Roman Monarchy: Succession Policies and the Legitimation of Power (A Review Article), Eos 107 (2020), 215-224 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ever since Mommsen and von Premerstein, we have lacked coherent theories about the political structure of the Roman monarchy. In 1992 I have proposed a new theory. 1 My starting point was the axiom that a political system can be analysed best if we examine the deepest crisis of the system. Normality never can show how a political system works, because the normal routines hide the power relations, whereas a crisis permits deeper insights. In a deep crisis the historical agents often try to readjust the relations between the important groups; thereby they collide with each other. During these confrontations the power relations between the different elements of a political system suddenly become visible. Therefore my empirical starting point was to analyse the usurpations in the first century AD. The usurpations offer the occasions to see how vulnerable the Roman monarchy was. We have to scrutinize the historical anomaly of a monarchy in which the monarch could lose his right to rule while he was still alive. We need a conception to understand that instability. I want to submit to you some reflections on the relevant conceptual problems. I will proceed in fifteen steps. After this theoretical framework I will outline the downfall of the emperor Galba in January 69 AD.
University of Ottawa, 2017
Roman emperors came to power through a hybrid dynastic/elective selection system that was never formally codified. This lack of codification has caused problems for modern scholars looking to identify and categorize those who were involved in selecting the next Roman emperor. This thesis believes that these problems exist because scholars are not distinguishing the names of key ancient institutions from the underlying types of power which backed their capability for action. This thesis seeks to solve this problem by creating a categorization system for imperial accessions based around a basic unit called the “political interest.” At its core, a political interest is a combination of the name of the individual or group as listed in the primary sources, the different types of power they possessed, and the level of decision-making authority they wielded during an imperial selection. Using this system, this thesis creates a database of Late Roman emperors with information on when they came to power, the various stages of their accessions, what political interests supported them, and where these interests were located. This thesis then analyzes the political and geographic trends from the database and supplies provisional explanations as to why changes in the Late Roman accession process occurred.
In this paper we propose a new perspective as to the nature of potestas and imperium in the Roman Republican system, the way these properties were bestowed on various magistracies, the way these properties were exercized by these magistracies, and their relationship, which of course and in fact was, very closely knit with the structure of the Gods of Rome. We argue that a) these notions were in reality religiously-grounded, defined and exercized, and b) that they related univoquely, as for potestas, to the so-called Capitoline triad Minerva/Jupiter-OM/Juno or/and appropriate variants of populus triads, depending on the case of the specific magistracy, and as for imperium, to the so-called archaic triad Jupiter/Mars/Quirinus or/and appropriate territory-control triads variants, likewise depending on the case of the specific magistracy, and last that c) the particular divine relationships we argue qualified the auspicia and the various power signa attached to each. This analysis enables to reconstruct the different magistracies of Rome in a table in which the detailed properties (type of assistant : lictores or viatores, type of auspicia, type of empowerment : potestas or/and imperium, empowerment body : comitia centuriata together with or without comitia curiata, capabilities for coercion prensio or vocatio, nature and scope of the responsibilities) of each magistracy (Consul, Praetor urbanus, Censores, Praetor militum, Tribunus consulari potestate, Aediles curules) and ALSO of the other positions of importance in the management of the Roman society which were not qualified as magistracies (Tribunes of Plebs, Quaestores, Aediles populi) come out as all deriving from the application of one concept, religiously founded, hence sacer, presiding to the organization of all positions of power in the Roman society.
The history of the Roman res publica did not end with that of the Roman Republic. It spanned the entire imperial period, in the sense that the monarchical regime founded by Augustus presented itself, and was presented as, a res publica. This notion must therefore be studied in its historical depth, which justifies my incursion into the imperial period in the context of a book largely devoted to the Roman Republic. The long lifespan of the Roman res publica-nearly a millennium-is a wellestablished fact, one that has been analyzed anew and expanded upon in Claudia Moatti's recent study of the Roman history of the commonwealth, 1 which demonstrates that the continuity of the res publica emerged as a subject during the first century BC. It was a genuine obsession for Romans, thus explaining its permanence during the imperial period, as well as its culmination in the idea that Augustus himself invented a tradition to which he constantly conformed 2 . Another contribution of Claudia Moatti's book is to definitively move beyond the debate on the nature of the Roman Republic (aristocracy or democracy?), by showing that this was an 'ideological formalization' that appeared during the second century BC, one that brought the notion of forma to the forefront. This approach was born under the influence of Greek political philosophy and was systematized by Polybius through the notion of a 'mixed constitution', which emphasized certain institutions (the consuls, the Senate, the comitia) while neglecting others, and inevitably raises the question of which of these three institutions dominated the two others. The same analysis, mutatis mutandis, has applied and continues to apply to the Augustan 'Principate', whose nature has been explored by modern historians going back at least to Mommsen, sometimes underscoring the regime's monarchical dimension, and sometimes its republican packaging. This explains the success enjoyed by analyses of the Augustan regime that stress continuity (the phenomenon of restoring the res publica) or rupture (the monarchical and dynastic character of Augustus' powers). The problem with such analyses is that, despite any attempt at formalization, the Roman res publica was always something 'uncertain and imprecise, fluctuating and open'. 3 This was without a doubt its primary characteristic and the reason 1 Moatti 2018. 2 See Blösel 2000, 85-91. 3 Moatti 2018, 412; see also p. 56: 'la nature ouverte et imprécise de la « chose publique »'.
Contested Monarchy reappraises the wide-ranging and lasting transformation of the Roman monarchy between the Principate and Late Antiquity. The book takes as its focus the century from Diocletian to Theodosius I (284–395), a period during which the stability of monarchical rule depended heavily on the emperor’s mobility, on collegial or dynastic rule, and on the military resolution of internal political crises. At the same time, profound religious changes modified the premises of political interaction and symbolic communication between the emperor and his subjects, and administrative and military readjustments changed the institutional foundations of the Roman monarchy. This volume concentrates on the measures taken by emperors of this period to cope with the changing framework of their rule. The collection examines monarchy along three distinct yet intertwined fields: Administering the Empire, Performing the Monarchy, and Balancing Religious Change. Each field possesses its own historiography and methodology, and accordingly has usually been treated separately. This volume’s multifaceted approach builds on recent scholarship and trends to examine imperial rule in a more integrated fashion. With new work from a wide range of international scholars, Contested Monarchy offers a fresh survey of the role of the Roman monarchy in a period of significant and enduring change. // – – – “This exceptionally valuable book offers multiple perspectives on the development of the institutional, ideological and religious aspects of the Roman empire’s first Christian century. Breaking away from traditional divisions according to dynasty or religion, we see how the Roman state developed new answers to the central question of its own legitimacy. Eschewing simplistic generalizations, the diverse contributions offer multiple perspectives on the way the Roman system of government interacted with its subjects. Wienand has performed an invaluable service by facilitating a wide ranging encounter among scholarly styles to promote a well-articulated discussion of significant themes in the governance of the Roman Empire, illuminating not only the period under consideration, but earlier and later periods as well.” —David Potter, University of Michigan Reviews Journal of Roman Studies 106 (2016), 361-363 [Alexander Skinner]; Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2015.11.34 [Jan Willem Drijvers]; Sehepunkte 15 (2015) Nr. 11 [Adrastos Omissi]; H-Soz-Kult 18.5.2015 [Raphael Brendel] Reviewers Quotes: "This is a book that deepens our sense of the complexity, and unexpectedness, of the late Roman Empire. It is a landmark." —Alexander Skinner "Contested Monarchy is an enormously valuable volume without a weak link in its chain of articles. It is a must have for any scholar working on late Roman political, social, or religious history and for the library of any university that offers courses on the fourth century. Its depth of inquiry and range of coverage means that it will be of great value to researchers but the articles are all sufficiently accessible that advanced students will be able to gain much from them as well. The articles can be read individually, but the volume repays reading as a whole." —Adrastos Omissi "This is a fine collection of articles articulating the contested Roman imperial rule of late antiquity. Everybody interested in the late Roman empire will profit from it." —Jan Willem Drijvers CONTENTS 1. Johannes Wienand: "The Cloak of Power: Dressing and Undressing the King" 2. John Weisweiler: "Domesticating the Senatorial Elite: Universal Monarchy and Transregional Aristocracy in the Fourth Century AD" 3. John Noël Dillon: "The Inflation of Rank and Privilege: Regulating Precedence in the Fourth Century AD" 4. Sebastian Schmidt-Hofner: "Ostentatious Legislation: Law and Dynastic Change, AD 364–365" 5. Doug Lee: "Emperors and Generals in the Fourth Century" 6. Joachim Szidat: "Gaul and the Roman Emperors of the Fourth Century" 7. Michael Kulikowski: "Regional Dynasties and Imperial Court" 8. Mark Humphries: "Emperors, Usurpers, and the City of Rome: Performing Power from Diocletian to Theodosius" 9. Johannes Wienand: "O tandem felix civili, Roma, victoria! Civil-War Triumphs from Honorius to Constantine and Back" 10. Hartmut Leppin: "Coping with the Tyrant’s Faction: Civil-War Amnesties and Christian Discourses in the Fourth Century AD" 11. Christopher Kelly: "Pliny and Pacatus: Past and Present in Imperial Panegyric" 12. Henning Börm: "Born to Be Emperor: The Principle of Succession and the Roman Monarchy" 13. Christian Reitzenstein-Ronning: "Performing Justice: The Penal Code of Constantine the Great" 14. Harold Drake: "Speaking of Power: Christian Redefinition of the Imperial Role in the Fourth Century" 15. Bruno Bleckmann: "Constantine, Rome, and the Christians" 16. Noel Lenski: "Constantine and the Tyche of Constantinople" 17. Steffen Diefenbach: "A Vain Quest for Unity: Creeds and Political (Dis)Integration in the Reign of Constantius II" 18. Johannes Hahn: "The Challenge of Religious Violence: Imperial Ideology and Policy in the Fourth Century" 19. Rita Lizzi Testa: "The Famous ‘Altar of Victory Controversy’ in Rome: The Impact of Christianity at the End of the Fourth Century" 20. Johannes Wienand: "The Empire’s Golden Shade: Icons of Sovereignty in an Age of Transition"
On Some Aspects of the Roman Concept of Authority
Acta Juridica Hungarica, 2005
When scrutinizing the concept of authority, presenting the basic definition of auctoritas, the capacity of increase and augmentation, Hannah Arendt appositely quotes the relevant passage by Cicero, according to which the task of founding the state, the human community, as well as the preservation of what has already been founded, highly resembles the function of the numen, the divine operation (Cicero, De re publica 1, 7. "Neque enim est ulla res in qua propius ad deorum numen virtus accedat humana, quam civitatis aut condere novas aut conservare conditas."); and in connection with this, she states that, from this aspect, the Romans regarded religious and political activity as being almost identical. The paper will examine various aspects of the numen, one of the most important phenomena of Roman religion (I.), its etymology (II.), the institution of the triumphus, a phenomenon seeming to be relevant from this point of view (III.), then the concept of numen Augusti, incorporating these elements of the religious sphere into the legitimation of power. (IV.
Journal of Roman Studies 87 (1997), 1997
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.