The Two Eyes of the Earth: Art and Ritual of Kingship between Rome and Sasanian Iran by Matthew P. Canepa (review)

Reviewed by: The Two Eyes of the Earth: Art and Ritual of Kingship between Rome and Sasanian Iran by Matthew P. Canepa Marica Cassis Matthew P. Canepa. The Two Eyes of the Earth: Art and Ritual of Kingship between Rome and Sasanian Iran. University of California Press, 2009. Pp. xx + 425. CDN $60.50. ISBN 9780520257276. Too often the history of the Late Antique world has been approached either as the history of individual societies or has been generalized into an all encompassing period with little discussion of regional variation or individualism. Late Antique history is not, however, so straightforward, and has to be seen as the history of interaction – political, religious, diplomatic, and cultural. Matthew P. Canepa’s The Two Eyes of the Earth is an excellent work which provides a close reading of the literary and art historical evidence for Late Roman/early Byzantine and Sasanian interaction in order to illustrate that as the two groups developed more theologically based ideas of kingship, they came to see that “the king mediated between heaven and earth.” (1: Introduction). Further, they increasingly both compared themselves and competed with one another (1), an element made visible in the art and architecture of the respective communities. Canepa rightly draws attention to the fact that “the Sasanian and Roman sovereigns encountered each other’s cultural and ideological goods, expressed competitive claims, observed the resulting interchange, and ultimately remodeled themselves in response to these visual and ritual assertions” (3). In doing so, Canepa advocates for a new methodology for the study of this period – one that couches the interaction of these two empires within the theoretical [End Page 139] perspectives of context and agency (2-4). Having established this as his methodology, Canepa then uses it to frame the evolving nature of the contact between these groups. Chapter 2, “The Art and Ritual of Kingship within and between Rome and Sasanian Iran,” (7-33) sets up both the theoretical focus of the book – that “[t]hrough art and ritual, Roman and Sasanian sovereigns could communicate complex, multivalent, even contradictory, messages about their identity” (8). Canepa uses this chapter to introduce readers to the multiple ways in which cultural concepts were passed between the civilizations – including diplomacy and trade, as well as more traditional means, such as warfare and prisoner exchange. The chapter is significant in that it indicates just how much interaction there was between these groups. Chapter 3, “The Lure of the Other and the Limits of the Past” (34-52), acknowledges that both empires drew on earlier interpretations of the other, or Canepa’s “cultural memory” (39, for example). The Romans drew on their idealized “barbarian figure”, which had its origins in the various conflicts with the Parthians, while the Sasanians saw themselves as heirs to the Achaemenid past – not specifically in relation to the Romans, but rather in relation to their own position as a universal empire. With Chapter 4, “Šāpūr I, King of Kings of Iran and Non-Iran,” (53-78), Canepa illustrates how and when the Sasanians deliberately began to see and depict themselves in relation to the Romans. Chapter 5, “Rome’s Troubled Third Century and the Emergence of a New Equilibrium,” (79-99), introduces Rome’s response to the rising Sasanian power base. In both chapters, Canepa draws largely on imagery to demonstrate that both groups were encountering the art and architecture of the other and were incorporating these elements into their respective traditions. For the Sasanians, this reflected their contemporary understanding of the Romans, as well as their dominance of them (55-59;78), while for the Romans this was often a direct response to these assertions of dominance (93). With Chapter 6, “Contested Images of Sacral Kingship and New Expressions of Triumph” (100-121), Canepa shows that, while initially both empires responded to each other primarily on the levels of conquest and power, by the fourth century, a new era featured more highly developed senses of the divine right of kingship and empire in both regions (as both Christianity and Zoroastrianism took on more formalized roles) and in relation to one another. As Canepa says, “the earthly empire functioned as an icon of a...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.