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.
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.