Del imperio Romano
Del imperio Romano (German: About the Roman Empire) is a sociological and historical-philosophical essay by the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset .
structure
| German | Spanish |
|---|---|
| Concordia | Concordia |
| Dictionary and circumstances | Diccionario y circunstancia |
| Reason and fate | Razón y peripecia |
| The layers of discord | Los estratos de la discordia |
| Unity and certainty of belief | Concordia y creencia |
| The auspices or religion and negligence | Los auspicios o religón y negligencia |
| "Libertas" | Libertas |
| The utopia of "society" | La utopía «sociedad» |
| "Libertas" and freedoms | Libertas y libertades |
| Kings, juridical rocks and a few manias | Reyes, mineral jurídico y un par de manías |
| Life as freedom and life as adaptation | Vida como libertad y vida como adaptación |
| theorem | Teorema |
| Ascending story | Historia ascendente |
| The state as skin | El Estado como piel |
| The tribune or the ingenious irrationality | El tribuno de la plebe o la genial irracionalidad |
| Theory of the supplements of collective life | Teoría de los complementos de la vida colectiva |
The headings are taken from the German-language Reclam edition. In the “Complete Works”, the essay is divided into the following four chapters: Introduction (Introducción), which consists of the first six sections, the chapter Freedom (Libertas), which contains sections up to and including kings, juridical rocks and a few manias , the chapter Life as Freedom and Life as Adaptation (Vida como libertad y vida como adaptación) with the section Theorem and the chapter Ascending History (Historia ascendente) with the last four sections.
content
Ortega wrote the script in exile in 1941. He took up the subject more than twenty years later in his lecture series An Interpretation of World History. Around Toynbee up again. The subject of the essay is the Imperium Romanum, by which he understands the Roman Empire . In his opinion, this already represents "the first layer of the history of Europe", while the history of the Roman Republic or Greece are only their precursors.
One of the typical paradoxes for the work is that the writing is nevertheless essentially about this prehistory: the kingship , the foundation of the republic and its decline. In his considerations he tries to portray the essence of the Roman state and society, but also draws general conclusions that, in his opinion, apply to every epoch. He makes several comparisons between the time of the Roman Republic and the imperial era on the one hand and his lifetime, the 19th and 20th centuries, on the other:
“The nineteenth century could only understand republican Rome, the ascending Rome, whose belief in the gods and in itself had not yet been shaken, that lived from“ deep unity ”and from what it meant "Freedom" felt. "
Ortega does not develop his thoughts systematically or chronologically, but consciously associative and in thought jumps, with rhetorical devices, surprising metaphors , volts and punchlines.
In his consideration of the Roman state, Ortega ties in with Cicero , especially with his work De re publica as well as with Greek philosophers and historians, especially Plato , Aristotle , Dikaiarchos and Polybios . The empire (i.e. the empire) came about because Concordia and Libertas, two key terms at Cicero, “evaporated” with the fall of the republic. He explains that in political life fights and conflicts are normal.
"... that the political struggles are not always social pathology and events of a negative kind, but that, conversely, the better state is only forged through certain struggles."
In all hard fights and disputes between patricians , knights and the plebs , the basic conviction has always prevailed that one must act for the good of Rome. The plebeians would never have questioned the political and military ability of the patricians and never asked for the Senate to be abolished . Disputes and disputes should not be assessed negatively if the members of the people had certain basic convictions in common, which Ortega calls "beliefs". Cicero, who wrote his book “Vom Staate” during the civil war, recognized that the current struggles are qualitatively different from those in the past because the Concordia, the common basic conviction, has been lost and the discord, Discordia, is ruling. The ultimate foundation of every society is that “there is a firm, common, indisputable and practically undisputed certainty of faith about who should command.” In the older times of Rome there was a blind belief that “kings by the grace of God” had to command. The rule was thus based on religion. Cicero has the auspices , i. H. questioning the gods before making important decisions, and calling the Senate the most important institutions of Rome.
“For Cicero, the auspices represent the firm and common faith with regard to the universe that made the centuries of great Roman unity possible. They were therefore the first foundation of that state. There was such a close connection between this and that that auspice finally meant "rule" (imperium). To be under someone's auspices was to be under his command. "
Ortega states that the Roman people “through the centuries kept their hatred of kings fresh and unharmed”. A major reason for this was the passion of the people for the law and the aversion to privileges. While the kings could have based their “empire”, their power of rule on their will, on arbitrariness, the rule of the law leads to equal treatment. The law can determine the greatest differences in rank, status and duties, but this then applies to all people because it is decided by the responsible bodies. The term “Libertas” thus has a negative side, state life without kings, and a positive side: life according to the republican and traditional institutions of Rome.
In this context, Ortega criticizes the European liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries with its freedoms (in the plural) and the doctrine of the social contract . When comparing the Roman notion of “libertas” and European liberalism, he comes back to the fundamental question of who in the state has authority and what extent this authority should have, i.e. the questions about the subject of political power and its limits. In Ortega's view, the Europeans were less concerned with who commanded them (emperor, king, parliament) than with limiting this rule. In contrast, state power had no limits for the Romans, it was totalitarian. There was no freedom of speech, art, or religious practice.
The state always and by its nature consists of domination, violence and coercion. In contrast, the idea of the "philosophers" of the 18th century that societies were formed by people voluntarily, is a huge mistake. Political freedom does not consist in the fact that people do not feel oppressed, because such a situation does not exist, but exists in the form of oppression.
Elsewhere he discusses the abolition of the monarchy with which Rome began its life as freedom.
“With the expulsion of the kings, Rome visibly begins its life as freedom. [...] According to legend, Cicero explains the republican revolution from the abuses into which the kings fell. This is how all revolutions have been explained as long as there were no true historians. It is the explanation that politicians give: a catchphrase for the political assembly and the editorial. In contrast to the revolt, however, it seems to be peculiar to every revolution that it turns against customs and not against abuses. It was like that in Rome. The kings represented the Etruscan supremacy. Under their scepter the civilization of the Romans made progress [...]. "
Not least because of cultural influences from the cities of Greater Greece had
"In the souls [...] the enticing idea of a new bourgeois organization nested, of an impersonal state in which rule should not proceed from the will of any individual, but from an anonymous authority, which everyone, more or less, can help create less, should cooperate and which expresses itself in the anonymous word that is the law. The ruler should no longer rule at his own discretion, but renounce his own personality in order to become the automatic enforcer of the law. "
In the following he describes the institutions or constitutional organs that played a role in the republic: There was - as in the time of the monarchy - a senate and a magistrate (executive branch). The latter was elected and had the competence to execute the laws and to lead the army. Originally this was probably the praetor . With the increasing development and differentiation of the state, new offices were created: the consuls , whose collegial administration of office had prevented the danger of tyranny, as the supreme power, the praetors with new tasks, as well as the aediles and quaestors . Ortega's particular admiration for the political fate of the Romans found the establishment of the people's tribunate . The plebeians were thus given a share of political power. The tribune was the only magistrate who did not represent the entire city but only one class, the plebeian. He also had no design skills, only his right of veto. But this was a very powerful instrument, since it was able to prevent any action by other magistrates, even the consuls, and thus bring the entire state to a standstill.
“His authority therefore consisted in preventing any abuse of rule: it was the brake on rule, the counter-rule. And for this purpose he was granted something more effective than all honors: his person was declared sacred, inviolable, taboo. Anyone who laid hands on a tribune was a dead man. "
Ortega also points out that Emperor Augustus avoided taking on the office of king or dictator , for example , but based his authority on the office of tribune of the people.
literature
- Willy Andreas : Epilogue. In: José Ortega y Gasset: About the Roman Empire. Translated from the Spanish by Gerhard Lepiorz. Philipp Reclam jun., Stuttgart 1962 (Universal Library No. 7803).
Web links
See also
Individual evidence
- ↑ Ortega, however , rejected the term philosophy of history . See an interpretation of world history. Around Toynbee. Translated from the Spanish by Wolfgang Halm . Gotthold Müller Verlag, Munich 1964, p. 24.
- ↑ All works. Volume VI. Table of contents of HISTORIA COMO SISTEMA Y DEL IMPERIO ROMANO . Retrieved March 4, 2014.
- ↑ All works. Volume VI. Retrieved March 2, 2014.
- ↑ P. 3, 41 (page numbers refer to the Reclam edition)
- ↑ p. 2.
- ↑ p. 9 with reference to Cicero, de re publica 3, 23.
- ↑ p. 16.
- ↑ p. 21.
- ↑ p. 42, quotation marks in the original.
- ↑ p. 42 f.
- ↑ p. 46.
- ↑ p. 47.
- ↑ p. 57.