Why Rome Fell. Michael Arnheim. Читать онлайн. Newlib. NEWLIB.NET

Автор: Michael Arnheim
Издательство: John Wiley & Sons Limited
Серия:
Жанр произведения: История
Год издания: 0
isbn: 9781119691389
Скачать книгу
Later emperors had no such qualms. The jurist Ulpian (170–228) famously declared, Princeps legibus solutus est (The emperor is exempt from the laws or The emperor is not bound by the laws) although this is sometimes interpreted to refer only to the marriage laws. That narrow interpretation is almost certainly wrong because the historian Cassius Dio (155–235) makes it clear that the phrase legibus solutus exempts the emperor from all laws, but he dates this back to 24 BCE in the reign of Augustus, which, if true, is certainly not mentioned by either Tacitus or Suetonius.

      Another similar and equally famous formulation of imperial power, which is attributable to Ulpian, is, “Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem” (What pleases the emperor has the force of law), which is said to derive from the Lex de Imperio (the law defining an emperor’s power on his accession).

      Can such sweeping powers be traced back to the Lex de Imperio Vespasiani, the law defining the powers of Vespasian, on his accession in the year 69? Unfortunately, only the latter part of the inscription promulgating this law has survived. This law provides that any candidate for a magistracy or other position of importance who is “commended” by the emperor shall be given “special consideration”. There is also a blanket clause giving the emperor the “right and power” to execute anything that he considers to be “…in accordance with the public advantage and the dignity of divine and human and public and private interests” just as Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius had done. The exact scope of this power is not clear, but it is significant that it is said to have belonged to Augustus as well, and it would presumably have been granted to all subsequent emperors. (Ancient Roman Statutes, 1961, p. 149 f.)

      Here is a bird’s-eye view of some major developments leading from the Principate to the Dominate (See Arnheim 1972, p. 21 ff.):

       Before long, consuls appear to have been directly appointed by the emperor. (Tacitus, Histories, 1.772, 2.71.3);

       Starting in the early Principate, the Senate’s financial control was gradually eliminated. As an institution, the Senate was a mere cipher, happy to humor the emperor’s every whim. But the same does not apply to senators as individuals. For, though some important posts were now held by equestrians or even by freedmen (especially under Claudius), the great majority of high imperial appointments continued to be reserved for senators until the second half of the third century. But senatorial status was in the emperor’s gift, and emperors continually brought new blood into the Senate as we have seen. So the fact that most provincial governors were senators did not mean that these posts were reserved for the scions of old families;

       In the course of the third century, the old traditional framework was gradually abandoned, until by the end of the century, only very few posts of importance were open to senators. The tendency now was to bypass the Senate by appointing non-senators directly to a governorship without bothering to make them senators first;

       An ambiguous passage in Aurelius Victor has given rise to the belief that senators were deprived of military commands from the reign of Gallienus (260–68) onward (Aurelius Victor, 33 f., 37.5–6);

       Be that as it may, a number of non-military provinces also experienced a change from senatorial to equestrian governors;

       But while equestrians moved into the erstwhile preserves of senators, there was no movement the other way to produce Lambrechts’s fabled “fusion” of the two orders (Lambrechts 1937, 107ff);

       This process culminated in the reign of Diocletian, who may justifiably lay claim to the title “Hammer of the Aristocracy”, as I dubbed him in my book, The Senatorial Aristocracy in the Later Roman Empire (Arnheim 1972);

       The powers of the emperor are neatly summarised by Cassius Dio, who agrees with Ulpian that the emperor was above the law (Cassius Dio, 53.17.1, 18.1);

       Imperial trappings became increasingly grand. Nero was shown in his lifetime wearing the radiate crown of the sun, a symbol of divinity, on some of his coins. In the late third century, this gave way to the jewelled diadem of the sun-god;

       By the third century, an oath by the emperor’s genius was considered more binding than one by the gods;

       Everything connected with the emperor was given the epithet sacrum (sacred or holy); and

       Under Diocletian, the imperial court was well and truly decked out in Oriental trappings and an aura of cool aloofness on the one hand and abject self-abasement on the other pervaded everything.

       Section B. Two Disquieting Tendencies

      There are two disquieting opposite tendencies current among writers on ancient history. One tendency is of undue negativity, what may be called the pooh-pooh mindset, dismissing out of hand ancient evidence, sometimes relating to whole periods. The danger here is that one may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      The opposite tendency is one of excessive uncritical acceptance of certain ancient evidence. The danger here is even greater, resulting as it may in a distorted or even completely false image of the period concerned. Though this tendency is the diametric opposite of the pooh-pooh tendency, the two tendencies sometimes coexist, surprisingly enough, even in the works of the same writer.

      “The Fourth Century and the ‘Conflict of the Orders’ Belong in the Realm of Myth.”

      Conflict of the Orders

      Millar condemns as a “circular” definition this conclusion by Christian Meier as quoted by Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp (2010) about the aristocratic monopoly of office in the Republic: “Whoever played a part in politics belonged to the aristocracy, and whoever belonged to the aristocracy played a part in politics.” (Millar, Ibid., 94.) In fact, it is not circular at all. A parallel would be to say something like this: Any animal with a single horn on its head is a unicorn, and every unicorn has a single