Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:43:29.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imperium Romanum: Empire and the Language of Power*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

J. S. Richardson
J. S. Richardson
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The vocabulary of empire, as it has developed in European contexts since the period of the Roman empire, reveals clearly enough the significance of the inheritance of Rome for the regimes which have followed it. From Charlemagne to the Tsars, from British imperialism to Italian Fascism, the language and symbols of the Roman republic and the Roman emperors have been essential elements in the self-expression of imperial powers. Such communality of language, by creating a sense of familiarity in the mind of a modern observer of the Roman empire, may hinder a proper understanding of antiquity, because the importance of the after life of these words and symbols tends to obscure the nature of the contexts from which they originated. An obvious parallel instance can be seen in the case of the word ‘democracy’, where the adoption of the Athenian term to describe a series of political developments in the modern world which claim some connection with the Greek notion of demokratia has tended to make more difficult the modern understanding of what happened at Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 81 , November 1991 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright ©J. S. Richardson 1991. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the use of Roman imperial imagery in late antiquity and the early middle ages, see McCormick, M., Eternal Victory (1986)Google Scholar; for the Renaissance period, Yates, F. A., Astraea (1975)Google Scholar; and in modern times, Smith, D. Mack, Mussolini's Roman Empire (1976)Google Scholar. On ancient and modern democracy, see for instance Finley, M. I., Democracy, Ancient and Modern (1973), esp. ch. 1Google Scholar.

2 Thus, for instance, Pliny, NH vi. 26. 120: ‘durant, ut fuere, Thebata et, ductu Pompei Magni terminus Romani imperi, Oruros, a Zeugmate L.CC.’; Tac., Germ. 29.1: ‘(Batavi) Chattorum quondam populus et seditione domestica in eas sedes transgressus in quibus pars Romani imperii fierent.’

3 See below, III.

4 Aristotle, Politics 1382b 11–13.

5 On the meaning of res publica as res populi, see Cic., de rep. 1.25.39, 27.43, 32.48; Brunt, P. A., The Fall of the Roman Republic (1988), 2 and 299Google Scholar.

6 Though, as Kunkel has pointed out, others who were not magistrates were also involved in jurisdiction (Kunkel, W., ‘Magistratische Gewalt und Senatsherrschaft’, ANRW 1.2 (1972), 3–23Google Scholar, at 12–13).

7 Coli, U., ‘Sur la notion d'imperium en droit public romain’, RIDA 7 (1960), 361–87, at 361Google Scholar.

8 On problems of interpretation of imperium, see the comments of Versnel, H. S., Triumphus (1970), 313–19Google Scholar; and most recently, A. Drummond, CAH VII. 22 (1989), 188–9.

9 contra Heuss, A., ‘Gedanken und Vermutungen zur fruhen römischen Regierungsgewalt’, Nachr. Akad. Wiss. Gottingen. Phil.-Hist. Kl. (1982), 377–454, at 433Google Scholar, who argues, correctly, that this notion is at the root of Mommsen's understanding of imperium, though not explicitly stated; Giovannini, A., ‘Magistratur und Volk: ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Staatrechts’, in Eder, W. (ed.), Staat und Staatlichkeit in der frühen römischen Republik (1990), 406–36, at 428 f.Google Scholar See the commentary on the latter by E. Badian, ibid. 462–75, esp. 468–9.

10 Cic., de leg. agr. 11.10.27, 11.12.31.

11 Dion. Hal. 11.5–6; cf. Mommsen, StR 13. 81 and 609, Magdelain, A., Recherches sur l'imperium (1968), 36–40Google Scholar. Versnel, op. cit. (n. 8), 313–55 gives a useful account of various views on the lex curiata as well as his own, but he had not read Magdelain. For the importance of Jupiter in connection with imperium and auspicia, see J. R. Fears, ‘Jupiter and Roman imperial ideology’, ANRW 2.17.1 (1981), 3–141, at 9–55.

12 de leg. 111.3.9; cf. Magdelain, op. cit. (n. 11), 28–9.

13 Cic., ND 11.3.9, de div. 11.36.76; Dion. Hal. 11.6; cf. Magdelain, op. cit. (n. 11), 16.

14 Dion. Hal. 11.6. J. Linderski, ‘The augural law’, ANRW 2.16.3 (1986), 2146–312, at 2293–4, suggests that assistance may have been given to the god by the use of caged birds.

15 Cic., ad Att. IV. 18.4; ad fam. 1.9.25; ad Q.f. 111.2.3.

16 On the status of pro-magistrates during the republic as privati, see Livy XXXVIII.42.10; Mommsen, StR 13. 642.

17 Livy XXIII.34, XXVIII.46, XXXV.23, XLII.35; cf. Mommsen, StR 13. 681 n. 6.

18 Meyer, E., Römischer Staat und Staatsgedanke 2 (1961), 119–21Google Scholar; Magdelain, op. cit. (n. 11), 72–3; contra Giovannini, A., Consulare imperium (1983), 9–15Google Scholar. The most telling evidence for this is the significance of the auspices which the imperium holder takes before leaving the pomerium (Magdelain, op. cit. (n. 11), 40–5).

19 Cic., de leg. 11.12.3; de div. 1.2.3.

20 Mommsen, StR 13. 61–70.

21 Mommsen, StR 23. 102–3.

22 Thus esp. Cic., de div. 1.2.3; Sallust, Cat. 29. 2–3, 53.2; Livy 1.36.6.

23 So Heuss (n. 9).

24 Kunkel, op. cit. (n. 6), 3–22.

25 Millar, Fergus, ‘The political character of the classical Roman republic’, JRS 74 (1984), 1–19Google Scholar; North, John, ‘Democratic politics in Republican Rome’, Past & Present 126 (February 1990), 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Mommsen, StR 3.1088, n. 3 records only three cases: M. Furius Crassipes, praet. 187 in Gaul (Livy XXXIX. 3.1–3); M. Aemilius Lepidus, procos. 136 in Nearer Spain (App., Ib. 83.358); and L. Hortensius, praet. 170 during the war against Perseus (Livy XLIII.4.8).

27 Isid., etym. 11.21.4 = ORF 12. 21 fr. 32.

28 Isidore in fact cites this sentence as an instance of a climax.

29 Cic., de rep. 11.32.56; Livy 11.1.7. See Brunt, op. cit. (n.5), 15–17 and 331.

30 See Boxer, C. R., The Dutch Seaborne Empire (1965)Google Scholar; Gardner, B., The East India Company (1971)Google Scholar; Sutton, Jean, Lords of the East: the East India Company and its Ships (1981)Google Scholar; for a comparison of the two, see C. D. Cowan, New Cambridge Modern History 5 (1961), 417–29, esp. 419–20.

31 cf. Woolf, G., ‘World-systems analysis and the Roman empire’, JRA 3 (1990), 44–58Google Scholar.

32 Livy XXVI. 10.9.

33 Above p. 1.

34 Livy IV. 5.1; ‘And finally, is the highest imperium yours or the Roman people's? What was gained by the expulsion of the kings — domination by you or equal liberty for all?’.

35 Mommsen, StR 13. 22 n. 2.

36 ad Her. IV. 13.

37 ILLRP 516, line 12; though not, interestingly, in the lex repetundarum, FIRA 12. 7, line 1. The usage sub imperio continues in the texts of the jurists (cf. Paulus D. XXXVI. 1.27; Gaius 1.53).

38 Hor., carm. III. 5.4.

39 RG 27.1.

40 Augustine, de civ. Dei 3.1.

41 For this purpose, a data-base was constructed containing the passages listed in the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, VII.I, 578–81 s.v. ‘imperium’ IIIA (‘metonymice, ad quod potestas pertinet’); supplemented by a search of the PHI disk, using the Ibycus system.

42 Accius, 231–2 (Ribbeck).

43 Cic., Rosc. Am. 18.50; div. in Caec. 69, 2 Verr. 11.34.85, Rab. perd. 12.33, Cat. 1.13.33, 11.9.19. 111.8.19–20, Arch. 10.28, Sest. 8.19, 9.20, 24.53, Vatin. 6.14, Balb. 8.22, de orat. 1.46.201; cf. Caes., BG 1.33.2.

44 Varro, RR III. 16.6.

45 Cic., 2 Verr. IV. 11.25, Manil. 4.11.

46 Cic., Phil. III. 5.13, de orat. 1.44.196.

47 Cic., Rab. perd. 12.33.

48 World-wide: Cic., Cat. III. 11.26, Sest. 31.67; slightly less so: Cic., Balb. 17.39, and, of an earlier period, prov. cons., 12.31. On the more modest side, cf. Caes., BG IV. 16.4. On conceptions of empire in the Ciceronian period, see Brunt, P. A., ‘Laus imperii’, in Garnsey, P. D. A. and Whittaker, C. R. (eds), Imperialism in the Ancient World (1978), 159–91Google Scholar = Roman Imperial Themes (1990), 288–323 (with further discussion at ibid. 433–80).

49 Sall., Cat. 10.1. The only other possible case of such a use before this is a quotation by Valerius Maximus of Scipio Nasica Serapio, complaining in 133 B.C. about the consul of that year, P. Mucius Scaevola, that ‘dum iuris ordinem sequitur, id agit ut cum omnibus legibus imperium Romanum corruat’ (Val. Max. III. 2.17 = ORF 12. 38 fr.4). Given Valerius Maximus' tendency not to quote accurately (there is, after all, no reason why he should) and the interval of ninety years before the next occurrence, it is probably safe to assume that this was not precisely what Serapio said.

50 Livy XXI. 2.7, XXVII. 8.17, XXXVII. 35.5, XXXVII. 54.23; cf. Cic., prov. cons. 12.31.

51 Verg., Aen. I. 286–7.

52 Vell. Pat. II. 97.1.

53 Tic., Agr. 24.

54 Cic., 2 Verr. V. 32.85: ‘iis tu nostri imperii partem dedidisti’.

55 Kienast, D., ‘Corpus imperii’, in Wirth, G. et al. (eds), Romanitas-Christianitas (Festschr. J. Straub) (1982), 1–17Google Scholar.

56 Cic., de off. II. 8.27; Kienast, op. cit. (n. 55), 3.

57 The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (revised ed., 1973), s.v. power II(b).

58 Lewis and Short s.v. imperium IIB(i)b; cf. also Rosenberg, RE IX. 2 (1916), 1210–11. The word provincia shows a similar development through the first centuries B.C. and A. D., during which period the dominant meaning shifts from ‘task assigned to an imperium-holder’ to ‘area under Roman administration’. See Lintott, A. W., ‘What was the imperium Romanum’, Greece & Rome 28 (1981), 53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Richardson, J. S., Hispaniae (1986), 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; contra Bertrand, J.-M., ‘A propos du mot provincia’, Journal des Savants (1989), 191–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Tac., Ann. 11.61; Hist. 1.16.

60 Cic., de rep. II. 13.25.

61 So Magdelain, op. cit. (n. 11), 30–2, contra Mommsen, StR 13. 609, n. 3.

62 cf. Cic., de rep. I. 32.48; Wirszubski, Ch., Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate (1950), 7–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the concept of libertas, see now Brunt, P. A., ‘Libertas in the Republic’, in The Fall of the Roman Republic (1988), ch. 6Google Scholar.

63 See the comment of Brunt on Scipio's aphorism: ‘In other words a man was most free when he had the fullest right to enforce his own will’ (op. cit. (n. 62), 312).

64 Suet., Aug. 7.2; Dio Cassius LIII. 16.7. On Julius Caesar's use of the Romulus motif, see Weinstock, St., Divus Julius (1971), 175–99Google Scholar.

65 Dio Cassius LIII. 32.5.

66 Dio Cassius LI. 24.4 says this was because Crassus was not αὐτοϰϱάτωϱ, which has usually been taken to mean that he did not have full imperium (e.g. Syme, R., ‘Livy and Augustus’, HSCP 64 (1959), 27–87,Google Scholar at 43–6 = Roman Papers 1 (1979), 400–54, at 417–21). However Livy's note about the spolia opima of A. Cornelius Cossus, which was, on Livy's account, a matter of interest to the emperor, makes the question of whose auspicium was involved central to the argument (contra Combes, R., Imperator (1966), 162–5Google Scholar).

67 Inscr. It. 13. 87 and 571.

68 cf. Catalano, P., Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale 1 (1960), 442–3Google Scholar; compare also the case of Q. Valerius Falto in 241 (Val. Max. 11.8.2; Richardson, J. S., ‘The triumph, the praetor and the senate in the early secondcentury B.C.’, JRS 65 (1975), 50–63Google Scholar, at 51–2).

69 Compare the conclusions of Nicolet, C., L'lnventaire du monde (1988)Google Scholar that the Augustan period saw the appearance of a new spatial understanding of the Roman world, though Purcell, N. (JRS 80 (1990), 178–82)Google Scholar believes that this development had begun during the last century B.C. Purcell's suggestion that Roman conceptual geography was linear rather than spatial coincides with the view presented here of imperium being essentially seen as the power held by particular magistrates and promagistrates, since in geographical terms this would appear as a network of lines of movement of imperium-holders, spreading out from Rome. If, as I suspect, Nicolet is right to see a more spatial view developing in the Augustan period, this would in turn coincide with the shift in the dominant meaning of the word imperium towards a delimited area.

70 Suet., Aug. 31.5; Ovid, Fasti V. 563–6; Vell. II. 89.4; Pliny, NH XXII. 6.13; Gellius, NA IX. 11.10; Coarelli, F., Guida archeologica di Roma (1974), 107–11Google Scholar; Zanker, P., Augustus und die Macht der Bilder (1987), 213–17Google Scholar (= The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (1988), 210–15).

71 Inscr. It. 13.1. 64–5 and 534: ‘Romulus Martis f. rex ann. [I] / de Caeninensibus k. Mar[t.]’.

72 RG 35.1.

73 Suet., Aug. 29.2; Dio Cassius LV. 10. 3–5.