The representation of late Roman emperors, 284-395 AD

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

All late Roman emperors asserted, and constantly enjoyed their subjects asserting on their behalf, their mastery in ruling Rome's empire. The phenomena of imperial panegyric, legislation, coinage, visual culture, ritual and ceremony from the period between the reigns of the emperors Diocletian and Theodosius I (284-395 AD) all testify to this-what may seem to modern eyes-ostentatious behaviour. Assessing the period from the late-third to the late-fourth centuries AD, the question that my research will ask is: what spurred them to act in this way and inspire such phenomena?On the whole, where historians of the last generation of scholarship are concerned this behaviour and the phenomena that it engendered are explained by what they allege was a motivation among late Roman emperors to amass political legitimacy. Although political legitimacy is not a concept that was ever expressed categorically by the imperial Romans, these historians nevertheless argue that securing political legitimacy was the keystone of ruling the later Roman empire: an emperor's political legitimacy ensured the loyalty of his subjects because of their belief that his rule was justified. An emperor's longevity in office was, thus, assured by his legitimacy. To shore up this verdict, the phenomena I introduced earlier are interpreted by these historians as the spawn of programmes of legitimation that were devised by emperors and their courts. It was through these programmes of legitimation that they claim emperors stockpiled this all-crucial political legitimacy.Lately, interesting work has been done in political science on the concept of political legitimacy-and, in turn, legitimation-that has dampened its explanatory value for the persistence of political orders. This is especially so for autocratic political orders, which the later Roman empire can be accurately classed as. The conclusions of this scholarship seriously challenge one taking for granted that rulers of autocratic political orders strive to foster their legitimacy. This thinking about the poverty of legitimacy's explanatory value should prompt considerable reflection about our use of it in historical research; my research will, therefore, take this on board for looking at late Roman emperors. I will consider how we may account for the ostentatious behaviour of late Roman emperors and the phenomena that it prompted without the usual recourse to political legitimacy as an explanation.The approach of my research will entertain recent methodologies from political science that eschew the use of the concept of legitimacy for examining the survival of political orders. This will lead to a full reconsideration of the primary source material from the period, which is well-suited to this kind of research. There is a rich range of literary sources, including the panegyrics collected in the 'Panegyrici Latini', the orations of Themistius (an imperial court-insider), and the legislation contained in the Theodosian and Justinianic Codes. The contemporary historians and chroniclers of the age too, like Ammianus Marcellinus and Eusebius of Caesarea, have much value for their divulgences on the behaviour of emperors and of imperial ceremony and ritual. Visual culture, encompassing all kinds of art and architecture, is important-especially from the imperial capitals.Overall, I believe that the result of my research will be a better understanding of late Roman emperors and the political culture of the later Roman empire.