Dominat

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dominate (derived from dominus "lord") is a term used especially in older ancient historical research for the late antique section of Roman history between Diocletian and Justinian (or Herakleios ), i.e. around the period from the 4th to the 6th century AD The term was coined by Theodor Mommsen , who wanted to clarify a contrast he felt between the late imperial period on the one hand and the early and high imperial period (the so-called principle ) on the other. The term aimed primarily at developments in the constitution of the empire through which (according to Mommsen) the Roman emperor developed from princeps , the first citizen of the state, to his “master” ( dominus , also: dominus et deus ) with which the outwardly still republican constitution of the empire was increasingly transformed into an "oriental coercive state". In principle, Constantine's assumption of Christianity and the subsequent development did not change anything.

These ideas have largely been relativized or revised by recent research. For example, the salutation dominus appears much earlier, for example under Emperor Domitian (81–96 AD). Above all, however, the assumption that the late Roman empire was a “coercive state” has meanwhile proven to be overly simplistic, if not even wrong: The imperial administration now indeed claimed to intervene more strongly in the lives of the subjects , but in reality their options were very limited. Mommsen also ignored the fact that the late ancient ruler, like the princeps, was subject to the law, which he also respected.

More recent research has criticized the fact that the older research concentrated too much on formal aspects and paid too little attention to the actual implementation of the system of rule and its effects, which can be found in the sources. The coercive state thesis, which was quite widespread until the 1970s, is not represented in any recent historical handbook. Mommsen's influential but time-bound assessment of the late Roman Empire has meanwhile been rejected. Alexander Demandt judged that the "so-called ancient coercive state (...) is a delusion of researchers", "confuses legal provisions with historical facts".

Despite legal restrictions, the real effects on society that can be found in the sources were arguably less dramatic than often assumed in older research. The whole of antiquity knew “no individual freedoms from the state, only privileges of individual groups in the state”. Recently, there has also been a reference to the, in fact, significantly increased social mobility within society in these years - now even simple farmers like Justin I were able to ascend to empire. Furthermore, there is much to suggest that the rulers of late antiquity were not stronger, but rather weaker than their predecessors in the 1st to 3rd centuries. In late antiquity, for example, the influence of the army (see magister militum ), the court, the administration and (as a new factor) the church on the emperor increased, especially since some emperors came to the throne at a very young age and had hardly any real powers had. In the opinion of many researchers, this should only be concealed by addressing the ruler as dominus and the ceremonial exaltation of the ruler.

Today, therefore, preference is given to the neutral term late antiquity or late Roman empire for the period from 284 to 565 (or 641) . This does not, however, deny that the Roman state has changed fundamentally since Diocletian - but not in the sense of Mommsen.

Compare also Prinzipat (with the explanations on the problem of the term) and Late Antiquity .

literature

  • Jochen Bleicken : Principal and Dominant. Thoughts on the periodization of the Roman Empire . Wiesbaden 1978.
  • Jens-Uwe Krause : The late antiquity (284 to 565 AD). In: Hans-Joachim Gehrke , Helmuth Schneider (Hrsg.): History of antiquity. A study book. 5th edition. Metzler, Berlin 2019, p. 429 ff. [Introducing the current research situation]
  • Mischa Meier : The late Roman Empire a 'coercive state'? Comments on a research controversy . In: Dariusz Brodka u. a. (Ed.): Freedom and its limits in the Ancient World. Proceedings of a colloquium held at the Jagiellonian University Kraków (Electrum 9). Krakau 2003, pp. 193-213.

Remarks

  1. ↑ a b Ulrich Manthe : History of Roman Law (= Beck's series. 2132). Beck, Munich 2000, ISBN 3-406-44732-5 , pp. 108-110.
  2. ^ Herbert Hausmaninger , Walter Selb : Roman private law (Böhlau study books). Böhlau, Vienna 1981 (9th edition 2001), ISBN 3-205-07171-9 , pp. 14-16.
  3. ^ Brian W. Jones: The Emperor Domitian. London et al. 1992, pp. 108f.
  4. ↑ Distinctive features of "centralization" were: introduction of a secret state police under Diocletian ( agentes in rebus ); Introduction of the imperial representatives ( praefecti praetorio ) and administrative institutions ( dioceses ) as well as legal reorganization of the provinces under Constantine; The most important imperial court offices from Constantine onwards: the magister officiorum , which headed all imperial chancelleries ( scrinia ), for example the Libell chancellery , the quaestor sacri palatii , which was responsible in particular for the preparation of legal measures , the comes sacrarum largitiorum , which was responsible for finance throughout the empire was responsible and comes rerum privatarum , to which the imperial domain administration was subordinate (see: Herbert Hausmaninger, Walter Selb: Römisches Privatrecht (Böhlau-Studien-Bücher). Böhlau, Vienna 1981 (9th edition 2001), ISBN 3-205- 07171-9 , p. 14.).
  5. ↑ See for example Alexander Demandt: Die Spätantike for the more recent research on late antiquity. 2nd edition Munich 2007; Scott Fitzgerald Johnson (Ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity . Oxford et al. a. 2012; AD Lee: From Rome to Byzantium Ad 363 to 565: The Transformation of Ancient Rome. Edinburgh 2013; Stephen Mitchell: A History of the Later Roman Empire. AD 284-641. 2nd ed., Oxford u. a. 2014; Philip Rousseau (Ed.): A Companion to Late Antiquity. Malden (Massachusetts) et al. a. 2009.
  6. ↑ See Alexander Demandt: Die Spätantike. 2nd edition Munich 2007, p. 588f.
  7. ↑ Alexander Demandt: The Fall of Rome. The dissolution of the Roman Empire in the judgment of posterity. Munich 1984, p. 584.
  8. ↑ Rene Pfeilschifter: The late antiquity. The one God and the many rulers. Munich 2014, p. 222.