The representation of late Roman emperors, 284-395 AD

所有晚期的罗马皇帝都主张，并且经常享受他们的臣民代表他们主张对罗马帝国的统治。从戴克里先和狄奥多西一世（公元284-395年）统治时期开始，帝国的颂扬、立法、铸币、视觉文化、仪式和典礼等现象都证明了这种在现代人看来是炫耀的行为。评估从公元三世纪晚期到四世纪晚期的时期，我的研究将提出的问题是：是什么促使他们以这种方式行事并激发了这种现象？总的来说，上一代学者的历史学家关注的是这种行为及其产生的现象，他们认为这是罗马晚期皇帝积累政治合法性的动机。尽管政治合法性不是罗马帝国明确表达的概念，但这些历史学家仍然认为，确保政治合法性是统治后来罗马帝国的基石：皇帝的政治合法性确保了臣民的忠诚，因为他们相信他的统治是正当的。因此，皇帝的在位寿命是由他的合法性保证的。为了支持这一结论，我之前介绍的现象被这些历史学家解释为皇帝及其宫廷制定的合法化计划的产物。正是通过这些合法化计划，他们声称皇帝积累了至关重要的政治合法性。最近，政治科学在政治合法性的概念上做了一些有趣的工作，这削弱了它对政治秩序持续存在的解释价值。对于专制的政治秩序尤其如此，后来的罗马帝国可以准确地归类为专制的政治秩序。这一学术研究的结论严重挑战了一种想当然的看法，即专制政治秩序的统治者努力培养他们的合法性。这种对合法性解释价值贫乏的思考，应该促使我们对其在历史研究中的运用进行深思；因此，在研究晚期罗马皇帝时，我的研究将把这一点纳入考虑范围。我将考虑我们如何解释晚期罗马皇帝的炫耀行为及其引发的现象，而不是通常诉诸政治合法性作为解释。我的研究方法将采用政治科学的最新方法，这些方法避免使用合法性概念来检查政治秩序的生存。这将导致对该时期的主要来源材料的全面重新考虑，这非常适合这种研究。有丰富的文学来源，包括在“Panegyrici Latini”中收集的赞美诗，泰米修斯（帝国法院内部人员）的演讲，以及Theodosian和Justinianic法典中包含的立法。那个时代的当代历史学家和编年史家，如Ammianus Marcellinus和凯撒利亚的优西比乌斯（Eusebius），对皇帝的行为以及帝国仪式和仪式的披露也很有价值。视觉文化，包括各种艺术和建筑，是很重要的，尤其是来自帝国首都。总的来说，我相信我的研究结果将是对罗马后期皇帝和后期罗马帝国政治文化的更好理解。

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.