Cassie
In approaching the complex book of Revelation, Christopher Frilingos takes an alternative take on interpretation. The integration of ancient theory with post-colonial philosophy brings together an intricate argument that shows the reader to approach the book as a cultural product of the Roman Empire as well as situate it within contemporary thought in regards to defining world and self (5). Beginning with the foundation set in the theories of Foucalt, Said and Bhabha in regards to power relations. These relations of dominance and subordination serve as the leading theme of Roman cultural products. Frilingos then goes on to describe how he hopes to “complicate nearly all hierarchical pairs – emperor/God and subjects, masculinity and effeminacy, viewed and viewer” within the rest of the book (13). After setting the backdrop for the power influences, Frilingos launches into his primary argument in complicating hierarchies. Each chapter further addresses these hierarchies beginning with emperor/civilian structures of the Roman spectacle and proceeding to arguments about sexuality and masculinity/femininity as related to the images in Revelation. He then pairs these topics with culturally relevant Greco-Roman myths to further support his position in critiquing these power hierarchies described through the complex imagery of Revelation. An example of this is describing the Greek myth of Daphnis and Chloe to introduce the reader to the cultural setting of the world in which Revelation was written (67). In doing so, the reader has a better understanding of the world behind the text and can delve into the complexities of the world within the text. I appreciated Frilingos’ unique approach to the complex material of Revelation. The interweaving of the worlds behind, in and in front of the texts through modern philosophical thought and Greco-Roman myths applied to the text was an incredibly intelligent way. By using this holistic approach to describe the power of spectacle, Frilingos shows how the image of a new heaven is “not an empire of warriors but one of viewers” (120). The roles of spectacle and spectator strengthen this argument through relating to other power dichotomies such as gender, sexuality and beasts. Revelation can be concluded through Frilingos’ argument to be an account that engages the audience outside the text with the world in the text using images to evoke spectacles. These representations of power serve to mold individual identities and also shape the societies in which the book of Revelation is interpreted. Ben Oglesby
Spectacles of Empire by Christopher Frilingos analyses the book of revelations in a novel way that I have not seen before. Saying of other analyses “Many scholars, seeking to understand the book in it's original context, have concluded that the shrill tone and misanthropic outlook of the Apocalypse reflected the fears or early Christians, a beleaguered minority in an environment hostile to the new religious movement.”(1). Frilingos dismisses this claim, and goes on to try and prove that the book, “ permitted its audience to do what Mediterranean populations under the empire had already been trained to do: gaze on a threatening “Other””(1-2). Meaning that, this book was not simply a rebellious lash at the Roman context it was written in, but rather, it was a continuation of contemporary themes that attempted to otherize the Romans and use their same tradition of spectacle to show their eventual downfall. For a short summary, Frilingos states that his interpretation relies heavily on the work of Michael Foucault, Edward Said, and Homi K. Bhabba. He draws the production of knowledge and discourse from Foucalt, Orientalism from Said, and mimicry from Bhabba to form the basis of his analysis. From establishing his critical origins Frlingos then goes on to provide context of the Roman spectacle and it's use for generating power in the ancient world. From that initial context Frilingos goes on to talk about gender in the book of revelations and how that interacted with the traditional Roman power structure. To sum up his ideas, Frilingos closes the book with this; “The appeal of the Apocalypse, I have argued, must be located here, in the power of spectacle. For all its martial imagery, the new heavens and new earth that Revelation finally envisions is is not an empire of warriors, but one of viewers.... Far from spining an original yarn, Revelation tells a version of an already popular tale about spectacle and spectators. And this was a story that subjects of the Roman Empire loved, for they new it well.”(120) Frilingos analysis of the book is not that it is some revolutionary book of an oppressed people desperate to be free of Roman culture, but rather it appropriates common Roman ideas and themes into itself. Brynn Grossman
Frilingos’s analysis of the Book of Revelation goes beyond that of Koester and others, who label it as simply “resistance literature” (Frilingos 12). Koester noticed the functional purpose of the text as a message of condemnation and/or hope to its first century readers, and as a way to “influence the way his readers live in the present”, partially through depicting how not to act (Koester 162). Frilingos takes that idea a step further. He acknowledges the power of a comparison to the “other” for identity building (2), yet argues that at the same time, the text is a product of Roman culture and reflects many of its norms and values (5). And even that idea is further complicated through his picking apart of the masculine/feminine, powerful/powerless, and monster/martyr dichotomies, which are assumed to be static, but as Frilingos argues, they can overlap and mix together. That sounds really confusing; I’m not sure that I have any idea what I’m talking about. Well, furthermore, while Koester’s analysis treats Revelation as a simple guidebook, Frilingos sees the value of it in its ambiguities, and views it as a tool for self-mastery and self-definition, acknowledging that the path to ideal faith is a “great challenge” of one’s self-control. Frilingos mainly focuses on the spectacle narrative of Revelation and its relationship to the “viewing culture” of the Roman Empire. The extraordinary characters and events of Revelation are meant to attract attention and shock the “extratextual audience”, either to challenge their strength to resist the power of the evil other, and also to scrutinize themselves (93). The textual spectators give clues as to how one should react to the story, revealing the right direction (59). But the extratextual audience, like everyone else (excluding God), is not only the viewer; they are also the objects of the gaze. Their power is never absolute, like that of the Emperor who is dependent on presenting himself as an example for the behavior of the entire empire (20). God’s power and his viewer-viewee ratio is totally unchangeable, setting him and his law far above the emperor and the rules of man. Frilingos notes Philo’s belief, that there is a “link between the eyes and the soul” (39). Within the vast Empire of the first century, one can give a convincing or honorable performance, however that may be done, that person has the power to change his or her audience’s true feelings. Like the Emperor, who cannot control his subjects by force alone and must resort to propaganda and “producing knowledge” and psychological warfare, the Book of Revelation, the minority Christians and even God cannot physically force someone into honest faith and practice. With subtle guidance the Book of Revelation causes its readers to ask tough questions and grow from those experiences. Jerome Jacobson
In his book, Spectacles of Empire, Christopher Frilingos attempts to offer a new perspective for reading the book of Revelation in a scholarly context. In the opening pages of his study, he notes how a large portion of the research conducted on Revelation has cast the text and the Roman Empire in oppositional terms (6). Frilingos disagrees with this reading of John and his community, and for the rest of his book he suggests that Revelation should be viewed as participating in the popular ancient imperial preoccupations with viewing and the achievement of masculinity. Essentially the overall argument is that, like several other texts written in the context of first century Roman Empire, Revelation engaged in modes of “imperial” and “sexual” viewing in order to Orientalize Rome as the other and demasculinize the great opponent to Christians. After first reading Frilingos’ study of Revelation, it was difficult for me to identify what exactly he had proved by the end. Much of this confusion I feel has been mostly due to a narrowly focused, chapter by chapter reading of his arguments. By stepping back and taking a macro view of his book, the logic behind Frilingos’ arguments becomes clearer and his thesis more convincing. Chapter 2 builds the foundation and establishes the overall context of an Empire engaged in spectacles, which ties in to every facet of Frilingos’ thesis. Chapters 3 and 4 then set out to define individually the meanings of imperial and sexual viewing. In each of these chapters, Frilingos frames the discussion by examining a text that was written in the context of first century Rome, and he explains how that text demonstrates a certain mode of viewing. He then turns later in the chapter to demonstrating how Revelation, like the other texts written under first century Roman rule, participates similarly in imperial or sexual viewing. For example, in chapter 3 he illustrates imperial viewing through Phlegon’s Book of Marvels by showing that the text produced knowledge by making the curiosities of the world into and exhibition (45). The rest of the chapter focuses on establishing how certain parts of revelation (the two witnesses, the whore of Babylon) also engage in this imperial viewing. Overall, I find that the most valuable accomplishment of Frilingos’ study is his comparison of texts that are not commonly contrasted when reading Revelation. Never would I have thought to do a side by side reading of Daphnis and Chloe and Revelation, which is the main focus of Chapter 4. Yet from this comparison it becomes clear that John’s portrayal of the Lamb relates directly to the penetration grid, while at the same time also complicating it (76). Seeing the Lamb of Revelation as an imperial spectacle that engages in the popular ancient preoccupation of achieving masculinity is a reading that I would never have conducted on my own accord. Thus, while Frilingos can sometimes get caught up in pursuing seemingly unimportant ideas and explaining them in unnecessarily difficult terms, the overall insights of his book do in fact offer a relevant and original view of Revelation and the context in which it was written. Jenna Landry Jenna Landry
Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs and the Book of Revelation by Christopher Frilingos took me on a trip through the Roman Empire and how it influenced social culture, citizens lives and writings during its triumphant reign. Frilingos told of influences by Greo-Roman myths and tales while also explaining the possible influences those had upon the author of the Book of Revelation. This book had readers begin to understand Revelation as a Roman book by taking a stab at understanding the spectacle the Roman Empire put on and how the empire itself became a spectacle that was put upon a stage for citizens to eventually criticize. It also calls attention to how people are viewed as the “other” and what that really means as well as calling attention to visual culture and gender in society as a whole especially how these had a major influence on Revelation. Frilingos began his understanding from Focault’s reasoning behind the power of authority, which exists when people engage one another because people can produce knowledge of what is the “truth” thus giving them authority and then constitutes what is know by others as the “real truth”. Frilingos then turns that reasoning towards Said and “orientalism”, which has become on of the ways the West identifies “the other” like naming something because we have control over it. From Said, Frilingos turns to Bhabha and the idea of “mimicry”. “Mimicry is still in category of the “the other” which can mimic the colonizer in a good or bad way. With the understanding of these three major players, Frilingos began to unfold his own theories and ideas about the Roman Empire and its spectacle. One of the most interesting themes, to me, was the role of the “other”, “the self” and the spectacle. The Roman imperial system puts themselves upon display by hosting all the visual dominance of Roman Power. One of the most predominate visuals put on by the Empire is the mass killings by the gladiators towards exotic animals and even people. From this spectacle, Frilingos describes how the empire turns itself into the spectacle and lets “the other” criticize. Then he continues to say that people in Revelation watch the spectacle as we watch them watch the spectacle. He said that this is like many Greek novels that were circulating during the time the book was written. As the book continues, Frilingos beings to identify the gender roles present in the Book of Revelation especially towards the Lamb and the beasts. These characters tended to challenge and play on different qualities that would normally characterize masculinity and femininity. He talks about the penetrated lamb and how symbolizes feminine qualities yet it rules and brings the wrath that would normal bee seen as masculine, like breaking the seals. In all, Frilingos has had a huge impact upon my understanding not just of the Book of Revelation but also on the Roman Empire as a whole. He was able to incorporate many Greco-Roman pieces of literature as well as social commentary as whole to better help understand what was really happening during the Roman Imperial reign. At times this text was hard to understand as someone who has not been exposed to Foucault, Said and Bhabha and the book has some missing links here and there but overall the entire book helped me understand Roman spectacle and the Empire it was in. Jerome Jacobson
Frilingos’ rehearsal of scholarship is a bit confusing at first, especially since I had little prior experience with “postcolonial methodology.” One aspect of Frilingos’ approach is crystal clear in that he does not wish contest or disprove the existing scholarship on the appeal of revelation. He does not argue against the theories that apocalyptic elements were an integral component of early Christianity, but he does contest that these are the only elements that matter for grasping the appeal of Revelation (6). To put forth his argument, he calls on the theoretical insights of Foucault, Said, and Bhabha. Foucault argues that power does not proceed top down, but is relational and established through discourse (9). Said uses much of Foucault’s concepts on discourse in his study of the effects of representation in the context of imperialism. The important aspect that Frilingos draws from these postcolonial theorists is the questioning of cultural authority. “What produces, what counts for, and what sanctions knowledge in a given society?” (11). Frilingos calls upon Bhabha to show that the relationship between the dominant and subaltern is interdependent, and that this relationship has a fragmenting effect on the identities of both. As we have discussed before in this class, Rome was an extremely visual empire. The joke has been made that one couldn’t walk five feet in first century Rome without being exposed to some form of propaganda or visual image. Frilingos asserts the constant interaction with these visual images has a direct relationship with identity in the Roman Empire. One example he gives is the Ara Pacis, and how its images enforce the paterfamilias mentality. The babies on the south face of the frieze represent the subjects of the paternalistic empire, and Augustus is the fatherly example to be looked up to (21). In this way the Ara Pacis “produced” the knowledge that Roman citizens are part of a large scale paternalistic relationship. Frilingos enforces this theme of visually produced knowledge by describing the physical images in the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias. Even though the viewer didn’t have explicit knowledge about the places depicted in the images at the temple, the imperial shrine produced knowledge of the unknown for the audience, trading on the compelling strangeness of outlandish people (26). Frilingos makes an interesting observation throughout the chapter that there is a constant shifting relationship of viewer to viewed, and back to viewer again (21). The importance of this observation stems from Foucault’s theory that power relations are never given and set in stone, but are rather active discourses. Roman citizens viewed the example of their emperor, but in turn the become the spectacle by whether or not they live out that example in their own life. Cassie
I. Power and Authority The first chapter of Frilingos introduces the reader to the philosophy behind the visual culture of Rome that will be explored in depth throughout the book. The collective sense of alienation that was felt by Christians and is represented in the book of Revelation are explored in the context of the scholarly works of Said, Foucault and Bhabha. Said’s work on Orientalism is introduced to familiarize the reader with the “Other”. This othering is described in relation to the Roman gaze that is used as a form of domination over the marginal groups (2). Frilingos states that the “Other” is used to produce knowledge through the use of biblical imagery throughout Revelation (8). In addressing the other, Said drew upon the conceptual discourse of Michel Foucault. These discourses in power and hierarchy govern the production of knowledge and truth within the society (9). Foucault’s analysis on societal structures of family and sexuality shows this power in knowledge production as they engender the realness of the social formations. Postcolonial thought in Said’s Orientalism showed the interdependence of dominant and subaltern effects that power has on the formation of these societal identities. While his focus is on this interdependence, Bhabha’s analysis draws on the ambivalence that characterizes the power within the imperial cult (10). Frilingos uses this to focus on the subjectivity in the viewer becoming viewed within the Roman spectacle of life. By drawing upon these three scholars, the author sets the stage for the critically analyzing the gaze of the Roman Empire. II. Visual Culture Ara Pacis asserts the visual authority that the Roman emperor had over ancient Roman society. The constant reminder and gaze of the altar serves to show the power that the emperor has at all times. This gaze is not just unidirectional as Frilingos argues, it is a balance of seeing and being seen (15). By maintaining this balance, the emperor can perform for society to show his glory and power but also assert it by gazing at the people through a variety of visual forms. Imperial shrines and spectacles in addition to altars show different ways that Rome used it’s visual culture as means of control and assertion of power. These displays cement the ideals citizens were held to by gladiator displays, exotic animal fights or public executions. Additionally the gaze could focus on articulate orators that solidified the physiognomic ideals Roman society held people to. These factors show the scholarly works described above within the Roman Empire. By seeing and being seen, a spectator is removed from a passive role and place into an active role. This active role is perpetuated throughout the spectacle that the emperor emphasizes through this Roman imperium paradigm (21). Visual authority defines the art of the spectacle in effectively asserting the power of the emperor. |