective; this helps us understand once again how Herodian reflects imperial ideology.
Theatricality is a pattern in Herodian's narrative, which C. carefully analyses and is prevalent when emperors, such as Commodus, Macrinus and Elagabal, lack any coherence in their political and moral behaviour. Often associated with the moral conduct of an emperor, appearance is interpreted in the same way, especially in the case of Maximinus, whose physical aspect corresponded to his savagery. These features, which again reveal Herodian's visual interest, are systematically evaluated; for they distinguish the course of the plot and at the same time illustrate historical causation.
C.'s book represents a reference point for scholars who intend to read Herodian from a specifically historical perspective. The narrative not only portrays the features of historiography as a literary genre, but also represents a methodological overview of recent research, illuminating Herodian's interpretation of a complex period. The structural framework of similarities and antitheses that characterise Herodian's text must be considered in order to evaluate the plausibility of his account. Not only does such an approach help to distinguish the events from the historian's interpretation, it also helps to verify how the self-representation of the emperors acted through different channels of communication. In this way C.'s volume provides an invaluable research tool.
