Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire

Ando, Clifford

doi:10.1525/9780520923720

Cited by 124 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Partiality is inherent also in the case of nested loyalties . Here, loyalty works like Russian Matruska dolls: loyalty to B is part of a broader loyalty to C, which in turn may be part of loyalty towards an even broader D. In the context of the Roman Empire, for instance, Cicero described a hierarchy of loyalties towards family, province and other collectives with loyalty towards Rome at the very top (Ando, 2000: 11–12, 45). But while loyalty to the Roman Empire did not preclude loyalties to self-ruling communities and provinces forming part of that empire, it did of preclude loyalties to enemies of Rome.…”

Section: Loyalty As Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loyalty in world politics

Poulsen

2020

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loyalty is part of the glue that holds relationships together in times of difficulty. Surprisingly, however, hardly any literature exists on the role of loyalty in International Relations. The concept is routinely invoked – not least the notion of the ‘loyal ally’ – but typically only in passing and often based on questionable assumptions about the nature and effect of loyalty. Building on literature in moral philosophy on the ethics of loyalty, this paper presents loyalty as persistently partial behaviour driven by affective attachments. Such attachments are, in turn, driven mainly by a sense of shared social identity but also the interaction between subjects and objects of loyalty. I show how this understanding of loyalty differs from how most political scientists use the concept and illustrate why it matters for the study of world politics.

show abstract

Section: Loyalty As Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loyalty in world politics

Poulsen

2020

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 12 Ep. 760 and 1106; Ando 2000: 127–8; Heather and Moncur 2001: 28 suggest various passages where Themistius was briefed; on Claudian as Stilicho's propagandist, Cameron 1970.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Panegyric and the Discourse of Praise in Late Antiquity

Ware

2019

J. Rom. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although a panegyric can be defined very simply as a speech of praise, it is no longer assumed that praise is also its sole function. What that function might be, however, continues to preoccupy scholarship. Generalisations can be made, but even a nuanced judgement such as ‘every encomium is at once a literary work, a moral problem, and a social rite’ (Pernot, Epideictic Rhetoric, ix) can be challenged by the particular: ‘there is no system and there never was. There is circumstance, preference and ambiguity’. The question is further complicated by the evolution of a rhetoric of praise, related to but independent of the formal panegyric, which came to characterise the literature of Late Antiquity and beyond. The questions, therefore, of what a panegyric is and what it is for are highly relevant to modern scholarship, not only to commentaries but, as is apparent from the books under review, to studies of rhetoric, late antique historiography and the creation of the imperial image.

show abstract

“… 19 For discussion of this point, see Ando (2000) 215–28; Noreña (2011) 191–92; Hekster (2015) 30–32.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 127 For orators seeking out information to include in panegyrics, see Ando (2000) 126–28. On the difficulties in ascertaining the extent to which the panegyrists were briefed, see Nixon (1983) 91–93.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Carausius and His Brothers: The Construction and Deconstruction of an Imperial Image in the Late Third Century AD

Davenport

2019

Antichthon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the public image of the emperor Carausius, a Roman army officer who claimed authority over Britain and parts of Gaul between 286 and 293, in opposition to Diocletian and his Tetrarchic colleagues. Carausius’ coinage celebrated his fleet, his naval prowess, and his divine support from Neptune and Oceanus. These designs were created as part of a strategy to refashion Carausius’ humble background as a sailor into a statement of imperial suitability. However, Carausius’ claims were undermined by the orators who delivered speeches in praise of his Tetrarchic rivals, Maximian and Constantius, in the years 289, 291, and 297. Their panegyrics subverted Carausius’ naval experience and claim to control the Ocean, instead portraying him as a pirate, brigand, and threat to the people of Gaul. After the reconquest of Britain, the medallions and monuments of the Tetrarchic regime commemorated their own naval success and control over the Ocean, suppressing the claims of Carausius. The propaganda campaign against Carausius was driven by the fact that he was an emperor of undistinguished origin, who had risen up through the ranks of the army, just like the Tetrarchs themselves. The emperors wished to distance themselves from their former colleague in order to discourage further rebellion from within the officer corps.

show abstract

Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire

Cited by 124 publications

References 0 publications

Loyalty in world politics

Loyalty in world politics

Panegyric and the Discourse of Praise in Late Antiquity

Carausius and His Brothers: The Construction and Deconstruction of an Imperial Image in the Late Third Century AD

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About