Empire without Alternative? Autocratic Power and Inevitability in the early Roman Empire
Name of applicant
Aske Damtoft Poulsen
Institution
Bristol University
Amount
DKK 1,291,547
Year
2020
Type of grant
Reintegration Fellowships
What?
My project offers the first in-depth analysis of whether one-man rule was perceived as inevitable by Roman historians in the early Roman Empire (31BCE-CE117). While imperial ideology, for sure, promoted the idea that one-man rule was the only alternative, there were other voices, too, other historians. Their works, however, have not been read with the approach required to grasp how alternatives to autocracy - i.e. alternatives to the course of events that came to pass - may be activated in historical texts, especially those written under the watchful eye of an emperor. Inspired by recent work on the use of literary devices that activate so-called "futures past", I will explore how alternatives to autocracy are activated (or shut down) in historical texts from the early Empire.
Why?
The inevitability of one-man rule in Rome after the civil wars of the Late Republic was long taken for granted by historians. Consequently, it was generally assumed that the Romans of the Empire were trapped in a world devoid of alternatives, in which autocracy was perceived as an inevitable fact of life. Although this assumption still exerts a powerful influence, it has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. This scrutiny, however, has only partially manifested itself in a reconsideration of the perceptions of the Romans themselves. There is still a lack of research on alternatives to one-man rule in literature from the imperial period, where the assumption still appears to be that such alternatives were inconceivable. This assumption needs to be investigated more critically.
How?
I will put the political horizons of imperial writers under scrutiny by undertaking philological analyses of historical texts. I will explore (i) how the idea of inevitability functions within the imperial truth regime, esp. how failure to acknowledge the inevitability of one-man rule is equated with political incompetence or even treason: and (ii) how alternatives to one-man rule are activated (or shut down) in historical texts, esp. how literary devices may activate alternative (unrealised) futures: debates highlight the decisions with which historical agents grappled, introspection reveals expectations, the relation of rumours implies other possibilities, "Beinahe-episodes" suggest that other outcomes were possible, and explicit counterfactuals develop such outcomes.