On Research Methodology in Ancient and Byzantine History
On Research
Methodology
in Ancient
and Byzantine
History
obalka.indd 1
Edited by
Jarmila Bednaříková,
Marek Meško &
Anna Žáková
Masaryk University
22. 9. 2015 9:52:19
Všechna práva vyhrazena. Žádná část této elektronické knihy nesmí být reprodukována nebo
šířena v papírové, elektronické či jiné podobě bez předchozího písemného souhlasu
vykonavatele majetkových práv k dílu, kterého je možno kontaktovat na adrese Nakladatelství
Masarykovy univerzity, Žerotínovo náměstí 9, 601 77 Brno.
All rights reserved. No part of this e-book may be reproduced
or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written
permission of copyright administrator which can be contacted
at Masaryk University Press, Žerotínovo náměstí 9, 601 77 Brno.
On Research
Methodology
in Ancient
and Byzantine
History
Edited by
Jarmila Bednaříková,
Marek Meško &
Anna Žáková
Masaryk University
Brno 2015
This work was supported by the Program of “Employment
of Newly Graduated Doctors of Science for Scientific Excellence”
(CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0009) co-financed from European Social
Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic.
Reviewed by doc. Lubor Kysučan, Ph.D.,
from the Palacký University in Olomouc.
Edited by Jarmila Bednaříková, Marek Meško & Anna Žáková
© 2015 Masaryk University
ISBN 978-80-210-7946-5
ISBN 978-80-210-7947-2 (online : pdf)
DOI: 10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-7947-2015
Table of Contents
Preface — 7
Jarmila Bednaříková — 9
Contribution to the Basic Methodological Questions
(Ancient States and the States in the Transitional Period
between Antiquity and the Middle Ages)
Lukáš Kubala — 39
Classification and Use of Epigraphic Sources as a Source
of Information when Examining Characteristic Features
of Athenian “Imperialism” in the 5th Century BC
Jana Malaníková — 53
Plebiscita until 287 BC in Livy’s History
Jiří Bartůněk — 63
Et tu, Gracche. Methodology of the Study of the “Roman Revolution”
and the Role of tribuni plebis in the Crisis and Transformation
of the Late Republic
Markéta Melounová — 77
“Political Murders” and Enemies of the State:
The Crime of Lèse-Majesté and Legitimacy
under the Principate
Tereza Antošovská — 105
Roman Literature as a Historical Source
for the Study of Childhood
Pavel Dadák — 115
All Food Sails to Rome
Miroslav Morcinek — 127
Environmental Problems in Ancient Literature
Tomáš Štěpánek — 139
Transformation of Cities under
the Rule of the Ostrogoths
Silvie Šimordová — 149
Chronicles in Late Antiquity
Adéla Křížová — 157
On Origins of the Franks
Marek Meško — 169
An Overview of Byzantine Sources about the Pechenegs
(11th and 12th centuries)
Marek Meško — 181
Nomads and Byzantium. Problematic aspects of maintaining
diplomatic relations with the Pechenegs
Preface
Each historical period brings specific methodological problems. The publication entitled “On Research Methodology in Ancient and Byzantine History”
published within the project “Employment of graduate students of doctoral
programs for scientific excellence” would like to start a series of discussions
on various problems; their methodological solutions could lead to a better
understanding and systematization of the course of ancient and Byzantine
history, as well as to a new systematization of general history as a whole.
In this publication, we try to pose and answer only some of the many
questions that the study of ancient and Byzantine history raises. It is a question of the general definition of an ancient state, the institute of sacral
chieftaincy and kingship, the characteristics of the so-called barbarian or
nomadic states or the characteristics of general features of relations between
Byzantium and the “barbarians” – nomads (Authors: J. Bednaříková and
M. Meško).
Even though the minor contributions written by doctorate students of
Ancient History do not form a homogeneous unit, their purpose is to help
the doctorate students of this field to reflect more deeply on the methodology they use or will use in their dissertations, and to formulate these principles so that other young researchers will find them useful in the future, too.
This work is the result of workshops led by Mgr. Marek Meško, M.A.,
Ph.D., a post-doctoral fellow at the Department of Classical Studies and
his mentor and supervisor of doctorate students of Ancient History, Doc.
PhDr. Jarmila Bednaříková, CSc., which brought together doctorate students at the Department of Classical Studies at the Faculty of Arts, Masaryk
University in Brno.
Marek Meško – Jarmila Bednaříková – Anna Žáková
Jarmila Bednaříková — Contribution to the Basic
Methodological Questions (Ancient States and
the States in the Transitional Period between
Antiquity and the Middle Ages)
Ancient state
Generally, ancient state can be characterized as a religious, political and
legal unit, regardless of whether it is a state of the so-called ancient Oriental
type or the ancient states of Greeks and Romans.
It is characteristic of a common cult, which the representatives of the
state (the priests of state deities need to be included here, too), as well as
its personally free inhabitants are obliged to perform. In Ancient Egypt, a
certificate of its participation was issued,1 violation of the cult was a capital crime in Greece (offense against religion), Christians were persecuted
in ancient Rome because they refused to offer sacrifice to the state gods
and worship the deified emperors. They also needed a certificate about
participation in sacrifices.2
According to ancient ideas, the relevant state deities protect the entity
that worships them. For example, in the Mesopotamian mythology, the
ends of state entities and disasters that had befallen them are associated
with the capture or departure of the main protective gods.3 In Ancient
Egypt, a new life cycle always starts with a new pharaoh who is regarded
as the god incarnate.
In ancient times, settlements or states represented a bordered sacred
space where the residents were safe. The best-known example of this
1
2
3
Lexa (1947: 240).
See Lactan. XV 4; See further Češka (1976: 42f.); Opitz (1983:105); Durant
(1942: 733).
See Nářek nad zkázou města Uru (Hruška 1977: 49–66); Bůh války Erra (ibid.,
254–274). On decline of morals, see: Bůh války Erra, tab. III, verses 7–25; tab.
IV, verses 73–74, or the deportation of the Marduk statue from Babylon by
Cyrus the Great.
9
bordered space is the Etruscan-Italic pomerium. If a citizen of one Greek
polis or the Roman state was exiled, it also meant that he lost the protection
of their gods and eo ipso the protection of the divine and human right.4
The unity of the cult is closely related to the fact that the state is a legal
unity. In some ancient states, it is evident that law is considered revealed
(Mesopotamia, main principles of the Hebrew law), elsewhere (Egypt),
it is of divine origin because the ruler is the incarnate god; in the ancient
Greece or Rome, there is a close link between the divine and the human
law (if e.g. a Roman is not protected by fas, he cannot be protected by ius
either, he finds himself completely outside legal categories – his life is not
protected, he has no family or property rights, etc.).
In addition, law is applicable only to personally free residents or citizens
of the state, not to slaves and also not to foreigners. The very close relationship between law and religion is demonstrated by the fact that also ethical
standards of ancient states applied only within particular religious-legal-political units. Although the basic ethical postulate of ancient states was
to protect the vulnerable, the weak and the poor,5 the ethical standards did
not apply to slaves, the most defenseless and the poorest, even though (and
in this case actually because) they were commanded by certain state gods.6
Despite the fact that the foreigners enjoyed personal protection as well as
the protection of their property, it required various special provisions.7
In ancient times, political unity was based mainly on two principles:
A community of those who are subject to the same ruler or a community
of citizens. Neither ethnicity nor language played a major role in either
case. States in the Near East were mostly united politically by the person
of the ruling god (e.g. An and Innana in Uruk, Enki in Eridu, Marduk in
Babel, Hor-Re in Egypt, solar or lunar deity in the states in the south of the
Arabian Peninsula, Haldi in Urartu), who is represented by a high priest or
sacral king, or the institution of sacred kingship.
4
5
6
7
Similar to sacration: See e.g. Liv. III 55, 6–7; see also ibid. II 33, 3. This meaning
is also clearly expressed in the early Frankish code Pactus legis Salicae – the term
wargus means “a wolf in sacred places”. See PLS 55; see Volsunga-saga 1.
See evidence in Bednaříková (2015).
The slaves originated from the other religious, legal and political (state or tribal)
unit.
It was based on the customary and god protected law of hospitality. Otherwise,
various special institutes were formed such as the Greek proxenia or the original
and the oldest Roman clientele.
10
In the times of ancient Greece and Rome, we can find a less prominent
function of the main state god or protective deities (such as Athena, Jupiter Capitoline), but the notion of protective heroes is strongly developed
(Theseus in Attica, Heracles by the Dorian tribes, etc., Romulus in the case
of the Romans, there are known the graves of some important heroes with
its protective function and so on).8 Leading representatives of these ancient
states were obliged to actively participate in sacrifices for the state and in
the examination of prophetic signs.9
The conjunction of all their three distinctive features suggests that the
ancient state is also characteristic of linking and blending the sacral and the
profane realm on the field of law and politics.
The question of sacred kings or kingship10
This institution is one of the most widespread in human history and, therefore, it is necessary to examine it from a methodological point of view.11 As
regards sacral chieftaincy, we know this institution from the tribal society
and it manifested itself also in the early history of our country.12 In ancient
times, there was no area where this institution would not exist (even though
it could be preceded by the role of a highest priest in the administration of
the early state). Sacral kings or kingship are the result of a close link between
the sacred and profane spheres in ancient states or in states which, in our
opinion, according to chronological definition of this period, do not belong
8
Romulus is a typical hero-founder; he and his brother have typical fate of heroes
(put in a basket into the Tiber like Moses into the Nile or the Polynesian Maui
into the sea). See also Liv. I 55, 3. Prominent Roman figures could be buried intra
pomerium, in which we can see the distorted echoes of the original apotropaic
function of heroes.
9 And also these representatives could be scrutinized by prophetic signs regarding their good relationship with the gods. E.g. archagetes in Sparta or the kings
(reges) in Rome.
10 More on this division, see e.g. Choksky (1998–2015: 1).
11 For the uncertainty regarding the concept of sacred chieftaincy or kingship, see
e.g. Baetke (1953), who denied the existence of sacred kings among old Germans
because their rulers were not objects of a cult. He lacked their act of coronation,
their absolute power or insignia of power. However, we can encounter both the
acts of investiture and insignia of power in case of some of them.
12 Cosmae Chronica Bohemorum I 5–7 – on Premysl the Plowman.
11
to ancient times, but considering the level of development of their society,
they are analogical to the ancient ones.13
Several key characteristics of sacred kings or kingship can be defined by
studying various ancient sources. It is useful to list them mainly because if
we find at least some of these features in sources, we can deduct the existence of the sacred rule in the examined society.
To the basic characteristics of the sacred rule belong:
I. The ruler is seen as:
– God incarnate
– Ruler chosen by gods
– Son of a deity
– Special representative of heaven
II. Alternatively, there is a belief that the kingship has come down from
heaven.14
III. Animals and/or a miraculous salvation of an abandoned or otherwise endangered child play an important role in the birth or upbringing
of such a king.
IV. He is the guarantor of world order. In this role, he transfers the will
of gods to the society, he is the link between gods and men, and his task
is to take care of both the rite that maintains the cosmic order and justice
that is at the heart of the order of the human society.
V. He is one of the main figures in the rites which repeat the original
acts of gods. Therefore, the role of the king and the high priest is sometimes
connected.
VI. Every year, he ensures the harvest and fertility of the land, people
and animals in his rites. Therefore, his important attributes may include,
for example, hoe, ax, plow, etc.
VII. He fights the forces of evil, symbolized by demons, dragons, lions,
etc. He is often portrayed in this role (compare e.g. Gilgamesh and the lion,
Heracles and the lion). He triumphs over them and his victories (also over
human enemies) evidence his good relationship with gods.
VIII. It is his fundamental duty to keep this good relationship. If it
lasts, he protects the society from poor harvest, hunger, subjugation to
enemies, diseases, and other evils. He is responsible for the well being of
13 E.g. state entities in Central and South America which fall within our (European)
temporal definition of the Middle Ages.
14 We know from the Mesopotamian myths that this first reportedly happened in
the city of Eridu.
12
all members of the society, which is expressed e.g. in his frequent attribute
“shepherd”.15
IX. If the king does not fulfill the above-mentioned duties, the society
is threatened with various disasters and the king can be deposed or even
sacrificed to gods.
X. Obedience to him is initially seen as obedience to the gods who put
him on the throne and whose will he represents.
XI. There is a certain degree of sacredness around him (from a completely taboo figure to the object of worshipping in prayers, temples, and
by sacrifices, to the man or woman who are endowed with magical power,
but are in everyday touch with other members of the society).
XII. There may be sacred objects with which the ruling power is connected
and which is inherited (vessels, weapons, sacrificial tools, farm tools, etc.).16
While there still was the institution of the sacred rule in the ancient
states of the so-called Oriental type, in the ancient world of Greece and
Rome it was the most prominent in the period before the foundation of
the state, then during the Hellenistic Greece (related to the acquisition of
a number of elements from the ancient Near East civilizations, too), and
in the Roman, especially late, emperorship.
Since sacred power is not discussed that often in connection with the
ancient Greek and Roman world, we will mention some examples – first
for the earlier phase of the local sacred rule.
Greece
According to the Greek myths, the goddess Demeter, who first plowed
field and also created the first laws,17 gave the plowman Triptolemus cereal
grains.18 Triptolemus is here a called up ruler and sacred plowman, responsible for the harvest and fertility.
15 See the Epic of Gilgamesh, tab. I, verses 24–25: He is now shepherd of the Uruk-city
with its stone walls, he – its sheperd, and oppressor neverthelles. Matouš (1976: 24);
Klíma (1979: 119, 143); Ilias, e.g. IV 295–296; IV 413;V 144; V 513; V 566;
V 570; X 73; X 406; XI 92; XI 598; XI 651; XI 842.
16 I see the list of these features open, suitable to be further completed.
17 See for example Ovid. Met.V 341–343; we can see here also the connection of
the donations of livelihood, law and the norms of ethics (the oldest examples
of this connection cf. Chaloupka 1997: 45).
18 Ovid. Met. 653–656.
13
The Greeks often talked about marriages of gods and men and of their
common children. Greek royal families were headed by similar heroes or
by gods. The Dorian tribes and the state of Sparta were reportedly ruled
by kings of the Heracles lineage (Heracleides).19 This hero is a typical hero,
defeating evil everywhere on his way of life. Poseidon was to father Theseus,
the hero of Attica, and his earthly father Aigeus left a sword and sandals
under a large boulder – things to test whether he was called upon to rule.20
After the death, he became the apotropaic hero – he reportedly helped the
Athenians to win the battle of Marathon in 490 BC.21
Homeric epics bring a whole range of clear references to sacred kings.
Kings come from gods and heroes, kingship is given by Zeus, they are called
shepherds of their people.22
The title of Athenian archon, who was called archon basileus, points to
the sacred basileus from the period before the establishment of the Athenian
polis. He held the title of the deposed tribal king and was responsible for
what was one of the most important characteristics of sacred rulers – the
performance of common cult.23
Lycurgus, the lawgiver of Sparta placed into the 7th century BC, was
reportedly named the darling of gods by the Apollo’s prophetess Pythia
and a god rather than a man. He had his laws approved by Apollo. (He is
attributed the creation of the Spartan state constitution and the famous
19 Cf. e.g. Ilias II 653; Herodot. VII 204–205; Thukyd. I 12, 3; (cf. ibid. I 9, 2;
VI 3, 2); Plut. Lysandros 24; Bengtson (1969: 53); Cartledge (2012: 28, 72,
100, 220, 23). Cf. also XII Panegyrici Latini 2, 9 and 4, 8–9; 4, 16; 5, 4 and 6, 2;
2, 13 and elsewhere (connection of Roman emperors with Heracles – although
this is not the oldest evidence of it).
20 Plut. Theseus 3 and 6. In Theseus’ biography 20, Plutarch mentions a ceremony
held in Cyprus where a young man pretends labour pains. The interpretation
of this ceremony is not easy, but it is most likely associated with the magic of
fertility, perhaps with the original self-fertilization occurring in the case of the
gods.
21 Ibid. Theseus 35.
22 Ilias. A full list of places would be too extensive and, therefore, it is limited to
Books I–V: I 176; I 239–240; I 264–268; I 278–279; II 98–108; II 196–197; II
205–206; II 445–446; II 653; II 704; II 731; II 740–743; II 819–820; II 826–827;
III 267–297; IV 295–296; IV 413–414; V 144; V 463–464; V 513; V 544–545;
V 566; V 570; V 601–602; V 628–631; V 662–663. Cf. I 14–15; V 76–78.
23 Bengtson (1969: 107–108).
14
Spartan society of equals.) He is worshipped after death, too – he reportedly had a temple in Sparta and was offered sacrifices.24
Thus, we have examples of Greek gods-lawgivers or lawgivers inspired
by gods, of the revealed law. Justice as a condition for the duration of the
cosmic order was connected not only with the honor of the Greek rulers, but
also with good harvest and fertility of livestock and prosperity in general;
the injustice was connected with various disasters.25
Lycurgus is sometimes considered a half-historical and half-mythical
figure. The Spartan Lysandros, the winner of the Peloponnesian war, was
the first fully historical statesmen who were built altars on which he was
given sacrifices as a god.26 The images of divinity of a ruler were even more
concentrated around the figure of Alexander the Great. Also his father Philippos, as evidenced, held numerous ceremonies connected with the sacred
rule. Alexander was said to be a descendant of Heracles. The conquest of
Egypt contributed a lot to his divinity. God Amun worshipped in Wesset
allegedly had sex with Alexandros’ mother in the form of a snake.27 Amun’s
oracle addressed Alexandros in the temple of this god as the son of Amun,
as well as the son of Zeus.28
Rome
Aeneas, the mythical forefather of the Roman nation, is in Virgil’s epic the
Aeneid called the descendant of Jove, the true descendant of gods. He carries out the purgation of his people and, therefore, also held functions later
defined as priestly.29 The kings of non-Roman tribes of Italy also declared
their divine origin. King Latinus was declared to be the grandson of the
god of the sun Helios.30
One of Aeneas’ descendants, Romulus, the mythical king of the Romans and the grandson of Numitor, the mythical king of Alba Longa, was
of the divine origin after his father Mars, and after his earthly pilgrimage
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Plut. Lykurgos 5; 29; 31.
Hesiod. Erga 124–126; ibid. 225–247; ibid. 276–285.
Plut. Lysandros 18.
Ibid. Alexandros 2 and 3.
Ibid. 27.
Verg. Aen. V 123, 231 and 322.
Verg. Aen. XII 164–165. The Romans and the Latins, however, were closely
related.
15
he was allegedly taken among the gods. Then, he appeared to the senator
Iulius Proculus and declared himself a god named Quirinus.31 Other features of his sacred kingship include: He was nursed by a she-wolf (such as
Zeus was nursed by a goat Amaltheia in Crete, Genghis Khan was brought
up by a wolf). He ordered to sink a round pit as the center of the newly
established settlement (called mundus) and then he plows a sacred furrow
around it, attached a copper blade to the plow (antiquity of the ceremony)
and hitched a cow and a bull to it. Spear that he hurled turned green.32 Livy
mentions many of these features, but he does not seem to understand the
original symbolism.33
According to the tradition the second, yet actually the first historic
Roman king, Numa Pompilius, is depicted by Roman historians as the
founder of most Roman clerical colleges and the organizer of the matters
of Roman cult. In his case, Livy and Plutarch describe the procedure that
was to confirm that the designated Roman king, who held the title rex, was
enthroned by the will of gods. After the Romulus’ death, there was no new
rex first, interregnum followed and the administration of the Roman society
was in the hands of senators. This interregnum34 was used for observation of
oracular signs. If they were in favor of the new king, a procedure followed
in the assembly called comitia curiata. It gave imperium to the king and took
the oath of allegiance.35
Numa consulted the ruling matters with the goddess (or nymph) Egeria.
(This way, for example, the Cretan Minos left for the Dictean cave.) A sacred shield fell to his hands from heaven, which was at the beginning of
the foundation of the priest college of Mars priests Salii.36 Interesting is
Plutarch’s opinion that the temple of goddess Vesta was founded by Numa
as an imitation of the universe.37
Already the Roman royal period brought about a certain departure from
the original rites, held at the accession of the king, especially because the
31 Plut. Romulus 27 and 28.
32 Plut. Romulus 11 and 20.
33 Liv. I 4, 1–6; I 6, 4; I 7, 1; I 9, 4; I 16, 1–8; I 18, 6–10; I 19, 5; I 21, 3f.; I 39, 1;
I 40, 3.
34 Liv. I 17, 5f.; I 22, 1; Plut. Numa 7.
35 Gjerstad (1972: 155–156; 136–188).
36 Liv. I 19, 5; I 21, 3–4; I 20, 4; Cf. ibid. V 54, 7; Verg. Aen. VIII, v. 664f.; Plut.
Numa 4 and 13.
37 Plut. Numa 11.
16
Etruscans took over the rule of Rome after the reign of the third Roman
king Ancus Marcius.38
The title rex was adopted by the Republic in the form of a priest sacrificer, bringing sacrifices for the state, who was called rex sacrorum. Similarly to
the Athenian archon basileus, this priestly function evidences that the Roman
rex was a necessary factor of the public cult, the changes of which were not
desirable. Otherwise, odium regni governed the Republican Romans, their
constitution and laws sought to prevent further accession of kinghood.39
How was it then with the possible sacrality of the Roman Republican
magistrates?
Undoubtedly, it is evidenced for the tribunes of the plebs, where it
was not associated with the sacrality of the rule, but with reasons known
to all ancient civilizations; namely, the protection of the weak and the poor
members of the society. Tribuni plebis, who were to protect the Roman
citizens initially without full civil rights – the plebei from the despotism
of patrician magistrates, enjoyed since ca the 440s benefits of being the
so-called sacrosancti. They were protected by the norms of the divine law
(fas). Whoever harmed a tribune was called sacer and was put completely
outside the laws of gods as well as humans and, therefore, could be killed
with impunity.40
The relationship between the richer and socially important patron and
his poorer, insignificant client that was established already during the royal
times was under the same protection. Patron who did harm to his client
was also threatened with sacration.41
Like reges before, high-ranking Republican magistrates had to be always confirmed by oracular signs. They were held in the electoral comitia
centuriata, as well as in the curiate assembly, which awarded imperium to
the highest magistrates. The procedure of electing the representative of the
state and his endowment with power to command, judge and punish was
separate like in the royal era. The curiate assembly was only a relic, dating
back to the tribal society, whose functions could be fully replaced by the
38
39
40
41
If also Servius Tullius was of Etruscan origine, is not clear.
Liv. II 8, 2.
Liv. III 55, 6f. and cf. ibid. II 33, 3.
See Gell. NA XX 1, 40: … sic clientem in fidem acceptum cariorem habere quam
propinquos tuendumque esse contra cognatos censuit (sc. populus Romanus), neque
peius ullum facinus existimatum est, nam si qui (cui) probaretur clientem divisui
habuisse. Cf. Plut. Bioi Romulus 13.
17
comitia centuriata. However, the curiate assembly was strongly connected
with the Roman rites, religion and, therefore, was not dissolved during the
Republic and also during the Principate, perhaps until the rule of Carus
(282–283 AD).42 Indeed, the comitia centuriata could be summoned only
under good auspices, too.
The right of the high Republican magistrates to perform public sacrifices
and oracles also evidences, that his political functions maintained some
attributes of the former sacred kingship.
Of course, the courts in the Republic era did not make only just judgments, but the Roman awareness that justice is a precondition for good
relationships with the gods existed, even in popular awareness. In one of
his comedies, Plautus43 says that who act unfairly in court eorum referimus
nomina exscripta ad Iovem. Cottidie ille scit, quis hic querat malum.
Connection between justice and the gods is directly apparent in some
legal provisions: e.g. night robbery of harvest was seen as a crime against
the goddess Ceres and punishable by hanging on a tree.44
Already under Caesar, at the turn of the Republic and Principate,
the number of elements of sacrality of the representatives of the Roman
state significantly increased. He was considered the descendant of Aeneas
and, therefore, of Venus, too. After his death, the senate suggested worshipping him as a god and C. Octavianus took care of a temple built for him.45
His apotheosis is celebrated also by the poet Ovid. According to him, the
deified ruler can hear prayers.46 After his death, according to Plutarchos,
a comet appeared in the sky and the sunshine faded, too.47 The motif of the
eclipsed sun is probably one of the constants of the thought of mankind that
once connected the sun with justice and the immoral behaviour (Caesar
was assassinated) with a serious disruption of the world order.48 There is
also a motif of special (essentially “royal”) luck that accompanied Caesar.
42 For evidence see notes to the article by Bednaříková (2012b: 40–44, notes
125–165); Aur. Vict. Caes. 37, 5.
43 Plaut. Rud. 13–20. Cf. also very interesting attitude Cicero’s to the conception
of the term “law” in his work De legibus I 23.
44 Leges XII tab. VIII 5. Such hanging represented a typical kind of human sacrifices.
45 See for example Plut. Caes. 57.
46 Ovid. Met. XV 746–879; prayers: 869f.
47 Plut. Caes. 68.
48 See the report of the Gospels, according to which darkness veiled the whole
world after the death of Christ, as well as the Chronicle of Václav Vavřinec z Březové
18
Supposedly, Caesar soothed a terrified helmsman on a boat by saying: “Do
not fear, you sail Caesar in your boat, and Caesar’s luck sails with us.“49
A temple was also built to Octavianus, with him the so-called principate began, as well as to the other emperors of the principate after their
death and after their supposed apotheosis, and their cult was cultivated
by priests called augustales. The temples were built even to the living
emperors.
The deceased emperor was called divinus, divine, which differed from
the adjective divus, which is translated with the same word, but it denoted
the emperor still living. Although he was divine, he was not regarded as a
living god. The title Augustus, which the Roman senate gave to Octavianus
in January 27 BC, meant noble or blessed.
The idea that the ruler is a living god first appeared with the Claudius
family, Caligula and Nero considered themselves living deities.50 A colossal
statue of Nero represented this emperor as the god Helios.51 In connection with the tradition of the sacred kings or kingship, these excesses are
not inexplicable; nevertheless, the Romans were not prepared for a similar
understanding of the emperor yet.
The emperors not only had their temples and priests, also the residents
of the empire could pray to them; even their statues provided asylum to
people fleeing from punishment.
Domitianus, the last ruler from the Flavius dynasty, was the first ruler
to be called dominus et deus at his court.52 His predecessors from this family
were, on the contrary, very moderate considering the divinity of imperial
figures.53
In the Roman state with its practically modern administration, calling
the emperors gods was not as important as in the early development of
the states. The connection of imperial figures with the Roman cult was a
different matter, as even the Romans did not stop believing that the public
rites and sacrifices were vital for the empire. The cult of emperors became
49
50
51
52
53
(chap. 9), which talks about the total eclipse of the sun before the sentencing of
Jan Hus in Constance.
Plut. Caes. 38.
Certainly, it was no part of the titular of these emperors.
Sueton. Calig. 22; ibid. Nero 31; Cf. Plin. NH XXXIV 45.
Cf. e.g. Suet. Domitianus 13.
Vespasian, the founder of the dynasty, is said to comment on his mortal illness
with ironic words: “I suppose I shall soon be a god.”. Suet. Vespasianus 23.
19
an integral part of them, so much strong that its refusal represented a very
important cause for bloody persecution of Christians.54
The basic title of the emperor during the principate was princeps and
denoted emperor only as the first senator and, therefore, the first among
all Roman citizens. The fight between two tendencies, the rational and the
civil on the one hand and the religious and monarchistic on the other, is to
some extent typical for this era.
The emergence of imperial absolutism, called the dominate by
Th. Mommsen, eliminated this hesitation, but a new problem soon appeared – the controversy about emperor’s divinity and Christian monotheism. The first known Christian chronicler Eusebios already tried to
solve this problem. However, his conception of Emperor Constantinus I
does not fundamentally differ from the understanding of sacral rulers
e.g. in the ancient Near East. According to him, the emperor is the God’s
favorite, endowed with Logos’ favor. He is the representative of God on
earth, God ensures victory over his enemies and his deeds transfer God’s
will to earth.55
At the beginning of the dominate, the divinity of emperors was strongly
emphasized, the emperor was called dominus et deus and his new conception was now supported by new signs of power and a rite which was held
during an audience at the emperor (proskynesis, adoratio purpureae). The
conception of the emperor as a deity was emphasized by naming everything
associated with the emperor sacred. The adjective sacer is connected not
only with the emperor’s council (sacrum consistorium), but also e.g. with
his palace, clothing and bedroom. The contact between the public and the
emperor was greatly reduced.
A grateful source of evidence of the sacrality of the dominate rulers are
panegyrics which were recited to them on various occasions. Of course,
these sources try to flatter the recipient of the speech as much as possible;
however, this is not a problem when determining the sacral status of the
emperor. In the edition of 12 Latin Panegyrics including (with exception
of the Panegyric in honor of Traianus) the panegyrics on the emperors of
dominate56 the oldest is Mamertinus’ panegyric in honor of Maximianus,
the co-ruler of the dominate founder, Emperor Diocletianus.
54 Cf. Kitzler (2009 and 2011).
55 Euseb. HE IX, 1f.; VII 12f.; X 9, 1.
56 XII Panegyrici Latini.
20
The title “the most holy Emperor” is very common here as well as in
other panegyrics.57 Maximianus is a divine personality, emperors are of
divine origin and come from Jove (augusti), the caesares from his son and
hero Hercules. The emperor is a god, present among people.58 An important attribute of imperial power of the dominate rulers was Fortuna, i.e. the
famous “royal” luck. She accompanied their reign and granted them victory
in wars.59 According to a panegyrist, during the reign of the first dominate
emperors, the empire enjoyed good harvest and good health returned (there
had been plague before).60 Therefore, the emperors guaranteed their country
fertility and good health of their inhabitants.
We can find similar attributes in the panegyric in honor of Emperor
Constantius Chlorus (as caesar). It reminiscences of the divinity and fortune
of emperors; the panegyrist says, that the emperors send light to earth to
redeem people and that their divine power acts wherever their portraits
and banners are worshipped.61
The anonymous panegyrics62 in honor of Emperor Constantinus I
called this ruler numen tuum, sacratissimus, praesentissimus deus, god is: quasi
maiestatis of Constantinus comes et socius.63 Nazarius’ panegyric in honor
of Emperor Constantine I shows a certain Christian shift. God is behind
Constantine’s deeds, divine force helps him and he constantly serves God.
These statements, as well as the emphasis on Constantine divine courage,
glory and compassion are well compatible with Christian ideas, including
the heavenly host that comes to rescue Constantinus. This army, however,
is led by his deceased father, divus Constantius.64
57 XII Paneg. Lat. 2, 1; 2, 3; 3, 2; 3, 13; 3, 15; 5, 4; 5, 15; 6, 1; 7, 1; 8, 1; 9, 1 and
elsewhere; cf. 2, 2 (divina origo gentis eius); 9, 26 (divina suboles eius).
58 Ibid. 2, 4; (cf. 2, 10); 2, 13; 3, 3; 4; 8; 4, 16; 5, 4; 6, 2.
59 Cf. e.g. ibid. 3, 6; 3, 13; 3, 16; 5, 15; 12, 40; 12, 42.
60 Ibid. 3, 15.
61 Ibid. 5, 4; 5, 15.
62 In the case of panegyrics written in the Christian era of Roman Empire and the
work of Priscus, I mostly do not distinguish between “god” and “God” because
it is not always easy to determine whether the relevant parts of these texts refer
generally to a god or specifically to the Christian God. I have therefore decided
to largely use “god” here.
63 Ibid. 7, 1;7, 2; 7, 22; e.g. 8, 1; 8, 2; 8, 7; 8, 9; 8, 14; 9, 1; 9, 5; 9, 13; 9, 19; 9, 25; 9, 26.
64 Ibid. 10, 3;10, 7 (numen is here the Christian God); 10, 13; 10, 14 (Ducebat hos,
credo, Constantius pater … dum divinas expeditiones iam divus agitabat; heavenly
army here also: 10, 19); 10, 16; 10, 17; 10, 26; 10, 32.
21
The panegyrics written in honor of the Christian (even though not bigot) emperor Valentianus I by one of the greatest defenders of the old Roman
polytheism and one of the greatest scholars of Late Antiquity Q. Aurelius
Symmachus are interesting, too. Only emperor’s fortune appears in the first
one.65 The second one has more examples we are looking for. It contains
denotation of emperors as divine figures, but, at the same time, the emperor
is characterized as “a creature closest to god”.66
In a panegyric, Ausonius, a famous Late Antiquity poet from Gallia,
thanked emperor Gratian, who two years later as the first Roman ruler rejected the title of Supreme Pontiff (pontifex maximus) and thus completely
broke up with the old Roman polytheism, for attaining the consulship.
The panegyric is partly characteristic of the traditional indecisiveness in
views typical of the period. The father of the emperor achieved the divine
honors,67 but Gratianus has talents for which he owes to god, god proposes
and emperor performs, god is the originator of his power and his decisions.68
Te ruler is not deus, but proximus deo.
Journey towards the image of the emperor as a mere ruler by the grace
of God has not been finished by far. It is evidenced in Pacatus’ panegyric in
honor of Emperor Theodosius I, who was the first to ban the performance of
“pagan” religion completely. According to the author, Theodosius is “equal
to god”, divine being, god is his partner in reign. He shows himself to people; therefore, people have the opportunity to look at the deity. His visits
in houses of private persons are commented by saying that “… his divine
steps also hallowed the houses of private persons”.69 The discomfiture of
ideas which were to reconcile the new Christian view of the empire and
the emperor’s divinity is in the late Latin panegyrics great.
Obviously, when speaking of panegyrics we must bear in mind their
above-mentioned purpose, which is adulation. However, the image of a
Christian emperor as a being quite different than ordinary mortals can
be confirmed by the words of a military expert Flavius Vegetius Renatus,
too, who writes that to the emperor belongs the faithful devotion as to
the incarnate God on the Earth (but he also rules according to the will of
65
66
67
68
69
Symmach. Laud. in Valent. I 14.
Symmach. Laud. in Valent. II 18.
Auson. Grat. actio. 2 (pater divinis honoribus consecratus).
Ibid. 4; 5; 9; 18.
XII Paneg. Lat. 12, 10, 1; ibid. 6, 4; 18, 4; 21, 2; 47, 3.
22
God).70 A similar attitude to Emperor Theodosius II, the ruler of the eastern
part of the Roman Empire from 408, is evidenced by the historian Priscus;
Roman Bigilas spoke of the emperor as god at the feast in Serdica (Sofia).71
In the period after deposing the last West Roman Emperor Romulus
Agustulus, when even the center of the empire, Italy, was dominated by
barbarian rulers, the tradition of sacral power of the former dominate emperors continued. Theodoric the Great, king of the Ostrogoths, who ruled
in Italy from 493 to 526,72 was honored with a panegyric by Ennodius, the
bishop of Pavia. The Christian dignitary speaks here of his divinity (numen
tuum); his heir is called “holy child”.73 However, Ennodius also points out
that the king knows that the result of his exertions is in the hands of God,
and behaves accordingly.74
Of course, it would be possible to include also other evidence concerning the sacred rule in Antiquity. However, this would be a task for an
independent study.
States in the transitional period between
Antiquity and the Middle Ages
The so-called Barbarian Germanic States
Compared to the ancient state, they do not necessarily form a religious
and legal unity.
One of the basic attributes of political units of the period of the socalled great migration of peoples is their polyethnical structure.75 E.g. the
70 Veget. De re mil. II 5: Iurant autem per Deum et Christum et sanctum Spiritum et
per maiestatem imperatoris, quae secundum Deum generi humano diligenda est et
colenda. Nam imperator cum Augusti nomen accepit, tamquam praesenti et corporali
Deo fidelis est ei praestanda devotio … qui Deo regnat auctore. This work was most
probably created during the rule of Theodosius I (379–395) and dedicated to
this emperor. Cf. for instance: Oliva (1977: 29); Milner (1996: 37ff ); Conte
(2003: 565-566). Otherwise e. g. O. Seeck (1876: 61–83).
71 Priskos, frg. 8, p. 82.
72 Considered also the representative of East Roman emperors.
73 Ennod. Paneg. Theod. 1, 4; 1, 2; 2, 5; cf. 21, 93.
74 Ibid. 17, 80.
75 I do not count among such units those, within the polyethnical structure has
been created by the military agression (as Frankish empire).
23
Ostrogoths, who escaped the Hun bondage, joined the Alans and the Huns
under the joint leadership of chieftains Alatheus and Saphrac. Also the
Radagaisus’ barbarians were a diverse group. These formations are not
counted among the barbarian Germanic states, just as there is no uniform
consensus about the inclusion of the Odoaker’s kingdom among them.
Also the Ostrogothic state was ethnically diverse, as it was formed by the
Ostrogoths, Rugi, Heruls, Sciri, Sueves, Turcilingi, Alans and the original
Roman population. The Vandal state was formed by the Vandals, Alans,
and Afroromans. The German Taifals joined the Visigoths, their state first
included the Gallo-Romans and then the Romans in Hispania. The presence of the Romanesque element is another very characteristic feature
of these state formations. We find it in all of them.
A new social, or state units of this time, forms around an important
chieftain or king. It is founded either by internal social development (reduction in the number of tribal chieftains in the case of the Franks, Visigoths,
Alamans) or in order to save certain ethnically often motley groups of contemporaries of the great migration period, who unite around a successful
military leader (the aforementioned case of Alatheus and Saphrac, Theodoric
the Great, Vandal Hasding kings, etc.). For both of these processes, the
migration of peoples was a fertile soil, as it was necessary to increase one’s
defensive capacity and when it was often necessary to get sustenance from
the spoils of war or to conquer new territories to settle in.
Kingship and its supports
Source terminology
Classical languages: rex, ῥῆξ, βασιλεύς. In addition to these terms, the leader
can also be called: princeps, primas, dux, iudex, φύλαρχος, by words primarily used for chieftains.
Known German terminology: thiudans, reiks, kuning (konung).
The king is the basic power of the forming of a new state, he represents
the unity of its society.
1) Support in sacrality
Ammianus Marcellinus describes the sacral king of Burgundians, entitled hendinos.76According to Jordanes’ Getica,77 the Ostrogoths considered
76 Ammian. XXVII 5, 14.
77 Jord. Get. 78.
24
their predecessors from the Amal clan as demigods, anses. According to
so-called Fredegar,78 kings of the Frankish ruling house of the Merovingian
saw the predecessor of their family in the sea deity, called Neptunus Quinotaurus and during their travels through the kingdom they used a team of
oxen.79 The north Germanic house of Ynglings derived its origin from the
god Odin and his divine successors (gods-kings). Heimskringla by Snorri
Sturluson includes this genealogy as well as a number of other examples
of sacrality of Scandinavian chieftains and kings.80 Sacral support of royal
authority can also be seen in the substitution of the terms wargus and extra
sermonem regis positus, which occurs in two provisions of the codes Pactus
legis Salicae and Lex Salica.81
2) Retinue (comites, antrustiones)
The beginnings of the retinue environment within Germanic peoples
is documented already in Caesar,82 and we can encounter it as fully developed in Tacitus.83 A retinue constituted an embryonic state apparatus. In
the Frankish state, the positions of individual retinue members were determined by their stable seating at royal banquets, where they were seated by
truhsas; according to the Pactus legis Salicae code, the wergeld of the retinue
members was three times higher than of ordinary free Frank.84 The sources
of the Visigothic state evidences such court functions as comes scanciarum,
comes spathariorum, etc. developing just from the retinue.85
3) War
Kings were accompanied with royal luck, which ensured protection and
victory in war also to other fighters.86 War helped them form and maintain
large comitatus which became the mainstay of their power. In Heimskringla
78 Fredegar III 11.
79 Einhard, Vita Caroli 1.
80 Cf. Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla I 2–10; ibid., e.g. I 8; I 10; I 15; I 16; I 17;
I 25; I 43; II 9; IV 17; IV 18; IV 21; cf. also: Bednaříková (2003: 356).
81 Cf. PLS 55, 2; L. Sal. 66; L. Rib. 90.
82 Caes. Bell. Gall. VI 23, 1–7: Latrocinia nullam habent infamiam, quae extra fines
cuiusque civitatis fiunt; Atque ubi quis ex principibus in concilio dixit se ducem fore,
qui sequi velint, profiteantur, consurgunt ii, qui et causam et hominem probant…
83 Tac. Germ. 14. Tacitus says that the Germans prefer fighting to cultivating the
land because it seems like laziness and cowardice to them to get by work what
they can get by blood.
84 PLS 41, 5 (wergeld for a simple free Frank: ibid. 15, 1; 41, 1).
85 Bednaříková (2003: 110).
86 Cf. e.g. the already cited Jord. Getica 78.
25
by Snorri Sturluson, we can find e.g. these words (related to the Viking
period): There used to be many “sea kings”, who commanded great armies,
but held no territory. The true “sea king” was considered the one who never slept
under a smoke-stained roof of a house nor drank in the corner by a fireplace.87
4) Relations with the Roman Empire
A significant role in strengthening the power of individual chieftains
and kings was represented by the foederati relations with the Roman
Empire (barbarian states of the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks and the Burgundians are based on the foederati relation). Foederati relation meant
Roman alliance, gifts, money, goods, and also land allocated on the basis
of hospitalitas.88 It helped to form the rule of a single mighty chieftain/king
within the tribal unions.
5) Legislation
The protection of the king proper we can find for example in the Visigothic
Antiqua,89 Edictum Theoderici,90 Leges Langobardorum,91 Lex Baiuvariorum,92
law codes issued for the Saxons after their defeat by Charlemagne.93
The protection of royal officials by higher wergeld had a similar meaning as the previous provisions. We have spoken about the higher wergeld
for the life of royal retinue members in Frankish law codes; the same
case was also for the counts, the oldest representatives of the royal territorial administration in the Frankish state. In capacity as the members
of the royal administration were later protected also the dukes and so on.
87 Heimskringla I 30.
88 In the case of Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Burgundians.
89 Chindasvind’s legal regulation permits torture of members of all strata of society, if
the protection of the royal power is at stake (Leges Visigoth. VI 2, 1 and 2 – where
the king stipulates a possibility to grant pardon to a guilty person). The wergeld
by the Visigoths was the same for all the personally free Goths, but they existed
some differences in sanctions for criminal acts committed by the members of
privileged and lower classes of Visigothic society, like as in the possibility to use
torture in them.
90 Edictum Theoderici 107.
91 In Rothari’s edict we can find the death penalty for preparing a plot against the
king, for mutiny in the army, quarrel and fight on the ground of the Royal palace
(1, 6 and 8).
92 In this respect, Lex. Bai. Appendix 2, is particularly important (on the disobedience of the dukes to the king); cf. ibid. III 2.
93 Capitula de partibus Saxoniae (10 and 11) includes the death penalty for “conspiracy against the king and a nation of Christians” and disloyalty to the king.
26
The protection of the clergy on the territory of the Frankish empire was
strong, too.94
6) Tradition, genealogy of their families and ceremony of their investiture also played an important role in the consolidation of royal power.
We have mentioned the tradition of the Amals (which was tracked by
Cassiodorus in his history of the Goths for 17 generations), divine ancestors-founders of royal dynasties. The royal family of Balth had a glorious
tradition among the Visigoths. Investiture and insignia of power is documented in, for example, the case of the king Thorismund, who after the
death of his father at the Catalaunian plains was lifted by his fighters on
the shield.95 In the Merovingian family, the royal power was passed down
by handing over a spear.96 Heimskringla describes the drinking from the
so-called Bragi-cup.97
7) Church
Another very important support of the royal power was the church,
both Arian and Catholic. In the case of the Arian church, kings were its
heads, clergy was subjected to them, not to the pope, religious services
were held in Germanic language, and there was a Gothic translation of the
Bible. On the other hand, religious dualism represented a considerable
problem in Arian Germanic kingdoms, as the original Roman population
was Catholic. The Germans and Romans were being connected into a unified society even under these circumstances,98 but the complete unity of
the kingdom occurred only after the conversion of the Germanic kings to
the Catholic church.
The Catholic Frankish kings ensured themselves certain, yet less
visible, primacy over the church. All bishops, elected by the canon law,
had to be necessarily also confirmed by the Frankish ruler, who thus
94 PLS 54, 1; 64, 1; cf. 42, 1. It was 600 solids for the retinue members and counts;
cf. e.g. Cap. de part. Sax. 30. Convivae regis, i.e. royal retinue members of the
Roman origin, enjoyed the highest legal protection out of the original Roman
population in the territory of the Frankish kingdom (PLS 41, 8). Bednaříková
(2003: 384), for the clergy: L. Rib. 38, 5–9; cf. e.g. L. Bai. I 9–10.
95 Jord. Get. 214f. (see here also insignia of power which were buried together with
Visigothic king Theoderic I).
96 Greg. Tur. HF VII 33.
97 Heimskringla I 36.
98 The king was in any case also the protector and the administrative head of the
Romans.
27
built an offshoot and support of the royal administration in the bishop
offices.99
Bearers of statehood
Within the residues of tribal formations, which can be found in all of the
so-called barbarian states, the assembly of armed men, exercitus, is the early
bearer of statehood. A synonym for this institution is the etnonym of the
leading tribe (Goths, Vandals, Franks), even though other ethnicities subject
to the same king may be covered by this designation, too. Exercitus Gothorum elected the king Vitigis instead of Theudat. The king Eraric (who is of
the Sueves origin) was also elected after the death of Vitigis.100 Exercitus
Vandalorum elected Gelimer as the king of the Vandals and Alans after
the deposition of Hilderic.101 Theodoric the Great became the king of the
Goths after the death of his father Theodimir in 474. In 493, he was again
proclaimed the king by the polyethnical unit which he ruled in Italy.102
His grandson Athalaric was approved by the assembly, which was probably formed only by the higher-ranking barbarians and king’s barbarian
officials.103 For the Frankish king Clovis it was necessary to enforce his
will against the so-called March assembly.104 The assembly of “wise men”
in Anglo-Saxons Britain were called witenagemot. The development from
the assembly of all free fighters, which decides on the state matters, to the
assembly of estates is well evidenced in the Visigoths and Franks.105
The original Roman population occurring outside exercitus did not
participate in the state matters, unless its members became royal officials,
which actually happened quite often, or soldiers. Understandably, they attended the later assembly of estates in the consequence with the process of
99 Cf. 10. canon of the 2nd council in Clermont; Chlotharii regis praeceptio I; Chlotharii
II. edictum 6; Bednaříková (2009: 154). See wergeld for killing a bishop in L. Rib.,
where it appears for the first time, amounted to 900 solids (L. Rib. 38, 5–9).
100 Prokop. BG II 11, 5f.; ibid. III 2, 1–7.
101 Prokop. BV I, 6–21; the official title of the king of the Vandal state in North Africa
was rex Vandalorum et Alanorum (cf. Laterculus regum Wandalorum et Alanorum).
102 Exc. Vales. XII 57.
103 Jord. Get. 304: Convocans Gothos comites gentisque suae primates…
104 Greg. Tur. HF II 27.
105 Cf. Bednaříková (2003: 102–110); assemblies of estates in the kingdom of Visigoths
were represented by councils held in Toledo; Bednaříková (2009: 115–117).
28
feudalization of the barbarian states and with the formation of the unified
class of the Roman-Barbarian nobility, too.
Legal relations
Legal relations also form one of the characteristics of the barbarian Germanic
states. In most of them, we cannot find territorial validity of law or legal unity,
but they are governed by the so-called legal personality.106 Only the Ostrogothic
state of Theoderic perhaps had uniform law; in the Visigoth state, two different
legal systems were united by the king Recceswinth in the 7th century (643).
Legal documents of barbarian Germanic states, except for the AngloSaxon states, are called barbarian codes.
This term denotes the codification of law created between the 5th and
9th century AD and written in Latin,107 or in Latin with the use of locally
established legal terms. They mix here tribal customary law, norms, taken
and adapted from Roman law, and royal constitutions more or less influenced by this law. The influence of Roman law in these law codes differs.
Sometimes, we can find residues of ritual legal norms in these codes (e.g. in
Pactus legis Salicae,108 in the Phrysians, Langobards, as well as elsewhere).109
Royal constitutions did not have tribal validity; they had territorial validity.
Attila’s “empire”
There is a certain inconsistency in the methodological approach when examining the administrative units of agricultural and nomadic populations,
in particular when assessing the importance of residues of tribal formations
of nomads (e.g. provable residues of tribal formation in the state of Hsiung-nu or in the Hunnic “Empire” in Europe raise doubts about whether these
social units can be called states).
However, such residues occur also in those units that we undoubtedly
consider states in our science. E.g. territorial division did not replace division
106 Romans and barbarians were governed by different law; in the Frankish state
also individual barbarian tribal laws have been codified. In this sense we can find
here a really great diversity (Cf. Agobardus, Liber adversus legem Gundobadi 5).
107 Therefore, we do not include the codes of Anglo-Saxon kings of the same period,
which were written in the local language.
108 See more in Bednaříková (2010 and 2014).
109 Cf. Bednaříková (2003: 371– 387).
29
according to blood kinship groups on the island of Samos until the period
of Polycrates’ reforms, in Attica until the period of Cleisthenes’ reforms,
i.e. at least two centuries after the formation of the oldest Athenian state
authorities.110 The role of phratria in Athenian law continued for a relatively
long time.111 In the Frankish state, the role of tribal institutions (the assembly of armed men, “March assembly”, and some judicial institutions)
has been remained, along which the judiciary of counts as royal officials
soon appeared.112 As in the case of the above-mentioned Greek poleis or
the Franks, whose political formations are called states, some organs of the
family society remained in the nomadic empires, e.g. in the above-mentioned
Asian state of Hsiung-nu or European Hunnic “Empire”.113
Specific characteristics of nomadic “empires” were defined by N. Kradin
and T. Barfield.114 The former defines a nomadic empire as a society organized on a military-hierarchical principle and inhabiting a large territory. An
“empire” gets goods not produced by the economies of nomads by means
of armed robbery, wars, unequal trade, tax enforcement and gift enforcement from their neighbors. He lists further the characteristics of nomadic
societies, as follows: multilevel hierarchical nature of its leadership, permeation of their states with tribal formations, territorial division of the empire
into two or three (main) parts; also an obligatory service of horsemen in
communication between the counties and the city, the decimal system of
110 We cannot clearly answer the question what to consider the beginning, emergence of an ancient state of Greece or Rome. Here are a few possibilities: There
is management which is not based on the principle of patriarchy, but on voting.
An electoral unit is either a blood kinship group (earlier state form) or a group
in which blood relationships are irrelevant (a very good example of this more
advanced form is the so called Servius’ constitution in Rome). The obligation of
vendetta is passed from the clan to the state (creation of the Areopagus in Athens
which has judicial functions, Draconian laws, Laws of the Twelve Tables). State
is the arbiter between the offender and the victim, eliminates not only vendetta,
but also the principle of collective guilt (whose residues can sporadically occur
even in the laws of the state).
111 Aristotel. Athénaión politeiá 21, 6; Bengtson (1969: 107–109); Fragments of
Draconian laws also include liability of kinship collective (ἀνδροληψία) and the
institution of reconciliation (αἴδεσις).
112 Cf. Bednaříková (2009: 115–125).
113 Cf. Bednaříková (2012a: 44–48 and 148–157).
114 Kradin (2003: 73–87); Barfield (1981: 45–61).
30
organization of army, succession of rulers from the whole ruling clan and
a specific form of coexistence with agricultural societies.
According to Kradin, the emergence of great nomadic empires corresponds in terms of time to the formation of large agricultural states (e.g.
“empire” of Hsiung-nu and China under the Han dynasty). An important
task of the ruler of a nomadic empire was to get various needs from outside.
His power depended on how he managed to fulfill this task. He considers
the so-called “prestigious economy” (in the form of graduated gifts from
the ruler) an important link between the ruling center and the tribes. He
notices the complexity of the structure of nomadic states and prefers to call
them “supersložnoje vožděstvo”.
J. Barfield calls the state of Hsiung-nu “Imperial confederacy”. He
thinks that it was formed in order to mediate relations between China and
steppe tribes and thus considers it a product of the development of Chinese
civilization.
Attila’s “empire” was the ultimate stage in the development of the Hunnic “Empire” in Europe; therefore, we will look closer at this type of the
“barbarian” state at this stage. First, it should be noted that unlike in the
Germanic states of this period, it is possible to find here elements of the
states of the ancient Oriental type, which most likely were brought to Europe
by the so-called traditional core of the Hunnic tribes.115
These elements include a high degree of sacrality of the Attila’s rule.116
We can talk about the position when the ruler is considered deity, ruling on
the earth. The older tradition may correspond to certain features of Attila’s
absolutism. He is the lord to the members of his retinue, even to the most
important of them;117 he may punish the so-called logades by death as he
likes.118 Contact with him is governed by elaborate ceremonial rules.119
Attila’s retinue, an early state apparatus, out of which individual specific
state functions devolved as in the case of the Visigoths or the Franks, is well
documented by the historian Priscus. He calls the members of his retinue
115 For the issue of the link of European Huns and the traditional core of Asian
Hsiung-nu, see Bednaříková (2012a: 9–23).
116 See more in Bednaříková (2013: 195–204).
117 Priskos, frg. 8, p. 89 (despotés).
118 For Attila’s criminal jurisdiction see Priskos, frg. 8, p. 72 and 94–95. On the other
hand, just as patriarchal rulers, he personally judged the disputes of his people
(ibid., p. 89).
119 Priskos, cf. frg. 8, p. 85.
31
logades. Their position is determined by distance from the king in which
they are seated at banquets,120 again analogically, as in the case of the Franks.
According to Priscus’ reports, logades were king’s bodyguards, secretaries,
advisers with whom he discussed e.g. issues of international relations of his
“empire”, commanders of certain parts of the army, administrators of areas
which they governed by decision of the king;121 they were also active in
the collection of taxes and levies, as well as in the diplomatic service of the
Hunnic “Empire”. One of the main bonds of loyalty of the retinue to the king
was the war booty.122 Unfortunately, we cannot accurately determine the
position of the king’s oinochoos,123 whether he also belonged to the retinue
members, logades, and could be compared to the Visigothic function of comes
scanciarum or Frankish butiglarius. Even without this knowledge, it is quite
evident that an early state apparatus was being formed and promoted in the
Attila’s “empire”, which was quite analogous to the administrative system
of early medieval “barbarian” kingdoms.
The mixing of older tribal structure and newly emerging state structures is similar, too. Attila tried to gradually replace the tribal administration
of the Huns with his logades, selected governors, who were assigned and
deposed by the king himself.124 Conversely, he seemed to perceive the tribal
kings of the subjected Germanic ethnicities as his logades.125
Some of the concepts described in the Priscus’ fragments are difficult
to interpret unambiguously. This applies, for example, to the so-called village archontes. These could be the representatives of their self-government
or their owners.126
We do not know the customary law of the Huns and do not have written legal code of their “empire”; however, it is documented that there was
written administration at the Hunnic royal court.127 Concerning the punish120 Priskos, frg. 8, p. 91.
121 This is also archeologically evidenced by the findings of gold bows, which were
used as insignia of their power.
122 Cf. Priskos, frg. 8, p. 86.
123 Priskos, frg. 8, p. 91.
124 Priscus does not call the members of this older administration λογάδες, λοχαγοί,
or ἐπιτήδεοι, but ἄρχοντες or βασιλῆες (frg. 8, p. 82–83).
125 Cf. Jord. Get., p. 199–200 and 253.
126 The ownership of villages is documented e.g. in logas Berichos (Priskos, frg. 8,
p. 94).
127 Cf. Priskos, frg. 8, p. 80, 81 and 84.
32
ments that were according to the historian Priscus applied, we do not know
whether they were part of customary norms or depended on the will of the
ruler. The latter seems to be more likely (see e.g. Attila’s treatment with the
interpreter Bigilas, the logas Constantinus or Hunnic spies who worked in
Roman services).128
Therefore, Attila’s “empire” can be considered a “barbarian state“ with
certain features of the sacred kingship and absolute might of the so-called
Ancient Oriental type, which make it different from the so-called barbarian
Germanic states where the sacrality of rulers stems from the tribal society.
Conclusion
“Barbarian” Germanic states can be considered primarily those states with
very important state-forming role of the royal power, which is not solely
monarchical, though. There are certain residues of a tribal formation in
combination with royal authorities. The ethnical structure of these kingdoms
is often motley. The bearer of the statehood is originally the exercitus, the
assembly of armed “barbarians”, and later, at least in some states, the estates
assemblies. There is always a substantial proportion of Roman population
(which is partly true also for the Attila’s “empire” after the handower from
a part of Pannonia to them as foederati by the West Roman government in
the 430s). In most of them129 we can see codified tribal laws, to a certain
extent influenced by the Roman law, legal personality in the sphere of the
written tribal laws and territorial validity of royal norms.
Methodological questions to be further discussed:
Should we consider only those states that chronologically fall within
the ancient period traditionally defined by the historical science to be states
of the ancient type, or also those which belong to the same developmental
type and achieved similar developmental stage that was reached by various
societies in different time periods?
Concerning the so-called barbarian states, should we consider only
Germanic states founded on the territory of the West Roman Empire, or
include to the type of “barbarian” states also other territorial possession
128 Cf. ibid., frg. 8, p. 81 and 95; frg. 14, p. 98; frg. 8, p. 84; ibid., p. 94.
129 Except for the state of Vandals, Sueves and practically also of Ostrogoths (even
if the Edictum Theoderici belongs to Ostrogothic kingdom, because it includes
only Roman law).
33
that meet a majority of the above-mentioned criteria, e.g. “empire” of Attila
or some early Slavic states?
Is it methodologically correct to create rather chronologically limited
units in the historical research (which causes problems, e.g. with the inclusion of the civilization of the Incas, Aztecs, states in the Far East, state formations similar to Great Moravia, etc.) or also to create certain typological
units where the above-mentioned American cultures etc. would belong to
the same type of the ancient states, to the type of “barbarian” states such
as Great Moravia and Attila’s “Empire”?130
Of course, it is not possible to abandon the chronological division of
history; however, the latter method of typologization of states (cultures)
presented here allows us to track and compare characteristic features accompanying the development of the whole mankind, to compare social and
political units that are at the same developmental stage, even though they
may not occur in the same time periods.131 I believe that the latter criteria
could be usefully applied at least within university education and scientific
conception of history.
Bibliography
Primary sources
Agobardus Lugdunensis, Liber adversus legem Gundobadi. Ed. E. Dümmler
(1899), MGH, EE V, Epistolae Karolini aevi III. Berlin: Weidmann,
158–164.
Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt. Ed. W. Seyfarth
(1978). Leipzig: Teubner.
Aristoteles, Athénaión politeiá. Ed. H. Oppermann (1928). Leipzig: Teubner.
Ausonius, D. Magni Ausonii opuscula. Ed. C. Schenkl (1883), MGH, AA V, 2.
Berlin: Weidmann.
Caesar, Commentarii de bello Gallico. Ed. A. Klotz (1957). Leipzig: Teubner.
Capitula de partibus Saxoniae. Ed. H. G. Gengler (1875), In Germanische
Rechtsdenkmäler. Erlangen: Deichert, 404–410.
130 Here, we come across the methodological vagueness of the terms empire (as a
certain pre-state formation) and as state.
131 It would also imply a presumption that under certain equal conditions it is very
likely to expect an analogous type of development.
34
Cicero, De legibus libri tres. Ed. C. W. F. Müller (1905). Leipzig: Teubner,
380–450.
Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Bohemorum. Ed. B. Bretholz – W. Weinberger
(1923), MGH, SRG, NS II. Berlin: Weidmann.
Edictum Rothari. Ed. G. H. Pertz (1868), MGH, LL IV. Hannover: Hahn,
3–90.
Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni. Ed. O. Holder-Egger (1911), MGH, SRG 25.
Hannover: Hahn.
Ennodius, Magni Felicis Ennodi opera. Ed. F. Vogel (1885), MGH, AA VII.
Berlin: Weidmann.
Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica. Ed. W. Dindorf (1890), Eusebii Caesariensis
opera IV. Leipzig: Teubner.
Excerpta Valesiana. Ed. J. C. Rolfe (1958), Ammianus Marcellinus III. London: William Heinemann.
Excerpta Valesiana. Ed. J. Moreau – V. Velkov (1968). Leipzig: Teubner.
Fredegarii et aliorum Chronica. Ed. B. Krusch (1888), MGH, SRM II. Hannover: Hahn.
Fredegarii chronicorum liber quartus cum continuationibus. Ed. J. M. Wallace-Hadrill (1960). London: Nelson.
Gellius, Noctes Atticae. Ed. C. Hosius (1903). Leipzig: Teubner.
Gregorius Turonensis, Historiarum libri X. Ed. R. Buchner (1955–1956).
(2 volumes). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Gregorius Turonensis, Libri historiarum X. Ed. B. Krusch – W. Levison
(1937–1951), MGH, SRM I, 1. Hannover: Hahn.
Herodotos, Historiarum libri IX. Ed. R. Dietsch – H. Kallenberg (1940).
Leipzig: Teubner.
Hesiodos, Erga kai hemerai. Ed. A. Rzach (1908). In Hesiodi carmina. Leipzig: Teubner.
Homer, Ilias. Ed. H. van Thiel (2010). Zürich – New York – Hildesheim:
Olms. Homer, Ilias. Transl. V. Šrámek (2010). Praha: Academia.
Jordanes, Romana et Getica. Ed. Th. Mommsen (1882), MGH, AA V, 2.
Berlin: Weidmann.
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum. Ed. S. Brandt – G. Laubmann (1893),
Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 27. Wien: Tempsky.
Laterculus regum Wandalorum et Alanorum. Ed. Th. Mommsen (1898),
MGH, AA XIII. Berlin: Weidmann, 456–460.
Leges Visigothorum. Ed. K. Zeumer (1902), MGH, LL nat. Germ. I, 1. Hannover – Leipzig: Hahn.
35
Leges XII tabularum. Ed. C. G. Bruns – O. Gradenwitz (1909), Fontes iuris
Romani antiqui I. Tübingen: Mohr.
Lex Ribuaria. Ed. F. Beyerle – R. Buchner (1954), MGH, LL nat. Germ.
III, 2. Hannover: Hahn.
Livius, Ab Urbe condita. Libri I–X. Ed. W. Weisenborn – M. Müller (1932).
Leipzig: Teubner.
Ovidius, Metamorphoses. Ed. W. S. Anderson (1981). Leipzig: Teubner.
Pactus legis Salicae. Ed. K. A. Eckhardt (1962), MGH, LL nat. Germ. IV, 1.
Hannover: Hahn.
XII Panegyrici Latini. Ed. E. Baehrens (1874). Leipzig: Teubner.
XII Panegyrici Latini. Ed. R. A. B. Mynors (1964). Oxford: Clarendon.
Plautus, Rudens. Ed. G. Goetz – F. Schoell (1896). In T. Macci Plauti Comoediae. (fasc. VI, 86–164). Leipzig: Teubner.
Plinius Maior, Naturalis historiae libri XXXVII. Ed. L. Ian – C. Mayhoff
(1892–1909). (6 volumes). Leipzig: Teubner.
Plútarchos, Bioi Paralléloi. Ed. C. Lindskog – K. Ziegler (1964). Leipzig:
Teubner.
Priscus Panita, Fragmenta. Ed. C. Müller (1868). Fragmenta historicorum
Graecorum. (volume IV). Paris: Didot.
Priscus Panita, Fragmenta. Ed. R. C. Blockley (1983). In The fragmentary
classicising Historians of the later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus,
Priscus and Malchus. (volume 2). Liverpool: Cairns.
Procopius Caesariensis, De bellis libri V–VIII. Ed. J. Haury – G. Wirth
(1962–1963), Procopii Caesariensis Opera omnia 2. Leipzig: Teubner.
Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla. Ed. F. Niedner (1922), Thule: Altnordische
Dichtung und Prosa 2, 14. Jena: Diederichs.
Suetonius, De vita caesarum libri VIII. Ed. M. Ihm (1908). Leipzig:Teubner.
Symmachus, Q. Aurelii Symmachi opera quae supersunt. Ed. O. Seeck (1883),
MGH, AA VI, 1. Berlin: Weidmann.
Tacitus, Germania. De origine et situ Germanorum liber. Ed. E. Koestermann
(1962), P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt 2, 2. Leipzig: Teubner.
Thucydides, Historiae. Ed. I. B. Alberti (1972, 1992, 2000). Roma: Typis
Publicae Officinae Polygraphicae.
Vegetius, Flavii Vegeti Renati Epitoma rei militaris. Ed. C. Lang (1885). Leipzig: Teubner.
Vergilius, Aeneis. Ed. O. Ribbeck (1895), P. Vergili Maronis Opera 2, 3.
Leipzig: Teubner.
Volsunga saga. Ed. & transl. R. G. Finch (1965). London: Nelson.
36
Secondary sources
Baetke, W. (1973). Kleine Schriften. Geschichte, Recht und Religion in germanischem Schrifttum. Weimar: Böhlau.
Barfield, T. (1981). The Hsiung-nu Imperial Confederacy. Organization
and Foreign Policy. The Journal of Asian Studies, 41/1, 45–61. DOI:
10.2307/2055601
Bednaříková, J. (2003). Stěhování národů. Praha: Vyšehrad (3. edition
2012).
Bednaříková, J. (2009). Frankové a Evropa. Praha: Vyšehrad.
Bednaříková, J. (2010). Sakralita práva a Pactus legis Salicae. In M. Daniš –
P. Valachovič, (Eds.), Historické štúdie: medzi antikou a stredovekom,
Acta historica Posoniensia XIII. Bratislava: Katedra všeobecných dejín
FiFUK, 15–22.
Bednaříková, J. (2012a). Attila. Hunové, Řím a Evropa. Praha: Vyšehrad.
Bednaříková, J. (2012b). Přežívání některých rodových zvyklostí po tzv.
serviovských reformách. In M. Frýdek et al. (Eds.), Právní, náboženské a politické aspekty starověké římské rodiny. Ostrava: Key Publishing,
40–44.
Bednaříková, J. (2013). Bič boží – sakrální král. In B. Marek (Ed.), Visuque et
auditu iuxta venerabilis adrogantiam effugerat. Sborník k 80. narozeninám
prof. Bohumily Mouchové. Praha: Jednota klasických filologů, 195–204.
Bednaříková, J. (2014). Čest v Evropě “barbarů”. Acta Iuridica Olomucensia, 8. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 39–49.
Bednaříková, J. (2015). Etika bohatství a chudoby v nejstarších civilizacích.
In P. Ambros (Ed.), Nouze, chudoba, bohatství. Výhledy do postrestituční
epochy života církví. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého.
Bengtson, H. (1969). Griechische Geschichte von den Anfängen bis in die römische Kaiserzeit. München: C. H. Beck.
Cartledge, P. (2012). Sparta. Heroická historie. Praha: Academia.
Chaloupka, G. (1993). Journey in Time. The World’s Longest Continuing Art
Tradition. The 50 000 Year Story of the Australian Aboriginal Rock Art of
Arnhem Lang. Chatswood: Reed 1993 (2. edition 1997).
Choksky, K. J. (1998–2015). Iranian History: Sasanian Dynasty. Sacral Kingship in Sasanian Iran. The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies, 2015.07.15.
Retrieved from http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/Sasanian/
sacral_kingship.htm.
Conte, G. B. (2003). Dějiny římské literatury. Praha: Koniasch Latin Press.
37
Češka, J. (1976). Římský dominát. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Durant, W. (1949). Caesar und Christus. Bern: A. Francke Verlag.
Frýdek, M. & Bednaříková, J. & Radová, I. & Veselá, R. & Stará, I. &
Šimordová, S. & Melounová, M. (2012). Právní, náboženské a politické
aspekty starověké římské rodiny. Ostrava: Leges.
Gjerstad, E. (1972). Innenpolitische und militärische Organisation in
frührömischer Zeit. In H. Temporini – W. Haase, (Eds.), Aufstieg und
Niedergang der römischen Welt. (volume I, 1). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 136–188.
Hruška, B. (1977). Mýty staré Mezopotámie. Praha: Odeon.
Kitzler, P. (Ed.) (2009, 2011). Příběhy raně křesťanských mučedníků. (2 volumes). Praha: Vyšehrad.
Klíma, J. (1979). Nejstarší zákony lidstva. Praha: Academia.
Kradin, N. N. (2003). Nomadic Empires: Origins, Rise, Decline. In N. N.
Kradin – T. Bondarenko – T. Barfield, (Eds.), Nomadic Pathways in Social
Evolution. Moscow: Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies of
the Russian Academy of Sciences, 73–87.
Lewis-Williams, D. & Pearce, J. (2008). Uvnitř neolitické mysli. Vědomí, vesmír
a říše bohů. Praha: Academia.
Lexa, F. (1947). Výbor ze starší literatury egyptské. Praha: Šolc a Šimáček.
Malata, M. (2015). Materiality of Urartian Stone Inscriptions and its Implications. (Diploma thesis). Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.
Matouš, L. (1976). Epos o Gilgamešovi. Praha: Československý spisovatel.
Milner, N. P. (1996). Epitome of Military Science. Liverpool: University Press.
Oliva, P. (1977). Antické válečné umění. Praha: Svoboda.
Opitz, H. (1983). Die alte Kirche. Ein Leitfaden durch die fünf Jahrhunderte.
Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.
Seeck, O. (1876). Die Zeit des Vegetius. Hermes: Zeitschrift für klassische
Philologie, 11. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 61–83.
38
Lukáš Kubala — Classification and Use of Epigraphic
Sources as a Source of Information when Examining
Characteristic Features of Athenian “Imperialism”
in the 5th Century BC
Even nowadays the use of the term “imperialism” in connection with the
Athenian arche (ἀρχή) is considered by modern scholars as at least a debatable or even controversial topic. This is mainly due to the fact that, from the
historical point of view, imperialism – as a term – is relatively young and
its application in historical literature can be in fact traced quite late – approximately since the second half of the 19th century. Since then it has been
used quite frequently not only to characterize a political system and a way
of government, but it also started to be applied in the historical literature
retrospectively and thus it gradually became naturalized; for example when
characterizing political systems and features of governments of several ancient and oriental empires.1 In pursuit of providing the most general possible
1
The general discussion about the precise definition and the possibility of
application of the term “imperialism” in connection with the Athenian arche
belonged among one of the main points of dispute in the historical community
in the past. One of the first authors applying this concept in the context of
the Athenian arche was Mason Hammond. In his study Ancient imperialism:
Contemporary Justifications, in which he, among other things, characterizes and
refers to various forms of imperialism, Hammond believes that the concept
of imperialism has not been well-defined and has not had a specific meaning
in historical science but it is rather the so-called “political catchword” than
a scientific term which – upon being applied more often – has gradually
received a considerable degree of popularity among authors in historiography.
In connection with imperialism, Polly Low’s study Looking for the Language of
Athenian Imperialism is primarily focused on confronting the data of epigraphic
inscriptions with the data and opinions provided by Thucydides in its politicalhistorical work regarding the nature of the Athenian democracy in the midfifth century B.C. An interesting view on this issue is also provided by Thomas
Harrison who in his article Modern and Ancient Imperialism deals with the
characteristic feature of the modern imperialism and he also refers to the fact
that a substantial part of them was increasingly applied in the distant past, too,
39
characteristics, the concept of imperialism can be understood as an effort
of a group of people (for example members of a specific ethnic group or of
a territorial political unit) to expand their political power and government
at the expense of other groups, especially by applying several control and
restriction measures, significantly intervening into their governments and
thus greatly restricting their autonomies and independence. It is true that
imperialism as a means of domination of a certain group of people over
others was not perceived by a common ancient man as it is perceived from
a modern perspective nowadays. It should be emphasized, despite the fact
that it is a relatively modern expression that started to be used relatively
late. However, its retrospective application in modern historical literature in
connection with the description and characteristics of the political systems
and the way of government, even ancient, can be justified.2
2
Antiquity no exception. The article also seeks to clarify a number of reasons why
the application of imperialism has found its place in the context of the Athenian
arche. On the one hand he refers primarily to the material aspects, particularly
the economic factor, various financial advantages and benefits etc. However, on
the other hand, he also describes other aspects of imperialism such as different
cultural and religious aspects, originating for example from a sense of common
“Pan-Hellenic” identity, more common religious and ritual practices etc.
Similarly like Thomas Harrison, also Russell Meiggs in his article The Crisis
of the Athenian Imperialism mainly refers to economic benefits of imperialism
and the term is also applied in the context of its several cultural and religious
aspects and benefits. Moses Finley in the study Empire in the Graeco Roman
World primarily focuses on the characteristics of the Roman imperialism and
he believes that several characteristic features of imperialism such as 1) limiting
the possibility of self-deciding in the matters of foreign-political relations;
2) direct interference in the administration and management of the internal
political affairs of the individual poleis; 3) compulsory military draft; 4) fixed
and forced collection of taxes as well as fees and charges of different nature; as
well as 5) confiscation of a certain part of foreign territories, mostly for business-economic reasons, populated then with settlers of the parent city-state; they were
also applied by both Romans and Athenians in the fifth century B.C., however,
of course, by the Athenians to a significantly lesser extent. The theory of the
gradual increase in the degree of imperialism and its application in relation to
the development of the democracy in Athens in the fifth century B.C. has found
its supporters even among the representatives of the domestic historiography.
One of them is Pavel Oliva who in his publications Kolébka demokracie and Řecko
mezi Makedonií a Římem, among other things, also describes a kind of historical
40
If we look at the imperialism in terms of an effort of a group of people
to win dominance over others, clearly defined geographical space whether
in political, economic, cultural as well as the religious sphere, the Athenian
arche is such an example. As for its formation, of course, it was not a sudden
and immediate process. On the contrary. It was a long, slow process, influenced by many factors and historical events that gradually became unique
in Athens already in the archaic period. It was the statesmen like Solon and
Cleisthenes, who during the sixth century B.C. laid the first foundations of
what we now call the “will and power of the people”. And it was this “will and
power of the people” which had been gradually forming even more during
the fifth century B.C. and finally get its “classical” form, which became the
basic precondition and one of the main pillars of the political, economic,
religious and cultural dominance of Athens over other Greek city-states in
the Aegean. While its characteristic and unique feature was that unlike the
other ancient “multi-cultural” empires, the arche did not constitute an integrated, large area in which a large heterogeneous group of different ethnics
lived under the sovereign, despotic rule of a hegemon. The characteristic
feature of the Athenian arche was the fact that it was a naval-based “empire”
where the main body of power did not constitute from a strong and large
land army, but from a powerful naval fleet, and whose territory was not an
integral homogenous unit, but it almost exclusively amalgamated various
Greek poleis, scattered in various parts of the Aegean and on the coast of
Asia Minor.3
In fact, political particularism was characteristic for the ancient Greeks
since time immemorial. Despite the ethnic kinship, several common religious
3
powerful “evolution” of the Athenian arche emphasizing several characteristic
aspects and features of the Athenian “imperial” policy applied in the period of
the so-called Pentekontaetia (c. fifty-year period between 479–431 B.C.) that
ultimately helped Athenians to become hegemonic in the Aegean region.
It was Thucydides who was the first to use the Greek term arche (ἀρχή), meaning
“government, domination” in connection with Athens as the hegemon of the
Delian symmachy. For example in the famous Pericles’ Funeral Oration (II, 41)
and then in his last public appearance in front of the citizens (II, 62) he openly
speaks of rule (ἄρχεται) of Athenians over the allied city-states. Elsewhere he
also mentions (I, 76) that Athenians did nothing special that would have been
contrary to the human nature when they started to rule (ἄρχειν) over the allies
when they had had the possibility and then they refused to give up the rule when
demanded from them.
41
and cultural practices and also the sense of common hellenic community,
Greece remained politically divided into a large number of independent
city-states – poleis (πόλεις) – competing for power with each other. During
the archaic period, there were already several leagues, known as hegemonies
(ἡγεμονία) such as Peloponnesian League led by Sparta or Boeotian League
under the leadership of Thebes. As for their organization, they were relatively
loose power groupings of several politically independent city-states in which
one of the member city-states of the league (in most cases its founder)
had dominant position over the others. This city-state was reputed as the
hegemon (ἡγέομαι – to lead, rule). These leagues, however, did not have a
unified or precisely defined organizational structure, but they mainly operated separately on the principle of entering into several, mostly bilateral
allied treaties, which were in most cases constituted between the hegemon
and the individual members of the league. However, this fact greatly limited
the possibility of formation of any “global” political and military power in
Greece. Moreover, it was these territorial leagues, whose representatives
were not in favor of any form of further expansion to expand their influence. Therefore, up to about the mid-fifth century B.C. any of these leagues
failed to gain a position dominant enough to get control over the territories
outside their territorial scope.
However, this situation changed dramatically after the defeat of the Persians in 479 B.C. followed by formation of a new, significantly different type
of league, today known as the Delian symmachy (συμμαχία). It was headed
by the Athens; a city-state, which had the greatest credit for the final defeat
of the Persians and their expulsion from Greece. Under the slogan to free all
the Greeks from the Persian domination, Athens and its new allies, began to
regain important strategic points in the Aegean and Asia Minor, and also get
control over these areas which, after the Persians retreated, became a region
of “power vacuum” that was necessary to fill as soon as possible. Thanks to
the considerable military successes Athens began to gain sympathies and
favor of a significant amount of the Greeks since the very beginning of the
symmachy. On the other hand, however, what initially seemed to most of
them as “altruistic” assistance in order to get rid of the Persian domination once and for all, not all of them were so enthusiastic. Some of them
quite early began to gradually perceive it as an effort of the Athenians to
build up their own sphere of influence at their expense in the Aegean.4
4
Therefore, from this perspective, the Athenian archeé can serve as a specific example
of a power grouping in whose organizational structure characteristic features of
42
We learn about the individual steps under which during the first half of
the fifth century B.C. the Delian symmachy gradually transformed into a
“private enterprise” for the Athenians and served them primarily as a tool to
build up their own arche. In this process, most of the allies lost their former
autonomous status and received a status of a city-state, liable and dependent
to Athens.5 This process is also well recorded in the ancient narrative-type
5
hegemony and characteristic features of administration and management of an
“empire” overlapped. In terms of the internal organization, the Delian symmachy
initially operated on two principles. On the one hand, it was the top military
command of Athens as the head city-state and hegemon of the League and, on
the other hand, collaboration between the League assembly and the Athenian
Ecclesia as for the management of the League’s issues. But though the member
poleis initially maintained their constitutions and were not formally a part of the
Athenian arche, one by one was gradually losing its autonomous status during the
first half of the fifth century BC. In addition to the collection of the allied tribute,
Athens began to directly interfere in and manage their internal affairs, which
made the allied city-sates in fact an integral part of the Athenian arche and they
gradually became “vassals” of Athens though from a formal point of view they
kept acting externally as independent political units. For that reason we cannot
talk about the Athenian arche only as one of many local hegemonies in Greece
but as a new type of power grouping whose organizational structure as well as
several power practices were marked by a number of attributes characteristic for
management and governance of an “empire”.
As one of many examples contained in the works of several ancient authors
providing information about the gradual expansion of the Athenian power in
the Aegean region as well as about limiting the sovereignty and degree of the
autonomy of the member city-sates of the League, Thucydides gives a brief
characteristic picture of the story of this entire process (I, 99): The causes which
led to the defections of the allies were of different kinds, the principal being their neglect
to pay the tribute or to furnish ships, and, in some cases, failure of military service.
For the Athenians were exacting and oppressive, using coercive measures towards men
who were neither willing nor accustomed to work hard. Therefore, the Athenian power
represented a burden for those who did not become used to violence and were not willing
to bear it. And for various reasons they soon began to prove less agreeable leaders than
at first. They no longer fought upon equality with the rest of the confederates, and they
had no difficulty in reducing them when they revolted. Now the allies brought all this
upon themselves; for the majority of them disliked military service and absence from
home, and so they agreed to contribute their share of the expense instead of ships.
Whereby the Athenian navy was proportionally increased, while they themselves were
always untrained and unprepared for war when they revolted.
43
of literature. However, due to the content restrictions, I do not deal with
their description and with the view of the progress of this whole process,
but I focus solely on clarification of the data, which are contained in a
different kind of ancient sources – the epigraphic inscriptions. Like the
sources of narrative nature, the epigraphic inscriptions provide us with a
relatively detailed analysis as well as a comprehensive view of the whole
process of building the Athenian hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean.
When describing and clarifying the individual steps which Athenians took
to built up their own sphere of influence in the Aegean during the fifth century B.C., epigraphic inscriptions play an irreplaceable role for researchers,
particularly because of their high informative historical value. Unlike the
written sources of narrative nature, which informative value is relatively low,
because the authenticity of each data, provided by the author, was largely
influenced mainly by author personal attitudes and subjective view of the
discussed events, which is in particular, the biggest problem for modernday researchers. On the other hand, however, the epigraphic inscriptions
can be categorized in terms of their interpretation and historical value as
authentic source. This means that their classification, study, criticism and
subsequent interpretation, which form the main content of the historian’s
work in his/her efforts to reconstruct individual historical processes, represent a much more reliable type of a historical source, because they describe events immediately, unlike some of the written sources which, in
addition to the author’s subjectivity, are also largely influenced by the fact
that they are often written with a considerable time lag and thus they can
not be regarded as direct witnesses of events they capture. In conjunction
with the description of the characteristic features of the so-called Athenian
imperialism, these epigraphic inscriptions provide a detailed view of the
individual instruments of power and means of control that Athenians used
in administrating and managing their arche and by which they significantly
restricted the degree of autonomy and self-government in allied city-states.
The most important of these were undoubtedly: 1) forced collection of
an allied tribute – foros (φόρος);6 as well as 2) direct interference in the
6
Collection of the foros, initially as a “voluntary membership fee” from all city-states
of the Delian symmachy, began immediately after its establishment in 478/7 B.C.
The allies had a choice depending on their material and financial possibilities
to provide either a certain number of military vessels or a precisely specified
amount of money to the League’s treasury on the island of Delos. Thucydides
mentions (I, 96) that most of the allies chose to pay the sum of money because
44
internal affairs of the member city-states, especially through establishing
democratic constitutions and promotion of pro-Athenian governments.
In the following part of the paper I will try to analyze the main points of
the first of the mentioned means of control, which is the forced collection
of the allied tribute.
Epigraphic sources are an essential source of information in pursuit of
reconstructing the process of collection of the foros as well as the determination of its amount and nature for the individual allied city-states. A number of
detailed records on the various inscriptions, of which one group consists of
records of purely fiscal nature, have been preserved until today. They provide
us with detailed information about the amount of the tribute in total, and
also with the amount of the tribute, which was separately collected from
each member city-state of the Athenian arche. The other group of inscriptions is represented by those, which provide us with a detailed picture of
how the allied tribute was collected from the member city-states. In this
paper, I discuss the latter type of the inscriptions, namely the methodological analysis of one of them – Cleinias Decree – which is one of the most
important epigraphic sources for modern-day scholars in pursuit of the
historical reconstruction of the process of collection of the allied tribute.7
7
building as well as maintenance of ships were generally very expensive, which
most of them could not afford from the point of the financial, material and human
view. According to Plutarch (Arist. 24) and Thucydides (I, 96), the amount of
the sum of money collected in the first year of the existence of the League was
460 talents. Another figure is given by Diodorus (XI, 47) who speaks of 560
talents as the total amount collected from the allies. Unfortunately, due to the lack
of information, we are not able to certainly determine the exact amount of the
collected foros in the first years of the existence of the Delian symmachy. Some
modern scholars (Hornblower 2007: 145; Rhodes 2006: 17; Oliva 1995: 20)
believe that both the foregoing figures are impossibly high, arguing in particular
with a limited number of the allies in the first years of the existence of the League.
One of the possible explanations may be the assumption that the total value of
those ships which the richest among the member city-states gave to the allied fleet
instead of a financial contribution to the League’s treasury (ship building and full
equipment costs per 1 ship were c. 1 talent) was also added to the final amount.
To this day, several sources discussing the state of finances and the economic
situation of the Athenian arche in the mid-fifth century B.C. have been preserved.
Most of them are a kind of detailed financial records which often only summarize
the collection of the League’s tribute and provide information solely on the
amount of collected amounts in the individual city-states of the League. An
45
In modern-day historiography, the prevailing opinion is that the origins of this Decree go back to the period somewhere between 447/6 and
425/4 B.C.8 The main body of the Decree provides us with a comprehensive
view on how the Athenians forced allied city-states to pay the tribute, and
also describes the process of its collection.9
The introductory part of the decree (5–22)10 concerns mainly on precise
description of the procedure how the tribute should be collected in allied
cities and subsequently sent to Athens. The councils in allied cities, supervised by Athenian archontes (ἄρχοντες) and episkopoi (ἐπίσκοποι) were to
ensure that the tribute will be collected each year and brought to Athens.11
invaluable source providing a detailed insight into this type of sources is the
Athenian Tribute List (ATL, I–IV). Its authors provide (among other things) a
picture not only of the overall situation of the Athenian finances in the mid-fifth
century B.C. but on the basis of the records of the individual financial data it is
also possible to create a relatively accurate picture of the amount the individual
member city-states contributed to the federal treasury.
8 ATL, II, D7, 5–22; Meiggs & Lewis (GHI, 1969: 46, 6–21); Meiggs (1963: 24)
says it was in 447/6 B.C. For example, Rhodes (2006: 174), Fornara (1991:
180–182) who consider the Decree was created around the mid-twenties of the
5th century (c. 425/4 B.C.) have a different opinion and proceed differently in
an effort to determine the exact date of its origin.
9 The following examples of the Decree are from the above-mentioned edition
of the Athenian Tribute List. Reconstruction of the original text including the
corrections is in Volume Two of this edition (under D7). However, because of
the insufficiently preserved original of the entire Decree, particularly its part
two, the article deals with the part more preserved (lines 5–43.).
10 ATL, II, D7, 5–22. τεμ Βολεμ καὶ τὸς ἅρχοντας ἐν τεσι πóλεσι καὶ τὸς ἐπισκóπος
ἐπιμέλεσθαι ὅπος ἂν χσυλλέγεται ὁ φóρος κατà τὸ έτος ἕκαστον καὶ ἀπάγεται
Ἀθέναζε. Χσύμβολα δέ ποιέσασθαι πρὸς τàς πóλες, ὅ πος àμ μὲ ἐχσει ἀδικεν
τοῖς ἀπάγοσι τὸμ φόρον. γράφσασα δὲ ἑ πόλις ἐς γραμματεῖον τὸμ φόρον, ὅντιν
ἂν ἀποπέμπει, σεμεναμένε τοι συμβόλοι ἀποπεμπέτο Ἀθέναζε. τὸς δὲ ἀπάγοντας
ἀποδόναι τὸ γραμματεῖον ἐν τει βολει ἀναγνοναι ὅταμ περ τὸμ φόρον ἀποδιδοσι.
οἱ δὲ πρυτάνες μετὰ Διονύσια ἐκκλεσίαν ποιεσάντον τοῖς ἑλλενοταμίασι ἀποδεῖχσαι
Ἀθεναίοις τομ πόλεον τὰς ἀποδόσας τὸμ φόρον ἐντελε καὶ τὰς ἐλλιπόσας χορίς, ὅσαι
ἂν τινες ὀσιν.
11 In order to protect their interest, Athenians were sending political overseers –
episkopoi and archontes – to allied poleis. They were widespread throughout the
arche and their primarily concern was to install puppet, or at least compliant
government, which would act in accordance with Athenian political conception.
The councilors in allied poleis were all put under the oath, for which violation the
46
They had to arrange seals for the cities in order to make it impossible for
those bringing the tribute to defraud. As already mentioned above, the cities
were also obligated to record on a special account tablet the exact amount
of tribute which they are sending, and after that they had to seal the whole
sum and send it to Athens. Those who brought it were obligated to submit
the tablet in the Athenian Council – boule (βουλή) – where it has been red
simultaneously with the paying down of the money. Each year after the
Megala Dionysia (Μεγάλα Διονύσια), the acting members of the Council –
prytaneis (πρυτάνεις) – were to hold an Assembly – ekklesia (ἐκκλησία) – for
the hellenotamiai (ἑλληνοταμίαι) to report to the Athenians, which cities
have paid their tribute in full, and separately those, which have defaulted.12
The next passage (lines 22–31)13 tell us that the Athenians chose four
men and send them to the cities to give a receipt for the tribute, which has
councilor could be executed, alongside with his sons. The Athenian supervisors
could sometimes become a regular board of political residents and an oath of
obedience was sometimes exacted from the people as well as from the members of
Council. A regulation decree for from 453/2 B.C. (Meiggs & Lewis, GHI, 1969:
40; ATL, II, D10) represents classical example of how the Athenians made their
policy towards those allies, who rebelled against them in this period. The decree
made arrangements for a council of 120, whose members were appointed by a lot,
and were established to office by Athenian episkopoi. The democratic constitution
was given to city and after that all members of the Council had to swear an oath
of allegiance to Athenians. Sometimes (like in case of Erythrae) this oath had to
be sworn not only by the members of Council, but also from all citizens in city.
Similar regulations were later applied also against some other poleis, for example:
Kolophon in 447/6 B.C. (ATL, II, D15), Eretreia and Chalkis in 446/5 B.C. (ibid.
D16–17), Samos in 439/8 B.C. (ibid. D18), Lesbos in 427/6 B.C. (ibid. D22).
Therefore we could presume that overseers and compliant governments were
probably implied in most allied poleis to secure their allegiance towards Athens,
not just in those who had recently rebelled. The democracy itself had in mid 5th
century B.C. became one of the most characteristic control mechanisms, which
Athenians used in allied poleis as the guarantee of their obedience.
12 Isocrates describes the way in which the whole process proceeded in his work
(VIII, On Peace, 82–83), while he criticizes Athenians for such a method of
tribute collection because according to him it was a huge disgrace for the allies
who were forced to undergo it annually.
13 ATL, II, D7, 22–31. Ἀθ]εναίος δὲ ἑλομένος ἂνδρας τέττ[αρας ἀποπέμπεν ἐπὶ]
τὰς πόλες ἀντιγραφσομένος τ[ὸμ φόρον τεσι ἀποδόσεσι κα[ὶ ἀπαιτέσοντας τὸμ με
[ἀποδοθέντα παρὰ τον ἐλλιποσ]ον, τὸ μὲν δύο πλεν ἐπ[ὶ τὰς ἐπὶ τὰς ἐφ Ἑλλεσπόντο
47
been paid and also to demand the unpaid tribute from those cities, which
have defaulted. Two of these men sailed on a triērēs (τριήρης) to the cities of the Islands and of Ionia and other two to those of Hellespont and
Thrace.14 Immediately after Dionysia, the prytaneis had to introduce this
subject before the Council where it was continually discussed, after the
matter was settled.
Testimony about how important the collection of the allied tribute
in a specified amount and within the time limit was for the Athenians is
provided by the following lines of the decree (31–41)15 in which we learn
mainly about how the representatives of the Athenian Council had to give
to the principal assembly a list of those city-states that failed to meet their
obligations to the Athenians as well as an accurate record of the due amount
of each of them right after the Great Dionysia. The Assembly then discussed
the way Athenians should act against these city-states. As mentioned above,
if some of them did not pay the tribute in full, the Athenian representatives were sent to the city-state with the requirement to pay the remaining
amount. However, when a city-state was late with the payment of the tribute,
or it was reluctant to pay a full amount of it, the Athenians sent a military
escort, which should serve mainly as a “psychological” and “deterrent” factor. The decree also states that those, who were in charge of bringing the
collected tribute to Athens, could have been accused from bribery. And if
they were proven guilty, they were subsequently prosecuted. In this case,
κα]ὶ ἐπὶ Θράικες. ἐ[σάγεν δέ ταυτα τὸς πρυτάνες ἐς τὲμ] βολὲν καὶ ἐς το[ν δεμον
εὐθὺς μετὰ Διονύσια καὶ βο]λεύεσθαι περὶ τ[ούτον χσυνεχος ἓος ἂν διαπραχθ]ει.
14 Foros was collected from every tributary polis or, where a number of them were
too small, by one “representative” polis, which was made responsible for a group.
In order to simplify the financial accounts, the allies were listed and divided
into five geographical tributary districts – Ionia, Hellespont, Thrace, Caria and
Islands. These districts varied in size, interests, accessibility and their political,
judicial and commercial relations with Athens were govern by separate treaty
in each case. For detailed view on the list of the tribute-paying cities in each of
these financial districts see ATL, I, List 12, p. 138f.; Lists 1–40, p. 128–153.
15 ATL, II, D7, 31–41. ἐὰν δέ τις Ἀθ[εναιος ἒ χσύμμαχοι ἀδικει περὶ τὸ]ν φόρον, ὃν δει
[τὰς πόλες γραφσάσας ἐς γραμματει]ον τοις ἀπάγοσ[ιν ἀποπέμπεν Ἀθέναζε, ἔστο
αὐτὸν γ]ράφεσθαι πρὸς [τὸς πρυτάνες τοι β]ολομένο[ι Ἀθεναίον καὶ τον χσ[υμμάχον.
ὁι δὲ πρυτά]νες ἐσαγ[όντον] ἐς τὲμ βολὲν [τὲν γραφὲν ἕν τι]ς ἂγ γράφσετα[ι ἒ
εὐθυνέσθο δόρο[ν μυρίαισι δραχμεσι] ἕκαστος. [ὁ δέ ἂν]καταγνοι [ἑ βολέ, μὲ τιμαν
αὐτ]οι κυρία ἔστο [ἀλλα ἐσ]φερέτο ἐς τ[ὲν ἑλιαίαν εὐθύ]ς. ὅταν δὲ δόχσει [ἀδικεν],
γνόμας πο[ιόντον ὁι πρυ]τάνες ὁ τι ἂν δοκ[ει αυτ]ὸμ παθεν ἒ ἀποτεισαι.
48
it could be both Athenians, or the representatives of the allied city-states.
If it was found out that the amount of collected tribute did not match with
the amount recorded on the table, the person, who was responsible for the
transfer of the money, was brought to the Athenian Council. The prytaneis
had to present any such prosecution to the Council, which then decided
on its adequacy. If prytaneis failed to do so for any reason, they also could
have been accused of taking bribes and be fined up to the total sum of 1,000
drachmas. After a thorough review of the adequacy of the prosecution, the
Council then passed it for consideration to the Athenian Supreme Court –
heliaia (Ἡλιαία) – where it had to be decided, if the accused person was
guilty or innocent. If he was found guilty, the prytaneis then recommended
punishment for him, to the incumbent representatives of heliaia.
At first glance the following passage of the decree (41–43)16 may not
seem very important which says that apart from paying a tribute, each of the
city-states is also required to send a cow and the panoply for Athena every
four years on Great Panathenae. If a city-state failed to meet this obligation,
it was prosecuted by the same criteria as for not paying the tribute. Following
this data it can be also seen how Athenians rigorously tried to tie and limit
the sovereignty and authonomy of their allies not only in political, but also
in ideological and religious perspective. The effort to force allies to send
“gifts” to the Athena can be also interpreted as Athenians’ own vision and
determination to raise the status of the goddess from the patron of their
city, to the position of “all-Greek”, Pan-Hellenic deity.
The following lines of the decree (44–77) provide us with other, no less
important information on how Athenians acted against the allied city-states
when receiving the tribute. However, because it has not been sufficiently
preserved, and many paragraphs from this part of the decree are missing,
it opens a large space to several possible interpretations and subsequent
general discussions, which I will not deal with, because of the content limitation of this paper.
In conclusion, in addition to the classical works of ancient historians
such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus, etc. epigraphic inscriptions provide us with valuable information on the nature and form of the Athenian
imperialism in the fifth century B.C. However, what is often an essential
source of information for us researchers, is their relatively high level of
objectivity and authenticity, which, as I already mentioned above, is different
16 ATL, II, D7, 41–43. Καὶ ἐάν τις περὶ τὲν ἀπα[γογὲν] τες βοὸς ἒ[τες πανοπλία]ς
ἀδικει, τὰς γραφὰ[ς ἐνα]ι κατὰ ἀυτο κ[αι τὲν ζεμίαν κ]ατὰ ταὐτά.
49
from the data provided by the classical authors on discussed issue up to a
significant extent. As ancient historians undoubtedly tried to capture and
describe various historical events in as much detail as possible, however,
they often offer us with different and largely subjective views and opinions
on the discussed historical problems. For researchers, they are also undoubtedly an important source of various important information. However, due
to their historical value, they had to be cared with special attention. On the
other hand, from a methodological point of view, epigraphic sources are
for modern-day historians at least equally valuable source of information.
The main difference is that they are relatively highly objective and reliable,
and therefore, they provide the opportunity for a more consistent analysis,
criticism and subsequent interpretation and also mutual comparison with
the data found in narrative-type of ancient sources.
Bibliography
Primary texts
Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia. Transl. H. Rackham (1952), Aristotle in Twenty-three Volumes 20. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Demosthenes, Orationes. Ed. S. H. Butcher – W. Rennie (1903–1931).
Oxford: Clarendon.
Demosthenes, Orations. Transl. J. H. Vince – A. T. Murray – N. W. DeWitt
(1926–1984). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Diodorus Sicilus, Bibliotheca historica. Ed. C. H. Oldfather et al. (1933–
1967), The Library of History in Twelve Volumes. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Herodotus, Historiae. Ed. A. D. Godley (1920). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Isocrates, Orationes. Ed. G. Norlin (1980), Isocrates with an English Translation in Three Volumes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Plutarch, Bioi Paralleloi. Plutarch’s Lives. Ed. B. Perrin (1916–1926). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Thucydides, Historiae. Ed. H. S. Jones (1900–1902). (2 volumes). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Thucydides, Historiae. Transl. B. Jowett (1942). In F. R. B. Godolphin (Ed.),
The Greek Historians. (2 volumes). New York: Random House.
50
Secondary texts and further reading
Badian, E. (1987). The Peace of Callias. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 107,
1–39. DOI: 10.2307/630067
Bleicken, J. (2002). Athénská demokracie. Praha: Oikoymenh.
Finley, M. (1978). Empire in the Greaco-Roman World. Greece & Rome,
25, 1–15. DOI: 10.1017/S001738350001932X
Fornara, Ch. W. & Samons, L. J. (1991). Athens from Cleisthenes to Pericles.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hammond, M. (1948). Ancient Imperialism: Contemporary Justifications. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 58/59, 105–161. DOI:
10.2307/310948
Hammond, N. G. L. (1959). A History of Greece to 322 BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harrison, T. (2008). Modern and Ancient Imperialism. Greece & Rome, 55,
1–22. DOI: 10.1017/S0017383507000289
Hornblower, S. (2002). The Greek World 479–323 BC. Routledge: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Hornblower, S. (2007). A Commentary on Thucydides. (3 volumes). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Liddell, H. D. & Scott, R. (1996). Greek-English lexicon: revisited supplement.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Low, P. (2005). Looking for the Language of Athenian Imperialism. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 125, 93–111. DOI: 10.1017/S0075426900007126
Meiggs, R. (1963). The Crisis of Athenian Imperialism. Harvard studies in
Classical Philology, 67, 1–36. DOI: 10.2307/310817
Meiggs, R. (1979). The Athenian Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Meiggs, R. & Lewis, D. M. (1969). A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Meritt, B. D. & Wade-Gery, H. T. & McGregor, M. F. (1939–1950). The Athenian Tribute Lists. (volumes I–III). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Oliva, P. (1995). Řecko mezi Makedonií a Římem. Praha: Academia.
Oliva, P. (2000). Kolébka demokracie. Dějiny a kultura klasického Řecka 5.–4.
stol. př.n.l. Praha: Arista.
Rhodes, P. J. (2006). A History of the Classical Greek World 478–323 BC.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Rhodes, P. J. (2009). Ancient Athens: Democracy and Empire. European
review of History, 16, 2, 201–215. DOI: 10.1080/13507480902767602
51
Jana Malaníková — Plebiscita until 287 BC
in Livy’s History
Specialized literature and historical and legal dictionaries provide a simple
and repetitive definition of the term plebiscitum (plural form plebiscita). It
is mentioned mostly in connection to the Latin phrase plebes scivit which is
translated as “people have resolved”1 and is further explained as a resolution
of plebeian assembly to which only the plebs are bounded.2
The Czech translation of the Latin phrase is not quite fitting. If studied
thoroughly, it can cause considerable issue. Therefore, it is necessary to
always study the original Latin text. The Czech word lid is an equivalent of
both the word plebes (plebs) and also populus. Both words can be translated
by this term. However, the expression plebes includes just the plebeians,3
while the word populus means the whole nation. At first, this inaccuracy
can seem trivial and unimportant, yet it fully reflects the difficulties that
permeate the work of a historian who researches legal terms and their
meanings in ancient literature, which is a subject to be addressed in this
short article.
Historians exploring plebiscita in the period of the Early Roman Republic must rely on secondary sources represented by some of the preserved
works of ancient historiography. The works of ancient historiography primarily focus on the recording of important events in the history of the Roman Republic, but not on information relating to the legislative or judicial
activities of the state of which plebiscita4 were an inherent part.
1
2
3
4
Marek & Oliva & Charvát (2008: 355).
Bartošek (1994: 212). Some definitions of plebiscita are also known from the
works of ancient authors, such as Gell. 10, 20, 6, and inst. 1, 3.
During the period of the Early Roman Republic when the competences of the
orders were still unequal. Later, the term is used for poor or lower classes of the
society. See Pražák & Novotný & Sedláček (1948: 1004 and 1015).
„Die Historiker Roms sind für die Geschichte der Verfassung, der Gesetzgebung
und des Strafrechts die weitaus wichtigste Sekundärquelle. Von privatrechtlichen Zuständen und Maβnahmen geben sie nur zufällig Nachricht, am ehesten
noch über sozial- und wirtschaftspolitisch motivierte Gesetze. Vollend auf das
53
Researchers must also take into account the imperfection of sources,
which is caused partly by their primary purpose and partly by the distance
in time of their production, and reflect this in their conclusions.5
A major secondary source in the study of legal history of the Early
Roman Republic is Livy’s History (Ab urbe condita), which cannot be omitted by any researcher studying this topic and which must be constantly
revisited.6 This monumental work recording the history of Rome from
its legendary beginnings until 9 AD has not been completely preserved.
The books describing the events of the years 293 to 219 BC and 167 BC
to 9 AD are missing. Fortunately, not all of these books have been lost as
they are preserved at least as short excerpts in summaries called periochae.7
The evaluation of credibility of Livy’s work is often not very positive and
already Livy himself comments on this issue in his preface. He writes that the
earliest history he records is not a collection of historical facts, but rather an
artistic license, which is to be judged with “indulgence” (Liv. 1, 1). At the
beginning of Book 6, he once again points out that the history of Rome in
his five books he has written so far is not always credible, mostly because
it is based on the study of a limited number of literary materials including
private and state documents and notes of the Pontifices Maximi. He stresses,
however, that the continuation of the work is going to be more reliable (Liv.
6, 1). Nevertheless, there are passages in the sixth to tenth book beginning
with the phrase quidam auctores sunt... or excerpts containing two versions of
5
6
7
Juristenrecht wie auf die Juristen selbst fällt nur spärliches Licht.“ Wieacker
(1988: 87).
The primary focus on the description of historical events and the difference in
time between the actual events and the emergence of the historiographical work
are characteristic of Livy’s work.
I base my research of legal terms, such as plebiscite, used in the Roman Republic
on Franz Wieacker’s division of sources which he uses in his Römische Rechtsgeschichte: Quellenkunde, Rechtsbildung, Jurisprudenz und Rechtsliteratur. He writes:
“Eine rechtsgeschichtliche Quellenkunde unterschied zweckmäβig zwischen der
nichtjuristischen Literatur aller Gattungen und der Rechtsliteratur im besonderen. Literarische Quellen bezweckten nicht Information über Rechtssätze,
rechtliche Zustände und Ereignisse als solche: diese Unbefangenheit gibt ihnen
einen besonderen Wert für die Erkenntnis der allgemeinen, nichtprofesionellen
Rechtsvorstellungen und der moralischen, sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Voraussetzungen der Rechtsordnungen ihrer Zeit.“ Wieacker (1988: 87). According
to the criteria, Livy’s History is considered to be secondary literature.
Excluding the books 136 and 137.
54
a story (Liv. 8, 40, 1). Thus, in this more credible part of his work Livy does
not deny that he had issue deciding which version of the story is true and honestly describes the reality (Liv. 7, 42) as he could only rely on his knowledge.
It is not clear based on which methods he selected or critically researched
the materials available to him or what was important for his decisions and
why he chose the given option.8 The biggest loss is that the sources Livy
studied have not been preserved and so they cannot be studied critically.
Therefore, it is necessary to be positive and believe that there is “a element”
of truth in the Livy’s History.
For the scholars researching legal history, the most important information is that Livy did not have any political experience and devoted himself
only to his historiographical works, not to any political activity of the state.
His knowledge of legal political mechanisms does not stem from his own
practical knowledge, as in the case of Cicero, for example. Some nuances
of legal language could also elude Livy’s attention, which is reflected in the
text of History.9
This paper does not examine all plebiscita between 471 and 287 BC
that are mentioned in History, but to selected cases which illustrate the
problems that a researcher has to face and address.
Livy’s aim was to describe important historical events of Roman history, not to record legal norms and ways of passing or cancelling them. For
this reason, I believe that he refers to them only when he deemed them an
appropriate illustration of a given situation.
References to legislative activities of the tribunes of the plebs and plebeian assemblies should be judged in the context of stories and events
included in the text. It is also important to bear in mind that the language
in which Livy writes is not the language of a lawyer, but of a historian trying
to communicate historical stories to his reader.
If Livy used unequivocal legal terms consistently, he would make the
historian’s work much easier. Then, he would just have to go through the
text of History and find passages containing the phrase plebes scivit in all its
grammatical cases.
As the text suggests, Livy actually knew the legal term and knew how
to use it in context. For illustration, I present two examples:
8
9
Livy presents a good example illustrating the situation when two sources describe
the same event differently (Liv 8, 30, 7). He recorded his streams of thought in
which he ponders on the selection of sources (Liv. 8, 40, 3).
Rüpke (1997: 111).
55
Tribunatu inito L. Icilius extemplo plebem rogavit et plebs scivit ne cui
fraudi esset secessio ab decemviris facta. Confestim de consulibus creandis cum
provocatione M. Duillius rogationem pertulit. Ea omnia in pratis Flaminiis concilio plebis acta, quem nunc circum Flaminium appellant. (Liv. 3, 54, 14–15).
Livy informs his readers that immediately after he had taken the office
of the tribune of the plebs, Lucius Icilius submitted a bill to the plebs and
they passed it. Such unequivocal formulation clearly states who submitted a bill and how it was passed and thus allows historians to consider this
proceeding to be a legislative activity of the plebeian assembly and the
creation of new plebiscitum.
… alterum, ut duumuiros nauales classis ornandae reficiendaeque causa idem
populus iuberet; lator huius plebi sciti fuit M. Decius tribunus plebis. (Liv. 9, 30, 4).
This short passage clearly shows that this bill was submitted by a tribune of the plebs and that it was passed by the plebs, the plebeian assembly
(concilium plebis).
The most frequent formulation that Livy uses for the description of plebeian legislative activities does not include the Latin phrase plebes scivit, but
still offers enough information for the approved bill to be called plebiscitum.
Ubi cum ingenti consensu patrum negaretur triumphus, L. Icilius tribunus
plebis tulit ad populum de triumpho consulum, multis dissuasum prodeuntibus...
In eandem sententiam multa et a ceteris senioribus patrum cum essent dicta,
omnes tribus eam rogationem acceperunt. Tum primum sine auctoritate senatus
populi iussu triumphatum est. (Liv. 3, 63, 8 and 11).
This short passage informs that the bill, allowing a consul to receive a
triumph, was submitted by a tribune of the plebs, but there is no information
that it was submitted to the plebeians or that they passed it. It is known that
people (populus) ordered the consul to celebrate the triumph. The question
whether the bill was passed by the plebeians and whether it is plebiscitum is
easy to answer. One just has to realize that the tribune of the plebs only had
the power ius cum plebe agendi. He could call just the plebeians and submit
his bills to them.10 It stems from the Livy’s text that the bill was submitted
by a tribune of the plebs. There is no information that any other magistrate
would summon the assembly (such as the tribal assembly). Therefore, one
can assume that it was concilium plebis that voted on this matter also in the
10 Bleicken (1955: 11). The tribune of the plebs had powers different from those
of common Roman magistrates. His powers can be characterized by a list of
individual powers: ius auxilii, ius intercessionis, ius coercendi, ius cum plebe agendi
and later also ius cum patribus agendi.
56
case presented in the excerpt, where there is unequivocally stated populi
iussu. It can be helpful to consult other preserved sources of ancient literature describing this event. A very detailed description is provided in the
works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus11 or Zonaras. The latter clearly states
that only plebeians (pléthos) attended the assembly.12
The Latin word plebes is substituted by the word populus. The inconsistent use of the word plebes for plebeians and populus for people as a whole
appears in other parts of Livy’s work as well. Therefore, it is important to
realize the right meaning of the Latin word populus according to the context.13 In this case, one can assume that it means plebiscitum.
Another argument supporting the idea that it was a plebiscitum and
not lex passed by the tribal assembly is that it acted against the senate’s
will. The senate did not give consent to the proceeding. If the voting of
the tribal assembly confirmed the triumph, it could not become a valid law
without the senate’s approval. Nevertheless, if it was passed by the plebeian assembly, it would not need the senate’s approval because of its limited
legal force in 449 BC.14
Unfortunately, it is not always so easy to answer a disputable question.
Livy often offers only fragmentary information about the proceedings of
the tribunes of the plebs. For example:
Victores tribuni ut praesentem mercedem iudicii plebes haberet legem agrariam promulgant, tributumque conferri prohibent... (Liv. 5, 12, 3).
Livy informs only about the tribunes of the plebs proposing an agrarian
law. It is not certain whether it was voted on it and whether it was passed
or declined. For this reason, it is the best to mark this passage not as a
plebiscitum but as a rogatio, meaning a bill.
Even a sufficient amount of information or an extensive description of
passing of the bill does not ultimately make the work easier when deciding if
a given case is a plebiscitum or lex. At first, Livy’s description seemingly fulfills
the necessary requirements for it to be a legislative activity of a plebiscitum.
11 Dion. Hal., Ant. 11, 50, 1.
12 This is one of the Zonaras’ excerpts that substitutes the part of the work of Dio
Cassius Cocceianus: Zon. 7, 19.
13 Flach (1994: 224).
14 Only after the lex Publilia Philonis de plebiscitis was passed in 339 BC, did the
plebeians win another concession of the patricians in their struggle for equal
status of the two orders. This law established that plebiscita approved by the
senate become norms binding upon the state, having legal force of leges.
57
However, it might not comply with the historical and legal tradition that
preserved the term lex for the given norm as it is illustrated here:
Tamen ne undique tranquillae res essent, certamen iniectum inter primores
ciuitatis, patricios plebeiosque, ab tribunis plebis Q. Et Cn. Ogulniis, qui undique
criminandorum patrum apud plebem occasionibus quaesitis, postquam alia
frustra temptata erant, eam actionem susceperunt qua non infimam plebem
accenderent sed ipsa capita plebis, consulares triumphalesque plebeios, quorum
honoribus nihil praeter sacerdotia, quae nondum promiscua erant, deesset. Rogationem ergo promulgarunt ut, cum quattuor augures, quattuor pontifices ea
tempestate essent placeretque augeri sacerdotum numerum, quattuor pontifices,
quinque augures, de plebe omnes, adlegerentur.
Vocare tribus extemplo populus iubebat apparebatque accipi legem; ille tamen dies intercessione est sublatus. Postero die deterritis tribunis ingenti consensu
accepta est. (Liv. 10, 6, 3–6 and 10, 9, 1).
According to Livy the bill submitted by two tribunes of the plebs Quintus Gallus and Gnaeus Ogulnius Gallus was only passed after the second
attempt because the first attempt was blocked by other tribunes of the
plebs who interrupted the negotiations by using their power to veto them.
These negotiations were held at the assembly that was organized on the
basis of the tribes. But it is not sure whether the presiding magistrate of the
assembly was a tribune of the plebs or another magistrate. It is probable
that both variants were possible. If a tribune of the plebs presided over, it
would imply the plebeian assembly and its resulting activity would be a
plebiscitum. If the presiding magistrate would be a consul, for example, then
the tribal assembly would be summoned and its result would be a law (lex).
As the text suggests, only the first assembly, which was interrupted by the
tribunes of the plebs, was organized on the basis of the tribes. But it is not
stated that it was the same assembly that was called the next day. J. Bleicken
speaks about the problematics of these extracts discussing the emergence
of lex Ogulnia de sacerdotibus ex plebe creandis in his Das Volkstribunat der
klassischen Republik (1955). He writes that it was the centuriate assembly
called by a consul which would decide about important collegia of priests.
The law would not be issued in the consul’s name who presided over the
centuriate assembly approving of this law, but in the name of its original
proposers, the tribunes of the plebs.15
The legislative activity of the Romans may also in some cases become
one of the main topics of Livy’s books. The extensiveness of the texts is then
15 Bleicken (1955: 15).
58
in contrast with the usual short description of legislative activities and fully
corresponds with the importance that Livy attributed to a historical event
of which the plebiscita form a part, for example the Struggle of the Orders.
For better understanding, I paraphrase two short examples:
Book 3 of Livy’s History provides an exceptionally vivid description of
Gaius Terentilius Harsa’s bill. He was the tribune of the plebs who made
an offensive speech against the unlimited powers of the consuls in 462 BC,
as he considered it to be a new version of royal power. Therefore, legem se
promulgaturum ut quinque viri creentur legibus de imperio consulari scribendis; quod populus in se ius dederit, eo consulem usurum, non ipsos libidinem ac
licentiam suam pro lege habituros. (Liv. 3, 9, 5).
However, the plebeian assembly was not summoned and voting could
not take place because the senators won over some of Terentilius’ colleagues16 who convinced him not to continue in his activities (Liv. 3, 9,
13). However, he returned to his bill after the consul returned to the city.
But even then Terentilius withdrew from any other activity in the issue.
In 461 BC, the bill was submitted by all tribunes of the plebs including
Terentilius, but due to certain natural phenomena that were interpreted
as adverse and warning that Rome is in danger and, therefore, people were
to avoid “scandalous assembly”, the bill was not passed (Liv. 3, 10, 5–7).
Readers come across Gaius Terentilius Harsa’s effort to promote the bill in
the description of the events of 460, 458, 457 and eventually 454 BC when
the dispute between the tribunes of the plebs and the patricians was finally
resolved. It resulted in a compromise and it was decided that the state laws
should be written down (Liv. 33, 31, 7–8). A delegation was sent to Athens
to get acquainted with the local Solon’s laws and in 452 BC a commission
of ten decemviri was established to draw up the state laws that would be
binding upon the patricians as well as the plebeians.
Again, this case is not a plebiscitum, but a rogatio, a bill submitted by a tribune of the plebs. Despite the long-standing efforts, the bill was not passed and
the consequences were far more serious because the state laws were written.
16 According to a preserved passage in Livy’s History, there were altogether five
tribunes in the period described in the extract (Liv. 2, 58, 1–2). There are disputes among historians about the definitive number of tribunes of the plebs
after it had expanded in 471 BC. More information on this topic can be found
e.g. in Oakley (1998: 381–383). In 457 BC, it expanded to 10 tribunes, which is
a number most frequently associated with this “magistrate”. Information about
the change can be found in the Livy’s text, too. See Liv. 3, 30, 7.
59
Similar to the attention paid to the Terentilius’ bill in Book 6, Livy also
explores the effort of the tribunes of the plebs Gaius Licinius Stolo and
Lucius Sextius Lateranus to pass three bills, unam de aere alieno, ut deducto
eo de capite quod usuris pernumeratum esset id quod superesset triennio aequis
portionibus persolveretur; alteram de modo agrorum, ne quis plus quingenta
iugera agri possideret; tertiam, ne tribunorum militum comitia fierent consulumque utique alter ex plebe crearetur. (Liv. 6, 35, 4–5). According to Livy,
the bills of the tribunes of the plebs scared the patricians to that extent
that they even elected the dictator only to prevent the bills from passing
(Liv. 6, 38, 3). The dictator was superior to all magistrates of the civitas
and against whose decision the appeal was not possible. The tribunes of
the plebs submitted their bills annually for the period of ten years. Eventually, these bills were also passed. However, it is not really clear how they
were passed because Livy’s formulations are vague and misleading. We do
not know anything about the calling plebeian assembly or the process of
voting. Livy informs that the tribunes’ bills by were passed (Liv. 6, 42, 9)
and based on the dictator’s suggestion the fathers gave their approval to all
resolutions of the assemblies (Liv. 6, 42, 14) which had taken place that
year. At the same time, a question can be raised whether the bills of the
tribunes of the plebs Gaius Licinius Stolo and Lucius Sextius Lateranus,
commonly referred to as leges Liciniae Sextiae, described in Book 7, were
passed with help from the tribunes of the plebs at the plebeian assembly
or rather by the dictator at the centuriate assembly. The question whether
this was a plebiscitum remains unresolved.
The examination of plebiscites based on the preserved Livy’s text is an
activity which demands profound attention and realization of details in their
narrow and wider context. It provides answers as well as new questions and
confirms some hypotheses while challenging the other. It is about putting
together pieces of information that on the whole significantly contributes
to the knowledge about the activities of the tribunes of the plebs and the
plebeian assembly. It broadens our knowledge of the constitutional development of the Roman state.
Bibliography
Primary texts
Gellius, Noctes Atticae. Ed. J. C. Rolfe (1982). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
60
Dio Cassius, Roman history. Ed. E. Cary (1914). (volume I). London: William Heinemann.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Roman Antiquities. Ed. E. Cary (1950).
(volume VII). London: William Heinemann.
Gaius, Institutionum commentarii quattuor. Ed. J. Kincl (1993). Brno: Masaryk University.
Livius, Ab urbe condita. Ed. C. F. Walters – R. S. Conway (1974, 1988).
(volumes I, II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Secondary texts
Bartošek, M. (1994). Encyklopedie římského práva. Praha: Academia.
Bleicken, J. (1955). Das Volkstribunat der klassischen Republik: Studien zu
seiner Entwicklung zwischen 287 und 133 v. Chr. München: C. H. Beck.
Conte, G. B. (2008). Dějiny římské literatury. Praha: Koniasch Latin Press.
Elster, M. (2003). Die Gesetze der mittleren römischen Republik: Text und
Kommentar. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Flach, D. (1994). Die Gesetze der frühen römischen Republik: Text und Kommentar. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Marek, V. & Oliva, P. & Charvát, P. (2008). Encyklopedie dějin starověku.
Praha: Libri.
Oakley, S. P. (1998). A Commentary on Livy: Books VI–X. Volume II: Books
VI–VII. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Ogilvie, R. M. (1965). A Commentary on Livy: Books I–V. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pražák, J. M. & Novotný, F. & Sedláček, J. (1948). Latinsko-český slovník.
Praha: Česká grafická Unie.
Ridley, R. T. (1980). Livy and the concilium plebis. Klio, 62, 337–354.
Rüpke, J. (1997). Römische Geschichtsschreibung: Zur Geschichte des geschichtlichen Bewusstseins und seiner Verschriftlichungsformen in der Antike. Potsdam: Universität Potsdam.
Staveley, E. S. (1959). Tribal Legislation before the lex Hortensia. Athenaeum, 33, 3–31.
Wieacker, F. (1988). Römische Rechtsgeschichte: Quellenkunde, Rechtsbildung,
Jurisprudenz und Rechtsliteratur. München: C. H. Beck.
61
Jiří Bartůněk — Et tu, Gracche. Methodology of the
Study of the “Roman Revolution” and the Role of
tribuni plebis in the Crisis and Transformation
of the Late Republic
This paper focuses on changes of selected methodological aspects that affected the Roman state in the last stage of its democratic system. It describes
a period of difficult transition to another form of rule, which, unlike other
ancient republics, Athens and Carthage (Wells 1922: 185), did not end
in failure – the end or loss of autonomy, but led to further and undeniable development. In this process, it describes the role of selected Roman
magistrates – tribunes of the plebs, in Latin tribuni plebis, whose influence
on the ongoing events can be further examined by several partial methods.
There are quite rich ancient sources regarding the events of the Late
Republic and references to the tribunes of the plebs. Concerning historiographical sources, this work uses primarily works by Appian of Alexandria,
Polybius, Cassius Dio, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, P. Annaeus Florus, Livy,
Plutarch, Sallust, Cornelius Tacitus, Marcus Terentius Varro and Vellius
Paterculus. Other ancient authors used complementing historiographical
sources include the Roman lawyer Gaius, expert Marcus Tullius Cicero and
a dilettante in the original sense of the word Aulus Gellius.
First, it is necessary to specify the term “Roman Revolution”. It includes
both the definition of the events described and the definition of the period
when these events took place. Theodor Mommsen, the founder of modern
understanding of ancient Rome, used the term “Revolution” to describe
the period following the reforms of the Gracchi until 46 BC, where his
historical work ends (Mommsen 1871: 428). Another historian operating
with the term is Ronald Syme, who, however, argues that the period of the
Revolution lasted from the 60s BC to the death of Augustus in 14 AD. He
sees the new almost terroristic regime established by the princeps as the
culmination and the end of a long revolutionary process. German historian
Alfred Heuss describes the era of the “Roman Revolution” as one of the most
dramatic periods of Roman history taking place between 133 and 30 BC.
This list of authors using the term “Roman Revolution” to describe the
changes and turmoil in the Late Republic is far from being exhaustive; yet,
63
it is sufficient in order to define the period of time. For the purpose of this
study, it is possible to understand this term as a period from the beginning
of the political activity of the Gracchi, also covering certain events around
the mid-2nd century BC until the definitive stabilization of the new political regime under Augustus. Therefore, we can identify the term “Roman
Revolution” with the so-called period of the Late Republic. When studying
this period, historians use different periodization (Hedrick 2006: 59); they
mainly differ regarding the precise end of the early and beginning of the
Middle Roman Republic. However, there is an almost universal consensus
regarding the Late Republican period.
Early Republic: 510/509–287/214 BC
Mid-Republic: 287/214–133 BC
Late Republic (period of the “Roman Revolution”): 133–30/27 BC
Although the term is widely used, its use is rather problematic and controversial. It cannot be understood in the modern sense or compared with
the world revolutions of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. It is also difficult
to compare the “Roman Revolution” with other ancient “revolutions”, or
attempts at them, e.g. with a slave rebellion.1 However, the term is now so
widespread and deep-rooted in the scientific literature that the criticism
of its use appears to be a mere anachronism. We will not pay attention to
this semantic issue any more as it has already been adequately dealt with in
detail by other authors (Christ 2010: 22–23; Porter & Teich 1986: 47–50).
Having defined the period of time, it is necessary to delineate the contents of this concept. It includes changes by which the Romans responded
to the effects of the crisis – social, economic, military, political, etc., that
uplifted Rome from the mud of the malfunctioning democratic republic,
over a bloody military dictatorship to the claws of Augustus’ hereditary
monarchy. Crisis, into which the Roman state in the 2nd century BC bogged
down, was complicated and had a number of complex causes, some of which
we can see even long before its outbreak. This paper will try to bring in a
nutshell the main relevant circumstances discussed both in ancient and
modern literature, which could lead to the death of the Roman democracy.
The causes of the crisis in the Late Republic are discussed in detail in extensive publications of historians of the ancient world, who trace its causes
back to the events that occurred one century before the crisis broke out.
However, this paper will not explore these aspects any deeply.
1
In Sicily 136–132 BC and 104–100 BC, Aristonicus (Eumenes III) in Asia
133–129 BC and Spartacus in Italy 73–71 BC.
64
It is important to explain why I selected the tribunate of the plebs as
the object of methodological interest, and why the paper explores the importance and impact of the activities of the office of the tribune of the plebs
in the Late Republic. Ancient authors themselves looked for some clues
when considering this critical era of Roman history that would help them
to firmly root this period in the cycle of history. They tried to find prime
driving forces of the events. What had triggered an avalanche of disaster.
As for Aristotle there was θεὸς at the beginning – the prime mover, for
most ancient historians the groundbreaking events of the 2nd and 1st centuries BC were triggered by the political activities of the tribune Tiberius
Gracchus and his brother (e.g. App. Bel. Civ. 1.2.2; Vell. Pat. 2.3.3–4; Sall.
Bel. Jug. 41–42). Polybius and Livy blame the decline and corruption of
Roman morals, which erupted after the final destruction of Carthage in
146 BC. There is no general consensus among modern writers about the
beginning of the inevitable end of the Roman Republic; however, many
of them tend to incline to the view regarding the Gracchi (Flower 2004:
89; Spaeth 1996: 73).
Numerous works have been published on the topic of the tribunes of the
plebs in the Late Republic, especially their impact on the Late Republican
state organization. Lately, young researchers have often turned their scientific
interest to the discussed topic and after a longer period of stagnation, they
try to generate debate by their own conception of the issue. In particular,
the dissertation by Eric Wolters, which carefully maps legislative processes
and outcomes of the people’s assembly concilia plebis with a detailed and
well-processed statistics, can become a springboard for further research
in this field. Another dissertation was written at the Ghent University, this
time dealing with the economic level of the office of the tribune of the plebs
and using the methods of New Institutional Economics. It mainly focuses
on issues related to the principal (people) – agent (tribune of the plebs)
relationship, when one economic entity, known as the principal concludes
an agreement with another entity (agent) in the expectation that the agent
will decide in favor of the principal. However, if an agent has more than one
principal, the agent may not even be able to act in their best interest, even if
he wants to. In addition, this system is highly problematic in an environment
of systemic and institutionalized corruption, where absolutely everyone,
including principals, indulges in bribery. It is very likely that the political
arena of the Late Republic was such an environment. Another researcher
who has recently examined the issue of the tribunes of the plebs is Nicolas
L. J. Meunier. From a completely new perspective, he tries to present their
65
origin in the Early Republic as officials with powers of both plebeian and
military tribunes, who, however, adopt their traditionally perceived status
only after the stabilization of the consulship during the reforms of Licinius
and Sextius in 367 BC. He argues that the function of the military and plebeian tribunes had merged by then, and later Roman historians thus did not
have accurate information about the original form of the office. He bases his
argument on the work of T. P. Wiseman, who among other things focuses
on the creation of the traditionally perceived Roman consulate during the
reforms of 367 BC. However, this diverges from the issues of the impact
of the tribunes of the plebs on the events and establishment of the Late
Republic. Other useful publications of Andrew Linttot, Josef Král, Kurt von
Fritz, Ernst Badian, an excellent monograph of Thomas R. S. Broughton
and, of course, others are worth mentioning, too.
Prior to listing the methods used in the study of the selected issue, it is
appropriate to preview several potential methodological problems which we
may come across in further research. The first problem concerns the “facts”
used, which we draw from ancient literary sources, and their validity. They
are often based on unconsciously written observations of ancient authors,
oftentimes embedded in passages of texts related to a completely different
issue. Sometimes there are also tendencies to generalize these observations
focusing on a narrow topic or a specific event, and to assign them greater
force than they actually have (the so-called inductive method, see below).
When using information from ancient sources, we must also deal with the
fact that the material can be preserved in fragments, or that we do not have
access to all original sources, but only to a selection that has been (often
only by chance) preserved to these days. Ancient texts were also written
for readers who were informed quite differently than we are today. Hypothetically, if there was a global catastrophe, and our present civilization was
destroyed, so that there would be no continuous socio-cultural development
between us and the scholars in thousands of years – how would the future
scholars look at us? If they had reports about our society only from specific
and randomly preserved literary sources – such as tabloids, pornographic,
ideologically tinted or pulp literature, they would hardly obtain a real image
of our times. Another problem concerning ancient literary sources is that
the vast majority of them is devoted only to a very limited group of people,
i.e. members of social and cultural elites. Some aspects of Roman society,
life and history thus remain undocumented in literature. A potential pitfall
can also be the interpretation of discovered archaeological, epigraphic and
other material. This material often does not carry any clear information
66
recognizable at first glance; it is only a researcher himself who gives it the
predictive value, in this case it is mostly an archaeologist. It depends on his
expertise and erudition to examine and understand the discovered material
and to correctly determine its predictive value.
When describing the methods used in the historical research of the Roman Revolution, this paper partly relies on the clearly arranged methodological publication of Miroslav Hroch. Research of the crisis and transformation
of the Late Republican state system and the influence of the office of the
tribune of the plebs is largely based on the so-called direct method, i.e. a
reconstruction of the past by studying ancient sources and their excerpts.
If there are not enough sources for certain individual aspects of the topic,
it is also possible to use the indirect method, i.e. to use a source describing
analogous aspects of the issue examined. When we move from concrete facts
to the generalization of their importance, we call it an inductive method, the
use of which also entails considerable problems (see above). A deductive
method should be primarily used in research where the premises are based
on arguments from different sources on the basis of previous research and
subjected to criticism by using the rules of formal logic. When mapping
the events that led to the demise of the Roman Republican system, both
time-lapse approaches are used. The diachronic approach sequentially maps
the selected events in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC on the timeline where
it is possible to observe selected aspects either in chronological succession
(i.e. progressive method) or to proceed in the evaluation of events from
the assumption of results, thus going back in time (retrospective method).
The synchronic approach in turn allows us to monitor a phenomenon at
different places simultaneously at the same point on the timeline, and then
compare these outputs with each other.
A fundamental method for studying the Late Republic is prosopography and the use of its results. It is engaged in the systematic exploration of
a particular group of persons with regard to their origin, career, or family
relationships. An assumption that political opinion is usually determined
by family background and circumstances, and that man is essentially evil
and opportunist creature, caring primarily for his own profit and well-being
of his family, is prevalent. Therefore, when studying personal and family
relationships and ties of important political figures, it is possible by mapping
a marriage policy to determine the possible scope and potential power of
factions within the ruling class to which a given politician belonged. And
this is absolutely crucial in order to understand the political history of the
Late Republic. By studying the ties among major Roman policymakers it
67
was found out that if, for example, one man in the Roman Republic was
able to influence the course and outcome of the election, members of his
family and his friends began to be suspiciously often elected to the highest
positions in state offices. For example, the savior of Rome Publius Cornelius
Scipio Africanus (236–183 BC). In 205 BC, Scipio became a consul and
in the same year two other members of the Cornelius family (Gnaeus and
Lucius Cornelius Lentulus) held the office of aediles curules. The following
year, Marcus Cornelius Cethegus became a consul, and the acting praetor
Marcus Pomponius Matho was Scipio’s cousin. And in 203 BC, Publius
Cornelius Lentulus became a praetor. During the ten years following the
Scipio’s victory over Hannibal at Zama in 202 BC, seven members of the
Cornelius family held the office of a Roman consul (Ferrill 1971: 718).
And these were not the only people close to Scipio who held high office.
Quintus Caecilius Metellus, Scipio’s friend was a consul in 206 BC and the
dictator a year later. Another of his friends, Publius Sempronius Tuditanus
became a consul in 204 BC. And in the same year, Marcus Marcius Ralla
was a praetor, who probably also was one of the Scipio’s friends and served
as his legate in 202 BC (Liv. Ab Urb. Con. 29.11). In addition, most of their
friends and relatives can be considered part of Scipio’s political faction.
Therefore, the application of the prosopographical method can help us illuminate the political history of a particular period, if we, for example, have
questionable or ambiguous literary sources. Roman family, with its rigid
bonds and cohesion is an ideal objective of this research method. However,
when applying it, we must be aware of a certain legitimate danger. It primarily entails the fluctuation of the importance of family ties in the course of
Roman history, which is normal for any civilized society, though. Therefore,
we must be very careful at which time we use the prosopographical method;
for example, the period from the mid-1st century BC is characterized by
the decomposition of patronage, Roman family and its ties. Researchers
do not accept this method without criticism. Some historians argue that
it provides inadequate and misleading views of history, and for example,
the demonstration of personal and political relations of the Late Republic
proves nothing more than the fact that they were variable and complex.
One of the main aspects of the Roman Republic, which accompanied
it from the very beginning to the very end, is the treatment of ager publicus.
Agricultural crisis and problems associated with its use are then considered
to be one of the most important reasons for the decline of the Republican
system. Tribunes of the plebs, as the advocates of rights of the majority
population, were at the center of this issue. We know that about 236 legal
68
actions were discussed at the people’s assembly consilia plebis between the
establishment of the people’s tribunate of 494 BC and Sulla’s march on
Rome in 88 BC. Of this, 43 provisions relate primarily to ager publicus. Vast
majority of it falls in the 2nd and early 1st century BC (Wolters 2014: 54).
An important aspect in solving the crisis of the Republican agriculture was
the establishment of new colonies with Roman (Coloniae civium Romanorum) and Latin population (Coloniae Latinae). The issues can be partly
archaeologically covered due to the excavation of Roman and Latin colonies,
aerial prospecting methods and the research of the Roman centuriation.2
The beginnings of archaeological excavations of ancient colonies are influenced by a reference in the work of Aulus Gellius, who states that the newly
founded colonies were built as a miniature copy of Rome itself (Aul. Gel.
Noc. Att. 16.13.8–9). Thanks to intensive research in this area we now know
that it probably was not so. Archaeological excavations at the site of ancient
Cosa and other places have confirmed that the character of the newly founded
Republican colonies rather resembled military camps (Pelgrom 2008: 335).
The issues of Roman colonization and agricultural crisis associated
with ager publicus are closely linked. The origin of founding colonies can be
probably seen in the old Italic tradition of seizing the land of the defeated
and colonizing it with its own citizens (Mackendrick 1952: 139). If we said
that the colonies were not built as a copy of Rome, the question is, what was,
therefore, the degree of their mutual unification. Research at the locations
of the Latin colonies of Alba and Cosa show a high degree of unification
in the construction of the Latin colonies, especially with regard to the site
selection, fortifications and interior layout of the city (Mackendrick 1952:
142). Colonies tend to be surrounded by a polygonal wall of very similar
structures; they have a rectangular block development, which reminds us
rather of Etruscan than Greek cities.3 In addition, certain structural types
discovered have a very similar nature.4 Both colonies appear to be initially
2
3
4
E.g. Ager Campanus is dated on the basis of archaeological finds before the Second
Punic War, but centuriation of Lucera is dated on the basis of discovered pottery
up to the period of the Gracchi. Moreover, the overall question of plotting land is
much complicated. Because centuriation itself could take place in two different
ways – per centurias limitatio and per strigaset scamna divisio, and unfortunately
both ways are often blended together.
E.g. Etruscan town from the 5th century BC located on the site of Marzabotto.
There are arched cisterns for water and basilica of very similar types on the sites
of surveyed colonies Alba and Cosa.
69
untouched by the direct influence of Hellenism. Baths, theaters and colonnades were built only long time after the cities were founded. Interestingly,
the colonies tend to have a fortified area which was so small that it was
impossible to protect the entire urban population that mostly had to live
outside the walled part of the city. This raises a question what the real purpose of establishing new colonies was, and whether it can be understood
as a predominantly military or defense purpose, as part of the researchers
believes today. Additionally, at the moment when the Romans sent whole
families to colonize the land and not just adult men, we can hardly speak
of a purely military nature of the settlement. Another argument against the
military purpose of colonies is the connection to the Roman road network,
which is often problematic. For example, Cosa was founded in 273 BC, but
was connected to Via Aurelia only in 241 BC. Another possible reason for
founding colonies could be revenge on cities which betrayed. For example,
Volturnum and Puteoli could be established as rivals to treacherous Capua,
as well as Sipontum against Arpi. It appears that the motives of the Gracchi
to set up colonies were mostly military, and only secondarily economic. New
settlers could achieve a minimum ownership of land and could thus extend
the number of the Roman army. From the 2nd century onwards, the sites
for founding new colonies were transferred to the provinces, where they
originated predominantly as residential towns for Roman veterans or their
descendants. Colonizing activity then returned to Italy in the 1st century
BC, when veteran colonies were founded after civil wars at locations of
defeated towns of the opposing faction.
What are the main causes of the decline of the Republican system,
which led to the so-called “Roman Revolution”? We can reasonably assume
that the main cause was the protracted economic crisis, which the Romans
were not able to solve by democratic means offered by the republican state
regime.5 We can observe a variety of other experiments,6 which the Romans
tried to deal with the decline of manufacturing, agriculture and deflation,
but none of them had a long-term curative effect (Sall. Cat. 33.2).
What was the cause of the economic crisis of the Republic? Roman
model of agriculture based on small peasants was not fully compatible with
the expansionist policy of the Roman Republican Empire. Long lasting
military campaigns meant collapse for small peasants who had to spend their
time in the army rather than on the field. The decline of small landowners
5
6
E.g. colonisation of the new regions.
E.g. Lex Valeria de aere alieno.
70
also meant the decline of the army, which culminated in a series of revolutionary steps known as the Marian reforms. In agricultural production then
prevailed wealthy landowners owning latifundia, on which slaves worked
more often than free citizens, who rather retreated to the cities as the poor
where they lived at the expense of the state, were an easy target for bribing
and their votes easily influenced the political direction of the entire state.
In addition, a significant portion of the citizens lived far from Rome, the
one place where elections of state magistrates were held, and therefore,
could not influence the elections. Election victory was thus ensured by
the popularity among the masses who were satisfied with a promise of a
short-term benefit. There is a decline in morals in Rome, not only among
the electorate, but especially among the Roman elite. There is growing
ambitio (ambition), avaritia (avarice), luxuria (lavishness and luxury) and
libido (dissolute lust). Ancient authors notice this fact and see the beginning
of this decline in the period after the destruction of their eternal enemy –
Carthage (Plb. 6.57; 38.21), when Rome did not feel threatened by any
external enemy. Moreover, there are strong leaders who have ties to the
army with which they spend a number of years in campaigns. During the
long period of military service, the legionaries lost touch with old patrons in
the country, and instead of abstract and impersonal ties to the state, senate
and the people of Rome, they began to be attached to their commander,
who was not only a guarantor of their lives, but was also responsible for
their future financial security.7
The Roman constitution stopped developing at a rate corresponding
to the speed of its social changes. It was no longer in line with the different
social situation. When the classes had rebelled, the Romans managed to
respond to it by founding the revolutionary institution of the tribune of the
plebs that guaranteed a delicate balance in the unceasing struggle between
the patricians and the plebeians. Now, in the changed situation they failed to
respond adequately to the rivalry between the optimates and the populares.
Many optimates were of a plebeian origin and the office of the tribune of
the plebs was closely linked to the Roman Senate and thus could no longer
fulfill its original function. Because of these ties the members of the ruling political factions could influence the collegium of tribunes and thus
could exercise their right of veto at any time. In this situation, the Gracchi
7
Roman military commanders of the 1st century BC prefered to divide rewards
for soldiers by themselves, rather than leave it to the Roman Senate, because
thereby they were ensuring the loyalty of the army.
71
came up with a program that almost certainly does not mean a revolution.
However, resistance to any radical changes regarding ager publicus was so
big that it spun a spiral of political killings and civil wars unseen until then
and that could be stopped only a century later by Augustus by eliminating
“everyone”, including the apparent originators of bloodshed – the tribunes
of the plebs.
Future research on this issue has to address, inter alia, the following
questions: What are the distinguishing features of the state which is threatened with a (forced) change in the state system (form of government)? Was
there an alternative route for the Roman Republic from the crisis? If so,
what? Who could propose it and how could it be enforced constitutionally? Was it possible to return to the functioning republican system after
the events of the end of the 2nd and the 1st half of the 1st century BC?
What was the role of the institution of the tribune of the plebs in the
events after the reformative attempts of the Gracchi? Were the chosen
means of its enforcement unconstitutional? Was the tribunate just a tool
in the hands of those really powerful or could the tribunes of the plebs also
pursue their own political objectives? How did the office of the tribune of
the plebs respond to the failure of the proposed Gracchi reforms? How
could the economic crisis of the 1st century be addressed with the use of
constitutional powers of the people’s tribunate?
Did the institution of the tribune of the plebs really fail in its mission
of the defender of rights of the Roman people? Did the tribunate of the
plebs only serve as a scapegoat for Augustus’ propaganda in evaluating the
causes of the failure of the Republic? And what role did the tribunate of the
plebs play, or what attributes did it have in Augustus’ new political regime?
We have outlined which way the work dealing with the issue of the
role of the tribunes of the plebs in the “Roman Revolution” should go,
what should be given priority, what should be avoided and what scientific
methods should be used in research. Thanks to new insights in the field of
scientific literature and related discoveries in other fields, there are further
possibilities to approach the tribunes of the plebs and their influence on
the Late Roman Republic. Even though this topic has been explored on a
large number of pages, we cannot say with certainty that the significance of
the tribunate of the plebs in the last stage of the Roman Republic has been
sufficiently examined and evaluated. Lots of researchers still insufficiently
appreciate, for example, their legislative contribution, even though there is
new comprehensive literature on this subject. It is also necessary to subject
the earlier publications dealing with the topic of the tribunes of the plebs
72
to a new critical approach. Their outputs are in some respects outdated,
but some more recent works have not taken this aspect into account. We
can only hope that further studies of this important and truly revolutionary
clerical institution will do somewhat better and bring the overall picture
of the tribunate closer to reality as well as to the enthusiastic public eager
for new knowledge.
Bibliography
Primary texts
Appian, Appiani Historia Romana. Ed. L. Mendelssohn (1905). Leipzig:
Teubner.
Appian, Krize římské republiky: Římské dějiny II: Občanské války. Transl.
J. Burian (1989). Praha: Svoboda.
Cassius Dio, Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiae Romanae quae supersunt. Ed.
O. Holtz (1868). Leipzig: Teubner.
Cassius Dio, Dio’s Roman History. Transl. E. Cary. Ed. H. B. Foster (1990).
London: Harvard University Press.
Cicero, Epistulae ad familiares. Ed. L. C. Purser (1901). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cicero, Listy přátelům. Transl. V. Marek (2001). Praha: Arista.
Cicero, De lege agraria. Ed. C. F. W. Mueller (1922). Leipzig: Teubner.
Cicero, Orationes tres de lege agraria. Ed. A. W. Zumptius (2011). Charleston: Nabu Press.
Cicero, De legibus libri tres. Ed. R. Klotz (1855). Leipzig: Teubner.
Cicero, O zákonech. Transl. J. Janoušek (2014). Praha: Oikoymenh.
Cicero, De officiis libri tres. Ed. J. Gruber (1856). Leipzig: Teubner.
Cicero, O povinnostech. Transl. J. Ludvíkovský (1970). Praha: Svoboda.
Cicero, De re publica. Ed. C. F. W. Müller (1889). Leipzig: Teubner.
Cicero, O věcech veřejných. Transl. J. Janoušek (2010). Praha: Oikoymenh.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitatum Romanarum quae supersunt. Ed.
C. Jacoby (1885). Leipzig: Teubner.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Transl. E. Cary. Ed. E. Spelman (1943). London: Heinemann.
Florus, Publius Annaeus, L. Annaei Flori Epitomae libri II. Ed. O. Rossbach
(1896). Leipzig: Teubner.
Florus, Publius Annaeus, Dvojí pohled na římské dějiny. Transl. B. Mouchová
(2013). Praha: Arista.
73
Gaius, Gai Codex rescriptus in Bibliotheca Capitulari Ecclesiae Cathedralis
Veronensis distinctus numero XV (13), cura et studio eiusdem bibliothecae
custodis. Ed. A. Spagnolo (1909). Leipzig: Hiersemann.
Gaius, Gaius: Učebnice práva ve čtyřech knihách. Transl. J. Kincl (2007).
Praha: Aleš Čeněk.
Gellius, A. Gellii Noctivm Atticarvm libri XX. Ed. M. Hertz (1877). Leipzig:
Teubner.
Gellius, Atické noci. Transl. E. Vallová (1987). Bratislava: Tatran.
Livius, Ab Urbe Condita. Ed. W. Weissenborn (1873). Leipzig: Teubner.
Livius, Dějiny. Transl. P. Kucharský – Č. Vránek (1971). Praha: Svoboda.
Plutarch, Vitae parallelae. Ed. C. Lindskog – K. Ziegler (1914). Leipzig:
Teubner.
Plutarch, Životopisy slavných Řeků a Římanů. Transl. V. Bahník (2007). Praha: Arista.
Polybius, Historiae. Ed. T. Büttner-Wobst (1882). Leipzig: Teubner.
Polybius, Dějiny. (volumes I–IV). Transl. P. Oliva (2008–2012). Praha: Maitrea.
Sallust, Catilina, Iugurtha, Historiarum fragmenta selecta. Ed. L. D. Reynolds
(1991). Oxford: Clarendon.
Sallust, Catilinovo spiknutí; Válka s Jugurtou. Transl. J. Kalivoda (1988).
Praha: Naše vojsko.
Sallust, Catiline’s war; The Jugurthine war; Histories. Transl. A. J. Woodman
(2007). London: Penguin.
Tacitus, Libri ab excessu Divi Augusti. Annales. Ed. E. Koestermann (1938),
P. Cornelii Taciti Libri qui supersunt 1. Leipzig: Teubner.
Tacitus, Letopisy. Transl. A. Minařík (1975). Praha: Svoboda.
Tacitus, Z dějin císařského Říma. Transl. A. Minařík (1976). Praha: Svoboda.
Varro, M. Terenti Varronis Saturarum Menippearum reliquiae. Ed. A. Riese
(1865). Leipzig: Teubner.
Varro, The Three Books of M. Terentius Varro Concerning Agriculture. Transl.
T. Owen (2013). Delhi: Pranava Books.
Velleius Paterculus, C. Vellei Paterculi ex Historiae Romanae libris duobus
quae supersunt. Ed. K. F. von Helm (1909). Leipzig: Teubner.
Velleius Paterculus, Dvojí pohled na římské dějiny. Transl. B. Mouchová
(2013). Praha: Arista.
Secondary texts
Badian, E. (1996). Tribuni Plebis and Res Publica. In J. Linderski (Ed.),
Imperium Sine Fine. Stuttgart: Steiner, 187–214.
74
Broughton, T. R. S. (1951). The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. New
York: American Philological Association.
Christ, K. (2010). Krize a zánik Římské republiky. Praha: Vyšehrad.
Ferrill, A. (1971). Prosopography and the Last Years of Augustus. Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 20, 718–731.
Flower, H. I. (Ed.) (2004). The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fritz, K. (1954). The Theory of Mixed Constitution in Antiquity. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Hedrick, Ch. W. (2006). Ancient History: Monuments and Documents. Oxford: Blackwell.
Heuss, A. (1956). Der Untergang der Römischen Republik und das Problem
der Revolution. Historische Zeitschrift, 182, 1–28.
Hroch, M. (1985). Úvod do studia dějepisu. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.
Král, J. (1921). Státní zřízení římské. Praha: Jednota českých filologů.
Linttota, A. (1999). The Constitution of the Roman Republic. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Logghe, L. (2011). Het Volkstribunaat als Agent: De politieke bewegingsruimte
van de tribuni plebis in de Late Romeinse Republiek, aan de hand van het
Principal-Agent model (Dissertation). Gent: Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte Universiteit Gent.
Mackendrick, P. L. (1952). Roman Colonization. Phoenix, 6, 139–146.
DOI: 10.2307/1086829
Meunier, N. L. J. (2011). The Original Tribunate in Early Republican Rome.
Les Études classiques, 79, 347–360.
Mommsen, T. (1871). History of Rome. (volume II). New York: Scribner.
Pelgrom, J. (2008). Settlement Organization and Land Distribution in Latin
Colonies before the Second Punic War. In L. Ligt – S. J. Northwood,
(Eds.), People, Land, and Politics: Demographic Developments and the
Transformation of Roman Italy 300 BC–AD 14. Leiden: Brill, 333–372.
Porter, R. & Teich, M., (Eds.) (1986). Revolution in History. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Spaeth, B. S. (2010). The Roman Goddess Ceres. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Syme, R. (2002). The Roman revolution. London: Oxford University Press.
Wells, H. G. (1922). A short history of the world. New York: The Macmillan
Company.
75
Wolters, E. (2014). Leges, Plebiscita et Rogationes: Democratization and Legislative Action, 494–88 BC (Dissertation). Tampa: College of Arts and
Sciences University of South Florida.
76
Markéta Melounová — “Political Murders” and
Enemies of the State: The Crime of Lèse-Majesté
and Legitimacy under the Principate
In connection with Tacitus and other similar sources’ critical assessment
that complains of restrictions on political freedoms under the monarchical
regime, in the past there was a very lively discussion on the question of what
actually the position of the emperor in relation to the existing valid set of
laws was: if he stood above laws and if it was reflected most when punishing offenses with political overtones, or even in those cases he sought to
preserve the impression of a rule of law and while administrating the state
(he as one of the citizens) he did not follow only his own will but for each
step interfering with the rights of other citizens he tried to find a legal basis,
whether it was a valid norm, tradition or consensus.
When reading narrative sources for the early Principate, the question
is whether their negative assessment of some emperors, based on the emperors’ negotiations with the opposition, responded to the way how at first
glance controversial steps by emperors were perceived by contemporaries
or emperors themselves, i.e. whether sentencing for political crimes (crimen
maiestatis) was illegal at certain times and emperors crossed their already
extraordinary powers with some of their practices.
In assessing whether the emperor whose competence in individual areas
of public and private life of citizens were steadily increasing deemed necessary to prefer traditional rights and laws to his will if there was a threat to state
affairs, several key factors must be taken into account: limited knowledge
of the legal background of that time, new trends in the judiciary under the
empire – already the term “break” the law is relativized in this context –
imperial powers passed by the senate and people, and last but not least,
selectivity of narrative sources in individual cases.
Does the Emperor Stand above the Laws?
The statement of the lawyer Domitius Ulpianus that the emperor is not
bound by the laws (princeps legibus solutus est)1 received a great attention.
1
Dig. 1.3.31.
77
The claim about the emperor’s superior position against laws seems to be
confirmed by the testimony of both narrative and legal sources; the question
is if such emperor’s position was ever legally codified. Most likely it was not.
Ulpian’s words are embedded in the specific context – Augustus’ marriage
laws (the lex Iulia et Papia) – which causes doubts about their universal
validity even at the Ulpian’s time. The context proves to be decisive even
for the Cassius Dio’s statement2 that starting from Augustus the emperor
was not bound by the law: not only is the note dated incorrectly in 27
instead of 24 BC where it belongs, but it also probably applies to specific
laws, de ambitu. The same can be said about Article 7 of the lex de imperio
Vespasiani of 69.3 The law in this article states that the emperor is not bound
only by those laws by which his predecessors have not been bound. It can
be assumed that the law has never contained a clause of general application
also because it was not needed: Article 6 gives the emperor the right to do
whatever is beneficial to the state: quaecunque ex usu reipublicae … ei agere
ius potestasque sit, which yet at the same time assumes that the emperor
must justify his acting. It is not known when this institutionalization of the
imperial auctoritas by means of a law occurred: it could have been under
Caligula who was the first emperor who had won all constitutional powers
at once being virtually a privatus at the time of accession.4 The emperor
had extensive powers starting with Augustus therefore it was a matter of
his discretion how much he would use them. It can be assumed that the
law issued for Vespasian did not define any new position of the emperor
but it only confirmed what he already had.
Punishment according to Lex de Maiestate
and Responsibility of the Senate
It cannot be denied that crimen maiestatis was punishable by death under the
Principate; however, it is necessary to determine whether it was a penalty
included in the lex Iulia maiestatis, the basic frame of reference for this crime
under the Principate, commented on in all Late Antiquity codifications5 or
it was a means not included in the law. The problem also lies in the fact that
2
3
4
5
Cass. Dio 53.18.1 and 53.28.2.
ILS 244.
Brunt (1977: 115).
Cod. Theod. 9.4; Cod. Iust. 9.8 and lex fugitiva in Cod. Iust. 8.6.1: Bauman (1970:
266); Dig. 48.4; Inst. Iust. 4.18.3 (De publicis iudiciis). Also Paul. Sent. 5.29.
78
it is not known when and who initiated the law. It is evidenced in Cicero’s
Philippicae I (Cic. Phil. 1.23) that Caesar issued a maiestas law, including the
punishment; nevertheless, it is almost impossible to say if and when a similar
law was issued also by Augustus. The lex Iulia maiestatis, in force under the
Principate, was rather the work of Caesar; Augustus’ authorship of a lex
de maiestate cannot be probably excluded, yet his potential interventions
cannot be determined. The sources suggest that legal punishment of the
lex Iulia maiestatis under the empire was aquae et ignis interdictio, meaning
forced exile or deportation, not death.6
Regarding judicial punishments, except perhaps for Tacitus, it is often
very difficult to tell who was the responsible authority and what was the
basis of the suit. Given how big the role of the discretionary power of a judge
within cognitive proceedings (judicature extra ordinem) was with regard to
the significant participation of the senate in political processes it is not possible to consider punishments higher than foreseen in the law de maiestate an
evidence of arbitrary by the emperor. The courts could not also do without
plaintiffs (delatores)7 and those came mostly from the own ranks of the affected senate. Tacitus’ commentary is eloquent, which in Agricola laments that
it was the “hands of the senate” that had taken Helvidius Priscus to prison,
and the senate to which the conspirator Senecio’s blood got stuck.8 Senators
thus made clear not only how they cared about the protection of the princeps
but they naturally used maiestas processes for their own interests, too.
Emperor’s Coercive Power and Protection of the State
Executions outside the judicial context were naturally much greater impetus
to debates on the emperor’s powers than any judicial procedure. The emperor,
however, was endowed with pro-consular imperium with territorially unlimited validity based on the law (from 23 BC) and tribune powers of which
the coercive power formed part. The question remains how far this power
against citizens was extended and to what extent the emperor was entitled (felt
entitled) to use it without this being seen as a manifestation of malevolence.9
6
7
8
9
Specific arguments cannot be dealt with here, in addition to the author of this
paper, most recently, this view has been held by Schilling (2010: esp. 85ff.).
Bauman (1996: 70).
Tac. Agr. 45.1f.
Emperor’s “malevolence” in the eyes of contemporaries, of course, was not
only linked to excessive punishment beyond the law but also what actions were
79
The principes themselves, either rightly or after having created the
impression, usually tried to justify their procedure that might have been
considered excessive. Not only did Nero manifest the absolute legitimacy
of executions of eminent men (and all of his actions) in 65 with the publication of the minutes of the hearings, but after the alleged restoration of
the maiestas law also Caligula let publish the names of those who he had
sentenced as it was usual for decisions by the senate.10 Nero is said to have
always pretended consultation with other judges although he delivered a
judgment at his discretion then.11
Sources often tend to generalize, evoke images of dark and dangerous
atmospheres under certain emperors. If executions occurred to a greater
extent, they are generally characterized as murders in most cases and it is
not distinguished between people those put to death by the emperor and
those by the senate, those executed as a part of a norm, power or precedent
and those murdered.12 Many times a complaint appears that the emperor
punished and how guilt was proved. It is possible that Augustus who had to deal
with a number of conspiracies punished the conspirators by death; however, clear
examples that such punishments were awarded by the emperor (and in what legal
framework) are missing. Cf. Cass. Dio 55.5.4; an overview by Suet. Aug. 19, but
the punishment is not mentioned; Dio’s Tiberius declares in his funeral speech
to Augustus that the princeps had punished only those conspirators whose own
lives were no use (Cass. Dio 56.40.7). Cf. Cass. Dio 55.4.3; 55.15.1; 55.7.2:
Maecenas felt obliged to intervene when Augustus sentenced many people to
death (Bauman 1982: 102–110). See also Raaflaub & Samons II (1990: 421f.,
432f.), or Manuwald (1979: 101–130).
10 Cass. Dio 59.18.2. On contrary, some of the “bad” emperors forbade to put the
names of those executed in the official records because they were scared of their
quantity (Cass. Dio 67.11.3: Domitian) or they were selective in reporting to
the senate of the executed (Elagabal: Cass. Dio 80.4.3 x Cass. Dio 80.5.2).
11 Suet. Nero 15.1.
12 Though Dio’s epitomes say (Cass. Dio 63.12.1), the freedman Helios was at
Nero’s departure to Greece authorized with (coercive) powers to carry out
confiscations, to send into exile and to execute well in case of nobles without
consultation with Nero, however, this information loses its credibility when we
find (Plin. Ep. 1.5.3), that at least Q. Sulpicius Camerinus father (PIR2 S 989
and 990) was sued for lèse-majesté in court in the senate (the plaintiff was the
famous informer M. Aquilius Regulus). Suetonius’ statement (Suet. Dom. 10.2)
complures senatores, in iis aliquot consulares, interemit, an introductory to the list
of Domitian’s executions for petty offenses, cannot be seen as strong evidence
80
wanted to ensure the financial flow into exhausted treasury by executing
leading citizens, which was the real reason for executions, however, especially
maiestas was presented as accusation. This already shows a tendency to bias
because wealth could be closely related with political ambitions since funds
and allies could be gained with its help.13 Sources also sometimes cleverly
disguise the fact that proper judicial proceedings took place even in times
of conspiracy and persecution of supporters of the usurpers.
According to the theory of Richard Bauman, some emperors canceled
the possibility to sue under the lex de maiestate and suspended the law for
some time and so they could not award penalties under it from which frequent allegations of political killings then arose. I consider some ideas of
this theory of “alternative means” a good starting point for reflections on
the legal base for prosecuting political crimes that was not based on sound
courts, however, I disagree with the fact that under some emperors the
crime was abolished and the emperor was forced to seek alternative means.
I agree with the claim of Peter Brunt that the action of crimen maiestatis
remained always available.14
Bauman assumed that, in addition to the use of legal charges of other
crimes15 instead accusation of crimen maiestatis, some ancient principles,
of the emperor’s personal malevolence, too. As it is usual with this author, it is
always necessary to count with the selectivity of his version, which covers both
use of coercive means and the actual content of actions: among the executed for
words and jokes appear people for which dangerous oppositional activities can
be considered (the Stoics, perhaps also the Legate of Britain Sallustius Lucullus
– he could have been in the office at the time of Saturninus’ rebellion, see PIR2
S 90). In addition, a little further Suetonius describes the functioning of courts
in the senate, which was chaired by Domitian, the emperor brought plaintiffs
there and he intervened into judgments.
13 Philostr. Ap. 7.23. Dio Cassius often attributed assets as a driving mechanism of
emperors for the operation of their own jurisdiction (Gaius: 59.14.1; 59.21.4f.;
Nero /executions sometimes without the possibility to defend/: 63.17.1f;
Commodus: Hist. Aug. Comm. 7.8; Septimius Severus /executions in the ranks
of senators and provincials/: Herodian. 3.8.8).
14 Brunt (1984–5: 469–480).
15 Among typical imperial means is Claudius’ and Domitian’s use of censorial power
(Bauman 1974: 22). But there were Republican precedents as in 184 BC the
consul L. Quinctius Flamininus was punished by the censor Cato Senior with
exclusion from the senate for violation of maiestas of the Roman people in Gaul
(Liv. 39.42.5–39.43.5; Val. Max. 2.9.3; Plu. Cat. Ma. 17; Flam. 18; Cic. Cato 42).
81
notably those by which a thief, murderer, adulterer and an armed enemy
of the state could be killed as manifestus reus without impunity were often
used. On its basis, for example, Claudius and Nero are said to execute their
uncomfortable wives without trial. Bauman presents the practice of legality
of killing a culprit caught in the act as a “very old” and “testified”,16 but, as
he himself admits, legally established only in case of a thief, a night one in
particular.17 As for the empire he presents a number of examples of formulations which according to him confirm that for those who are manifesti
rei any accusation is not even necessary at all (executions crimine nullo),18
which is, however, too daring claim.
But that the individuals in question are presented as overt enemies of
the state (manifesti hostes) against whom the emperor as the protector of
the order in the state is entitled to intervene ex usu rei publicae I consider
fundamental possible justification for executions from the coercive power.
It is evident from the sources that all the murdered (executed) wives about
which Bauman speaks were regarded as people for whom intentions to
endanger the state have emerged (as for Claudius’ wife Messalina, her “second husband” Silius, who worked as a potential conspirator, had also an
impact): Dio says Claudius had Messalina killed out of fear that made him
Narcissus,19 Nero reproached Octavia for thoughts of a coup with the help
of the fleet20 and Agrippina’s murder was presented as a suicide by which
she wanted to avoid punishment for conspiratorial activity.21
16 Bauman (1974: 182).
17 Lex XII tab. 1.17: Si nox furtum factum sit, si im occisit, iure caesus esto. According
to Bauman, the principle confessus pro iudicato est should apply another time
(Bauman 1974: 182f.); also Bauman (1996: 71); on the principle see e.g. Paulus
in Dig. 42.2.1.
18 Especially under Nero and Titus. It was about executions with false accusations
(crimine incerto) and/or without the possibility to defend rather than crimine
nullo; this Bauman’s argument was already invaded by Brunt (1984–1985: 476).
Millar (2001: 522f.), believes that as for lèse-majesté this happened only rarely
because the concept of crime was wide enough and advantages for the plaintiffs
were big. Yakobson (2003: 100) notifies that danger from the vaguely defined
boundaries of crimen maiestatis arose also to the plaintiff.
19 In 48. Cass. Dio 60.31.5; also Tac. Ann. 11.28ff. In 42 Claudius already refused
to award her the title of Augusta: Cass. Dio 60.12.5.
20 Tac. Ann. 14.63.1.
21 Suet. Nero 34.3; Agrippina’s “conspiracy” Tac. Ann. 13.19ff. (on subsequent
supplications see below) and Croisille (1994: 68ff.). Let’s note that according
82
It seems appropriate to combine Bauman’s claims with the theory of
Peter Garnsey. According to Garnsey, extraordinary possibilities in the
investigation of crimen maiestatis, i.e. the possibility of using torture against
citizens, lied in that an offense against the state or against the personification of its authority deprived the citizen of his civil status – let’s add that
the extraordinary possibilities may not relate only to investigations but to
punishment, too. In my opinion, Garnsey’s theory is based on the proper
consideration, however, some conclusions seem unfounded: “Thus, when
treason was the charge, no man was safe from torture, whether as a punishment or as a means of securing the names of possible confederates. The
theory was that whoever threatened the life of the emperor had forfeited
his rights and privileges: he could be treated as a slave.”22
Garnsey builds his theory on examples of torture of conspirators while
he also incorrectly asserts that the free were also tortured by Nero for the
Pisonian conspiracy.23
As for torture, Garnsey gave an analogy to the treatment of soldiers.
This parallel seems to me instructive because it shows what the consequences of designation of enemy of the state were. Because he acted like
an enemy, a soldier who committed treason or deserted could be tortured
and executed: Proditores transfugae plerumque capite puniuntur et exauctorati
torquentur: nam pro hoste, non pro milite habentur.24 According to the law,
a traitor was subject to slave punishments such as crucifixion.25 Marcianus26 in Dig. 48.8.3.6 affirms that defectors may be killed on the spot as if
they were enemies: Transfugas licet, ubicumque inventi fuerint, quasi hostes
22
23
24
25
26
to the Augustus’ law on adultery husband was not allowed to kill his adulterous
wife anymore; the law conferred greater rights to her father if she was in her
father’s authority (Dig. 48.5.21ff.).
Garnsey (1970: 145).
Ibidem. Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.57.2: Cum ingenui et viri et equites Romani senatoresque
intacti tormentis carissima suorum quisque pignorum proderent.
Garnsey (1970: 142, 246); Dig. 49.16.7 (the author is Marcus’ and Commodus’
praefectus praetorio P. Taruttienus Paternus).
Paulus in Dig. 48.19.38.1 (Transfugae ad hostes vel consiliorum nostrorum renuntiatores aut vivi exuruntur aut furcae suspenduntur); Ulpian in Dig. 48.19.8.2
(Hostes autem, item transfugae ea poena adficiuntur, ut vivi exurantur); Garnsey
(1970: 129, note 1).
He published his works after the death of Severus and Caracalla in the first half
of the third century.
83
interficere.27 Although this is the High to Late Principate when the military
question was becoming more and more important for the empire, I see no
reason to consider this information to be inadequate for the earlier period.
Similarly, F. Millar believed28 that confiscation of property (publicationes
bonorum) was first started to be applied to punishments of enemies of the
state following the analogy with the negotiations with the external enemy
defeated in wars.
Paulus in his commentary to the Edict29 confirms that both deserters
who had naturally become enemies due to their acting30 as well as citizens
who are declared enemies by the decision of the senate, and those who are
deprived of the citizenship by the law lose their civil rights: qui deficiunt, capite
minuuntur … et hi, quos senatus hostes iudicavit vel lege lata utique usque eo, ut
civitatem amittant. The senate’s right to declare dangerous individuals being
enemies of the state is considered, along with the power to issue senatus
consultum ultimum (SCU) authorizing consuls and other officials with the
imperium in the emergency to unrestricted capital punishment, as one of the
possible sources of the judiciary of the senate under the empire that always
largely concerned political crimes.31 SCU was the relatively young means of
the senate to pass extraordinary powers to officials in times of the greatest
(internal) threat to the country. It was first enacted in 121 BC against Gaius
Gracchus and his followers. A dangerous precedent was set up also at the
beginning of the first civil war when for another time it came to the arbitrary
interpretation of the law and designation of enemy, i.e. that one who is attacking Rome with weapons,32 was applied to a Roman citizen: C. Marius was
the first the senate declared an enemy (iudicatus hostis) on Sulla’s initiative.33
There was a good deal of controversy with the legality of the farthest decisions
27 Compare Dig. 49.15.19.4: Transfugae … nam qui malo consilio et proditoris animo
patriam reliquit, hostium numero habendus est.
28 Millar (2001: 164).
29 Book 11 Ad edictum, Dig. 4.5.5.1.
30 Paulus defines a deserter: deficere … dicuntur, qui ab his, quorum sub imperio sunt,
desistunt, and adds in the same breath et in hostium numerum se conferunt.
31 See Bauman (1996: 174f.), and Castro-Camero (2000: 172f.).
32 Cf. Dig. 50.16.234pr. (Gaius l. II ad legem XII tabularum): Quos nos hostes appellamus, eos veteres “perduelles” appellabant, per eam adiectionem indicantes, cum
quibus bellum esset.
33 Val. Max. 1.1.5; Marius and other citizens were accused of dangerous activities
(incitement of public strife, struggle against consuls, incitement of slaves to
rebellion): App. Bell. civ. 1.7.60; see also Bauman (1973: 270–293).
84
of the senate in connection with their use during the internal strife. This use
of extraordinary means to protect the state is considered unconstitutional
because it arbitrarily deprived a citizen of his rights and he/she was subject
to the power of military law.34 At the end of the republican period there were
discussions not only about the question of intervention into the civil rights
but also about the extent of the auctoritas senatus.35
The senate held its powers under the empire too and it used it to express
its opinion on the legitimacy of the request of the imperial power: on the one
hand it could declare the future emperor Claudius, on the other hand Avidius
Cassius, who unsuccessfully rose against M. Aurelius, an enemy of the state.
Even Paulus in the aforementioned commentary (Dig. 4.5.5.1) talks about
the identification of those who bring themselves into the position of enemies
(defection), and those who were declared enemies of the state by the senate.
The testimony of Neratius Priscus,36 a lawyer under Trajan and
Hadrian,37 cited by Ulpian is significant that no difference is made between
an external enemy (hostis) and that one who is convicted of treason (perduellio) when it comes to additional penalties. He adds a suicide who hung
himself or laid hands on himself with consciousness of guilt – however, he
does not identify those with them (instead of the connection vel he uses
nec): Non solent lugeri, ut Neratius ait, hostes vel perduellionis damnati nec
suspendiosi nec qui manus sibi intulerunt non taedio vitae, sed mala conscientia.38
Arbitrariness did not generally lie in the fact that a citizen could be
seen as an enemy but under which circumstances this could happen. Based
on the behavior of emperors in emergency situations, I believe that one of
the most important arguments for the option to treat a citizen as if he was
an enemy of the state was pointed to that he was an obvious threat to the
state.39 Dio’s Maecenas tells Augustus that the emperor should leave to
the senate to judge conspirators but the court should be denied to those
commanders of the army who openly revolt: Λέγω δὲ ταῦτα χωρὶς ἢ εἴ τις
34 Castro-Camero (2000: 172f.).
35 See the process with C. Rabirius in 63 BC (Cicero’s speech Pro Rabirio perduellionis
reo; Cass. Dio 37.26ff.; Suet. Iul. 12); in relation to perduellio and maiestas here
Bauman (1970: 32f.).
36 Dig. 3.2.11.3 (Book 6 Ad edictum).
37 Roby (2010: clviii).
38 For these categories of people the duty of public mourning was not applied,
which otherwise was subject to sanctions (Castro-Camero 2000: 130).
39 Examples of manifestus reatus generally in Bauman (1974: 183).
85
στράτευμά τι ἔχων ἄντικρυς ἐπανασταίη. οὐδὲ γὰρ δικάζεσθαι τὸν τοιοῦτὸν
που προσῆκεν, ἀλλ’ ἐν πολεμίου μοίρᾳ κολάζεσθαι.40
Maecenas-Dio’s speech does not present a legal norm nor of the Augustan neither of the Severans’ period but it presents us a vision of an ideal
emperor who respects civil rights to the greatest possible extent: in order to
maintain a good impression of his government such an emperor applies the
capital punishment on his own only when guilt and threats to the state are
unquestioned. However, in my opinion, the difference between the conduct of conspirators and a military commander is not that only the person
who would actually take up arms could be considered an enemy who can
be killed ubicumque inventus fuerit but because everyone can find out that
such a person threatens the state, whereas as for conspiracy, the emperor
may be accused of bias (ἄτοπον γὰρ τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ κατήγορον καὶ δικαστὴν
γίγνεσθαι) therefore due to maintaining impartiality the emperor should
leave the conspiracy to the senate to assess the blame only and he should
punish himself (κἂν ἐλεγχθῇ, κόλασον).41
Emperor and the State
An attack on the emperor equaled the attack on the Roman state. The emperor was personally untouchable since Augustus (sacrosanctus) under
the authority belonging to the state office, he held the proper state powers
from time to time but at the same time he was seen as more than one of
the officials: Already Augustus boasted of his auctoritas by which he surpassed all other officials in the state without having a greater administrative
power.42 It is this authority in which most often the ideological and partly
the legal basis of the princeps’ exceptional status among citizens is look
for.43 The princeps having lifetime office powers became inseparable from
40 Cass. Dio 60.12.5.
41 Cass. Dio 52.31.9.
42 Quo pro merito meo senatus consulto Augustus appellatus sum … Post id tempus
auctoritate omnibus praestiti, potestatis autem nihilo amplius habui quam ceteri qui
mihi quoque in magistratu conlegae fuerunt (R. Gest. div. Aug. 34). Cf. Vell. 2.124.1:
Tantaque unius viri maiestas fuit, ut nec bonis neque contra malos opus armis foret;
Tiberius’ words of 22 AD in Tac. Ann. 3.53.3: Non aedilis aut praetoris aut consulis
partis sustineo: maius aliquid et excelsius a principe postulatur.
43 Szidat (2010: 43); Serrao (1991: 44). Pani (1993: 65ff.; other literature there)
proves that the auctoritas which was crucial belonged to private persons: Augustus’
86
the state, however, only in the sense of protection of the public law (not
identifying the emperor with the state): In the much-discussed passage in
Ulpian’s Disputations in Dig. 48.4.11 it is said that a traitor is the one who
attacks with hostile intent, regardless of whether the state or the emperor:
Plane non quisque legis Iuliae maiestatis reus est, in eadem condicione est, sed
qui perduellionis reus est, hostili animo adversus rem publicam vel principem
animatus.44 As the time passes away from the civil wars, the princeps acquires
new functions, he is not the savior of the fatherland and the restorer of the
old order anymore but he is a guarantee of stability and security of the
state, public safety (securitas publica), and incolumitas of the state depends
on his incolumitas, hence even the salvation of the entire empire.45 This
idea was formulated by Pliny the Younger in his letters and in his speech
of thanksgiving to the Emperor Trajan for granting the consulate46 but it
can be encountered much earlier, in Cicero’s speech Pro Marcello, one of
those in which he advocated less fortunate Pompeians in the front of the
ideology based on the republican patterns (esp. Cicero) stressed that he saved
the state as privatus, with private funds; his official potestas was not different
from any other. By that after Tiberius the princeps has the exclusive right to
wear clothing of curule officials (toga praetexta) his position is formalized and
everyone else either holding an office or not, are beginning to be considered
privati. On the basis of private-public opposition at the end of the first century
a contrast good emperor-tyrant is formed: while a good emperor subordinates
his private matters to care of the public, he gives his private funds into state
services, a bad one transforms the state into his private property (Galba in Tac.
Hist. 1.16.1: Sub Tiberio et Gaio et Claudio unius familiae quasi hereditas fuimus).
To Augustus’ building his own “image” Zanker (2006).
44 See also Cass. Dio 55.5.4 (conspiracy against the emperor and against the
officials), Tac. Ann. 12.42.3 (crimina maiestatis and cupido imperii), Paul. Sent.
5.29.1 (adversus imperatorem vel rem publicam arma mota).
45 Cf. Suet. Claud. 29: when soldiers were executed without the approval of
Claudius, freedmen presented it as justified revenge of the emperor (nihilo minus
rem comprobaret, affirmantibus libertis officio milites functos, quod ad ultionem
imperatoris ultro procucurrissent).
46 Plin. Epist. 10.52. Vota which annually form the senate since Augustus, members
of the priestly colleges and administrators of provinces: Plin. Epist. 10.35; Plin.
Paneg. 67.3. Already Seneca writes in the consolation of Polybius (Sen. Dial.
11.7.4): Hoc [sc. caesare] incolumi salvi tibi sunt tui … in hoc tibi omnia sunt, hic
pro omnibus est. Similar references see Pani (1993: 72f.).
87
dictator Caesar who restored him to favor in 47 BC.47 It is significant that the
famous promise not to put senators to death that was made by the “good”
principes starting probably with Emperor Titus,48 should be joined with
the oath not to make anything that was not in the public interest under
Hadrian (ἐπομόσας μήτε τι ἔξω τῶν τῷ δημοσίῳ συμφερόντων ποιήσειν μήτε
βουλευτήν τινα ἀποσφάξειν).49
When there were exceptional circumstances or acts against the life of
the emperor or public safety or discipline, military imperium50 proves to
be better justified as starting authority for punishing outside the regular
court than tribune’s power:51 we know that for instance Emperor Domitian punished outside Rome when liquidating the rebellion of Antonius
Saturninus (probably by means of a “field court”) and he sent only heads
47 Nisi te, C. Caesar, salvo et in ista sententia, qua cum antea, tum hodie maxime usus
es, manente, salvi esse non possumus (Cic. Marcell. 32; see also Radice 1968: 170);
Morton Braund (2012: 85–108); Caesar was the first to show tendencies to
identify maiestas of the state with his dignitas (Bauman 1970: 118–139).
48 On the origin of the oath see Birley (1962: 197ff.). Birley together with Garnsey
(1970: 43ff.), for the rule of Vespasian, while Bauman (1974: 217), for the rule
of Titus (he believes that the oath was forced by the senators who feared of
the emperor’s reckless acting at the instigation of “wrath of the people”, which
would also be able to authorize executions without trial for alleged seditious
offenses).
49 Cass. Dio 69.2.4.
50 Cf. Cass. Dio 53.17.6. See Hammond (1933: 185 and 315, note 88). Serrao
(1991: 43) compares Augustus’ imperium with extraordinary imperia of the
Late Republic.
51 The reference to tribune sacrosanctity can be thought of rather in cases like
Domitian’s action against a certain father of the family who (if we believe
Suetonius’ narrative) uttered insolent remarks against the emperor’s fondness
for certain types of gladiators at gladiatorial games (Thraecem murmilloni parem,
munerario imparem dixerat) whereupon upon the emperor’s command he was
thrown into the arena with a sign Impie locutus parmularius (Suet. Dom. 10.1).
The incident took place in public, both the insult and the reaction, the emperor
therefore reckoned that his acting, identification of the citizen to gladiator
(parma was a typical weapon of a Thraex) is justified. The story may remind of
Dio’s anecdote about cynic philosophers who also publicly maligned Domitian’s
brother Titus for his relationship with a Jewish princess Berenice. One of them
was flogged, the other beheaded (Cass. Dio 66.15.4f.). As Domitian and gladiators
compare Plin. Paneg. 33.4 and Bauman (1974: 22).
88
of the executed to Rome to be exhibited in the forum.52 Conspirators and
insurgents could be legally punished upon this authority on the spot and
without appeal although they were originally citizens and in case of conspirators usually in situation intra pomerium on the grounds that their actions
jeopardized the state as enemies53 whereas the available evidence were
presented as sufficient evidence for their opposing beliefs.54
Traitors and Enemies of the State
How the people hostile to the emperor become the enemy of all citizens55
well illustrates the use of traditional means in carrying out executions, as for
example throwing down from the Tarpeian Rock,56 throwing bodies on the
52 Cass. Dio 67.11.3 (Cf. Suet. Dom. 6.2). Cf. Cass. Dio 72.6.4 (under Commodus
alleged heads of the wanted son of the executed Maximus Quintilianus were
brought to Rome).
53 Compare also Tacitus on Germans (Tac. Germ. 25.2): Verberare servum ac vinculis
et opere coercere rarum: occidere solent, non disciplina et severitate, sed impetu et ira,
ut inimicum, nisi quod impune est.
54 Remember the famous debate in the senate about the death penalty for Catiline’s
partners based on the incriminating evidence: Cic. Catil. 1.28 (Quid tandem te
impedit?… an leges, quae de civium Romanorum supplicio rogatae sunt? At numquam
in hac urbe, qui a re publica defecerunt, civium iura tenuerunt) and Cic. Catil. 4.10
(At vero C. Caesar intellegit legem Semproniam esse de civibus Romanis constitutam;
qui autem rei publicae sit hostis, eum civem esse nullo modo posse). Denial of the right
to be heard corresponds to the fact that it is a man who is considered convicted
of his act: Ostorius Scapula and Publius Anteius were already vulgato eius [sc.
Antisti Sosiani] indicio categorized inter damnatos magis quam inter reos (Tac.
Ann. 16.14f.); a centurio was sent to Scapula: causa festinandi ex eo oriebatur
quod Ostorius multa militari fama et civicam coronam apud Britanniam meritus,
ingenti corpore armorumque scientia metum Neroni fecerat ne invaderet pavidum
semper et reperta nuper coniuratione magis exterritum. See also Appius Silanus,
Iulia Drusi and Germanici in Suet. Claud. 29.1 (uncertain accusations without
the possibility to defend – executions crimine incerto).
55 According to Bauman (1970: 225ff.), the emperor took the advantage of the fact that
the people are obligated to share his enemies, whether due to paternal relationship
(title pater patriae) or on the basis of annual promises (cf. Bauman 1974: 227: „the
fusion of renuntiatio amicitiae with the crimen maiestatis, of the inimicus principis
with the hostis populi Romani, had left very little room for manoeuvre”).
56 A special kind of execution was reserved for traitors since the legendary process
with Horatius. Beating with rods (first threatened to Horatius) was traditional,
89
Gemonian stairs instead of the funeral,57 the immediate executions of the
captured offenders or executions on the initiative of the people. It is worth
mentioning that Augustus as Triumvir had the knight Pinarius stabbed as a spy
on the spot because he as a civilian made notes during his military speech.58
Other examples from his rule are not available so it seems that the episode is
rather related to his triumviral power. Corpses of the executed enemies of the
state were thrown on the Gemonian stairs and dragged with a hook during
executions after Sejans’ fall – however, in this case, claimants and the court
were not missing.59 Caligula gave orders to throw down from the Capitol
more maiorum, but also the execution with ax (originally as a symbol of the royal
criminal jurisdiction perhaps of the sacred dimensions), and the throwing down
from the Tarpeian Rock (Cantarella 1991: 154, 159; throwing down from a
rock as a sacrifice to the underworld gods: Cantarella 1991: 262). At the latest
since Nero, a tool for executions by beheading was a sword, which replaced the
ax; execution with an ax was considered unacceptable (Cantarella 1991: 166;
Ulpian in Dig. 48.19.8.1).
57 That it was perceived as an adequate punishment after death for the citizenhostis under the empire, it is supported by Tac. Ann. 6.28 where Tiberius boasts
that he had spared Agrippina the Elder not only humiliation of execution by
strangulation, but dragging on the Gemonian stairs. Rogers (1931: 146) considers
this as proof that she was guilty of conspiracy. From Suet. Tib. 54.2 we know
that her sons were convicted as hostes ([Tiberius]… accusavit per litteras … et
iudicatos hostis fame necavit; Nero in 29, Drusus in 30). Cf. Szidat (2010: 326).
Disgrace did not lie in strangulation with a loop (laqueus) as it was for the Romans
one of the honorable ways of death, besides starvation it was the traditional
form of execution in prison although it was never institutionalized in the system
of punishments; death by strangulation saved the convicted of public shame
therefore it was used for prisoners of higher status – also in that case where public
execution was excluded for political reasons; Cantarella (1991: 143). Rejecting
the funeral for those who did not commit a suicide: Tac. Ann. 6.29.1 (Cf. Cass.
Dio 74.5.3 exhumation and burial into family tombs after Pertinax’s rehabilitation
of the unjustly convicted). Denial of burial was seen as an additional penalty
which belonged to the heaviest guilt. Funeral was ruled out for specific types
of executions (sewing up in a sack, beheading with an ax, burning, crucifixion,
death at public games, and particularly in prison): the corpses were dragged
with a hook up the stairs, and then, often mutilated, also cleared with a hook
and thrown into the Tiber (Mommsen 1899: 987f.; Suetonio & Ramondetti
2008: 717, here other relevant references to sources).
58 Suet. Aug. 27.3. Person not known elsewhere.
59 Nemo punitorum non in Gemonias abiectus uncoque tractus (Suet. Tib. 61.4).
90
those who were convicted in political processes (in 39). Processes were not
led only by the emperor but also by the senate and not without an appeal.60
Under Claudius in 43 an unnamed knight was thrown down from the Capitol
for a plot,61 tribunes and consuls should have overseen the execution thus
it was within their coercive rights62 not of the emperor, which would match
the Claudius’ tendency to revive traditional ways of justice. There used to be
wives and children among the executed.63
Immediate executions of suspected conspirators appeared under Caligula (in 40)64 and under Claudius (in 42)65 when executions were also
carried out outside Rome (heads were delivered and displayed in the city)
and the corpses were thrown on the Stairs again. (Probably innocent) Appius
Silanus, reportedly getting ready to assassinate the emperor in the palace, was
arrested as manifestus reus and immediately executed based on the Narcissus’ and Messalina’s dream.66 While investigating the Pisonian conspiracy,
Nero made an impression for the majority of the civilian participants of a
process with characteristics of a “field court” (interrogations took place in
the palace, the emperor himself judged, there were praefectus Tigellinus,
60 Processes carried reportedly due to exhaustion of finance by the construction
of a bridge between Puteoli and Baiae (Cass. Dio 59.18.1ff ).
61 Cass. Dio 60.18.4.
62 Levick (1990: 116).
63 Suet. Tib. 61.2; children of the executed for participating in the Pisonian and
Vinician conspiracies (previously expelled from Rome; Suet. Nero 36); further
executions of children on suspicion of subversive activity: Suet. Nero 35.5
(A. Plautius; son of Poppaea Sabina Rufrius Crispinus, executed after Nero’s
marriage to Poppaea); sons of praefectus praetorio Perennis (Herodian. 1.9.6;
only one son: Hist. Aug. Comm. 6.4). According to Tacitus, women used to be
executed for mourning after the convicted mainly because they could have not
been accused occupandae rei publicae (Tac. Ann. 6.10.1), which is not quite true
as shown by the case of Agrippina the Elder or Claudius’ daughter Antonia who
Nero put to death quasi molitricem novarum rerum (Suet. Nero 35.4).
64 Cass. Dio 59.25.5b (Sex. Papinius immediately executed in front of the emperor’s
eyes).
65 Cass. Dio 60.15 (armed uprising, Annius Vinicianus and Furius Camillus
Scribonianus).
66 Suet. Claud. 37.2 (the same as in Suet. Claud. 29.1; probably a politically significant
person whose death Dio joins with a narration of Vinicius and Camillus’ rebellion,
Cass. Dio 60.15.1). The history of the Silani Family under the Principate is all
marked by conflicts with emperors (see McAlindon 1956: 119ff.).
91
first Faenius Rufus, too, and Nero’s wife Poppaea with him).67 Otherwise
soldiers enforced suicides,68 the city was put under surveillance of the infantry and riding troops and personal Germanic guard of the emperor,69
the conspirators of the military ranks were executed after they hardly confessed.70 Immediate executions of conspirators were carried out also under Vespasian, at the command of his son, Titus.71 Marcus Aurelius in the
prosecution of participants in the uprising of Avidius Cassius proved ideal
qualities of a civic princeps since he gave up his field powers over civilians
when he put to death only people of military status (probably in court)
and he forbade the senate to conduct a rigorous investigation.72 The senate previously declared Cassius an enemy of the state.73 In addition to the
usurper’s son, the emperor had Cassius’ descendants sentenced to exile in
traditional form when they could choose their place of residence.74 In this
spirit, Septimius Severus partially continued; he was said to put to death
(in court?) only those senators who served as soldiers75 when suppressing the revolt of Pescennius Niger, otherwise he had senators deported.76
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Tac. Ann. 15.58 and 61.
Ibidem 15.60.4 and 15.61.1 (Seneca); 15.69 (Vestinus).
Ibidem 15.58.1f.
Ibidem 15.66–15.68.1.
Cass. Dio 66.16.3 (Aulus Caecina Alienus, killed directly in the palace, he had
allegedly poised the army, cf. Suet. Tit. 6.2; the other conspirator, a known
informer from the time of Nero, Eprius Marcellus, was convicted in the senate).
In conscios defectionis vetuit senatum graviter vindicare (Hist. Aug. Aur. 25.5; also
ibidem 25.7: he called back the deportees too). He used his capital power only
to those conspirators who were obviously guilty of one another crime; he did
not punish the administrator of Egypt C. Calvisius Statianus as a traitor but
he sentenced him under the law to deportation (Cass. Dio 71.28.3). Certainly
the late origin of the work is reflected in Hist. Aug. Avid. 13.7, which says that
Commodus let Cassius’ children as participants in a conspiracy be burnt alive
(cf. Paul. Sent. 5.29.1 and Dig. 48.19.38.1 = Paul. Sent. 5.21A.2; Dig. 48.19.8.2).
On the motives of Marcus’ negotiations with the Cassius’ party Fraschetti (2008:
149–178, esp. from 174); from the Marcus’ side, it was “absolutely necessary
opportunism” face in face of an imminent civil war.
Hist. Aug. Aur. 24.9; 25.5; Avid. 7.6; 8.7f.
Hist. Aug. Aur. 26.10f.
Hist. Aug. Sept. Sev. 9.8. But the commanders who had served him with betrayal,
he put to death with their children (Herodian. 3.5.6).
Including confiscation for the traditional reasons (Cass. Dio 75.8.4).
92
Credibility of a long list of noblemen who were executed upon order of
Severus without trial when eradicating the rebellion of Clodius Albinus
in the Historia Augusta is controversial for its length, not so much for the
overall image of Severus’ consolidation of government.77 Severus also seized
Albinus’ letters and forced the senate to declare enemies of the state all listed
people in order to execute them then.78 Already during his senatorial career,
Severus created a reputation of a person of strict discipline, no surprise
then that not only disloyal soldiers but also members of the senate who
once turned their backs to him were severely punished because they were
traitors according to the law.79 However, with the help of his son Caracalla
he prepared a humiliating end to praefectus praetorio Plautianus in vengeance for his kind of hybris. In 205 he put him to death by soldiers in the
palace without the public gaze on charges of conspiracy after a hearing;80
his body was thrown on a street; children were exiled in great fear on the
islands where Caracalla put them to death.81 Caracalla who did not afford
77 Hist. Aug. Sept. Sev. 13.1.
78 Hist. Aug. Alb. 12.3f. This information is also in Herodian. 3.8.6, therefore it is
not considered unreliable.
79 Spielvogel (2006: 103).
80 Cass. Dio 76.3f. (Caracalla wanted to kill him himself; Severus then did not raise
any charges against Plautianus in the senate but he unleashed a wave of processes).
Herodian. 3.12.11: Plautianus killed as a “convicted enemy” (φονεῦσαι τὸν ἄνδρα
ὡς ὁμολογουμένως πολέμιον); also Hist. Aug. Sept. Sev. 14.7; according to Hist.
Aug. Sept. Sev. 14.5 he had him declared an enemy of the state already before,
which is a mistaken assumption arising from that Severus gave to melt some of
his sculptures in 200 because there were too many of them: Cass. Dio 75.16.2.
After punishing the murderers of Pertinax, Severus reportedly said that nobody
dies during his reign without trial (Herodian. 2.14.3).
81 Cass. Dio 76.6.3. In the sources there are more examples of the conspirators or
usurpers and their descendants or followers that used to be executed as enemies
after they had already undergone a punishment under the maiestas law (Cass.
Dio 67.14.4: exile and later execution of Nero’s freedmen Epaphroditus who
should have helped Nero to commit suicide, by Domitian for that he failed to
protect the emperor, i.e. for treason; Cass. Dio 72.4.5f.; Hist. Aug. Comm. 4.4
and 5.7: Commodus sent his sister for conspiracy into exile to Capreae and
then he put her to death; also Hist. Aug. Avid. 13.7: Commodus put to death
descendants of Avidius Cassius whom his father had forgiven). Suetonius ranks
the execution (“murder”) of Salvidienus Orfitus and Acilius Glabrio in exile
ordered by Domitian among other questionable executions, however, he admits
93
funeral to some of the executed from the ranks of nobility as traitors and
enemies82 emphasized his military powers; he said that only he had the right
to punish those soldiers who had informed on people.83 According to the
Historia Augusta he unleashed a wave of executions after the assassination
of his brother Geta throughout the city and he acted like suppressing an
uprising (seditio) when he gave orders to capture and execute in a great
extent.84 The first military emperor, Maximinus Thrax, was already mainly
a supreme military commander who also gained the imperial dignity by
a murder and a military coup; it is nothing special that he used to put to
death for alleged conspiracies without trial.85
That death was seen as a legitimate punishment for those who overthrew
the stability of the regime is demonstrated by the extraordinary sacrifices
in temples or votive festivities that used to be officially approved (resp.
directed) by the senate and held as an expression of gratitude for that the
emperor paternally watches over the security of the state,86 i.e. he acted in the
82
83
84
85
86
that it was justified by an effort for a coup (Suet. Dom. 10.4; to Glabrio as possible
victim of the persecution of Christians Barzanò 1982: 408–415; Sordi 1984:
50–61; Orfitus belonged to the friends of the future emperor Nerva, see Philostr.
Ap. 7.8, probably his father was convicted already under Nero for subversive
activity: Suet. Nero 37.1 and Cass. Dio 62.27.1; PIR2 C 1444 and 1445).
Cass. Dio 77.13.7.
Cass. Dio 77.17.2. Cf. Cass. Dio 52.33.2 (Augustus should judge in cases of
centurions when it comes to capital offenses). Cass. Dio 80.3.4–80.4: Elagabal’s
executions of prominent men of whom the emperor himself, not sure whether
in court, and his praefectus praetorio P. Valerius (Eutychianus) Comazon cared.
The emperor’s executions followed the death sentences issued by the senate on
his instigation over those who expressed displeasure (Cass. Dio 80.5.1).
Hist. Aug. Carac. 4.3–7.
Hist. Aug. Maximin. 10.5f.
Expressions of gratitude are documented already after the execution of
Salvidienus Rufus, Octavian’s unsuccessful commander in a naval battle with
Sex. Pompey (Cass. Dio 48.18; 48.33.3). He was accussed of conspiracy in the
senate in 40 and labeled by the people as an enemy of the state (Rohr Vio 2000:
34–47 presents a picture of his military incompetence in sources as a significant
example of historiographical manipulation); under Augustus the thanksgivings
are documented for the death of C. Cornelius Gallus (the senate decided that
after the conviction of Gallus it would sacrifice; Cass. Dio 53.23.7), Murena and
Caepio (Augustus approved the victims; Cass. Dio 54.3.8); under Tiberius after
the suicide of Libo Drusus (thanksgiving feast and gifts for the gods, declaration
94
interest of the state and citizens.87 It says a lot that expressions of gratitude
were held after the murder of Agrippina by Nero, not only by his friends
who went to temples and gave an example to Campanian municipia but
also to the senate that ordered supplications.88 There were extraordinary
victims after the murder of Octavia, too.89
The emperors who ascended under difficult conditions at the beginning of their rule deprived of those who were responsible for the change
of the ruler as traitors, thus legally: praefectus praetorio Q. Naevius Cordus
Sertorius Macro and his wife Ennia Thrasylla under Caligula experienced
that (ended with a suicide in 38)90 and others who had helped accession
of the new emperor with a murder, which raised legitimate fears that the
situation could be repeated when they had already committed a treason.
These concerns came significantly to light in the case of Claudius whose
accession to the throne was accompanied by serious discussions about
return to the republic and his government by a number of conspiracy and
rebellion.91 Therefore, the murderer of Gaius, Cassius Chaerea, was immediately executed not out of revenge for Caligula (of mutual “imperial
87
88
89
90
91
of the feast on the day of Libo’s suicide; Tac. Ann. 2.32, Cass. Dio 57.15.5) and Cn.
Piso (acknowledgment/praise of the senate to Tiberius and individual members
of the imperial family, Tac. Ann. 3.18.3; SC de Cn. Pisone Patre l. 133–154);
under Nero after an alleged conspiracy of Faustus Cornelius Sulla and Rubellius
Plautus (Tac. Ann. 14.59.7), after the Pisonian conspiracy (the senate voted on
donations and thanks to the gods, especially the Sun, Nero gave soldiers extra
pay and cereals to the people; Tac. Ann. 15.74 and 72); later it appears in 238 in
connection with internal enemies after the murder of Maximimus and his son
(Pupienus sends litteras laureatas to Rome, people give thanks in temples, the
senate orders supplications in the presence of Balbinus throughout the city;
Hist. Aug. Maximin. 24.6f.; 26.6). In more detail Freyburger (1978: 1418–1439,
mainly from 1423); he does not count Gallus under Augustus nor Piso under
Tiberius.
Cf. Tacitus’ sarcastic remark (Tac. Ann. 14.64.3): quicumque casus temporum
illorum nobis vel aliis auctoribus noscent, praesumptum habeant, quotiens fugas et
caedes iussit princeps, totiens grates deis actas, quaeque rerum secundarum olim, tum
publicae cladis insignia fuisse.
Tac. Ann. 14.10.4; 14.12.1.
Tac. Ann. 14.64.5.
Cass. Dio 59.10.6. Their children killed too (PIR2 E 65).
Claudius was even declared an enemy of the state (Suet. Claud. 13; cf. Aur. Vict.
Caes. 4.9).
95
solidarity”)92 but for the hostile sentiments against Claudius.93 Chaerea
and others were tried by the emperor in the palace in the presence of his
friends and immediately executed by beheading. The emperor acted here
clearly within his military powers because they were people of military status (tribunes of the praetorians Chaerea, Lupus) and it was an exceptional
situation.94 Probably based on the military power even Vitellius executed
not a large number of adherents of Otho after his accession.95 Commodus,
who, according to the sources, had also to defend himself against many
conspiracies, deprived mainly of the supporters of his father as dangerous
adversaries, secretly with poison but also publicly, hard to say if without
trial.96 Septimius Severus who soon after his accession revenged the murder
of his predecessor Pertinax as part of his military power sentenced soldiers
to death penalty too, namely the guilty praetorians.97 Because the soldiers
hesitated, Elagabal should have even delivered with his own hand the first
blow to his foster father and guardian Gannys to whom he owed stimulation
of a troop mutiny and overthrow of the predecessor Macrinus.98
Especially the powerful officials and supporters of the emperor sometimes suffered from the anger of the people (furor populi) which necessitated
the death of enemies. Thus Nero’s praefectus praetorio Ofonius Tigellinus
died, not under Galba99 but under Otho, when he was ordered a suicide
without court100 and further similarly negatively depicted in sources praefectus M. Aurelius Cleander under Commodus whom the emperor himself
sacrificed to the people for plotting.101 His predecessor Sextus Tigidius
92
93
94
95
Cf. Bauman (1974: 100ff.).
Cf. Suet. Claud. 11.1 (execution of several military tribunes and centurions).
Ios. Ant. Iud. 19.91ff.; Cass. Dio 60.3.4.
Cass. Dio 65.6.2. To the execution of praefectus praetorio Casperius Aelianus at
the beginning of the Trajan’s rule see Migliorati (2003: 41f.).
96 Cass. Dio 72.4.1. The epitomes (Excerpta Valesiana, also Excerpta de Virtutibus et
Vitiis) use the verb φονεύω, not ἀποκτείνω that might have also meant conviction
(see particular entries e.g. in Liddell & Scott 1996). To Commodus picture in
historiography Zimmermann (1999: 124, 150, 63, 323).
97 Cass. Dio 75(76).1.1 (θανάτῳ ἐζημίωσε).
98 Cass. Dio 80.6.3.
99 Cass. Dio 64.3.3; Tac. Hist. 1.72.2.
100 The people requested his death with acclamations in the theatre and circus (Tac.
Hist. 1.72).
101 Along with the imperial freedmen; Cleander, a freedman himself, was also the
emperor’s cubicularius (Hist. Aug. Comm. 7.1f; Herodian. 1.13.1–4). Commodus
then continued with executions of praefecti praetorio (Hist. Aug. Comm. 7.4).
96
Perennis who following the emperor’s model put people to death without
trial for conspiracy102 was himself declared an enemy of the state for preparation of a coup and released to be punished by the army.103 Other vivid
depiction of anger of the people who took justice into their hands is given
by Herodian:104 after declaring Gordian I emperor in defiance to Maximinus
not only informers but also unjust officials and judges were prosecuted and
murdered (ἀνῃροῦντο), and their bodies were thrown into the sewers (also
praefectus Urbi was killed).105
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, penal coerciveness belongs to the emperor already since
Augustus, “tyranny” of the emperors therefore did not show by that they
used it, but how often, in what context and with what justification they did
so: Nero was not in vain to say that the emperors before him did not know
what they were allowed.106 Augustus still favored preserving the intact image of a state consolidator and probably left repression of the opposition
102 Praefectus praetorio disposed of capital jurisdiction at that time (Bauman 1996:
106–110). For the acclamation executions of Messalina’s lovers, Titus’ enemies,
Domitian’s murderers under Nerva, Papinian and Ulpian’s death through
praetorian cohorts see Bauman (1996: 107).
103 Hist. Aug. Comm. 6.1ff. (he was to be literally lacerandus); Herodian. 1.9; Dio
Cass. 73.9. Zimmermann (1999: 81f.), based on the parallels between the
depiction of the person of Perennis and the prefect of Alexander Severus Ulpian
by Dio believes that the report on Perennis’ end was adapted according to Dio’s
fresh experience with the execution of Ulpian. After the fall of Perennis then
followed captivity and execution of the rebel Maternus and his fellows (Herodian.
1.10.7).
104 Herodian. 7.7.3f.
105 Maximinus and his son were officially declared hostes publici (ILS 1188 –
damaged, reconstruction in PIR2 A 622), which was one of the few cases when
this happened to a living emperor (before him only to Nero and Didius Iulianus);
according to Vittinghoff the senate could have searched for justification of such
an exceptional step only within the ideology of fair tyrannicide (Vittinghoff
1936: 99ff.; Herodian & Whittaker 1970: 200f.). The prefect’s identity is not
known nor is it clear whether he was killed because he was trying to keep order
or as a Maximinus’ party man.
106 Negavit quemquam principum scisse, quid sibi liceret (Suet. Nero 37.3). Similarly
C. Caligula: ”Memento”, ait, “omnia mihi et (in) omnis licere.” (Suet. Cal. 29.1).
97
to others using public courts and the senate, which also Tiberius did. To
what extent the emperor resorted to extreme means was also inconsiderably influenced by the overall political situation in the empire as it can be
seen at least during the Severan dynasty whose founder seized power with
fight against other candidates and at the same time remained the only one
whose government did not end with a successful assassination.
Undoubtedly, especially some emperors committed politically and
otherwise motivated murders; however, I do not think that in the context
of the constituting judicial system and modified official imperial powers
in the hands of the emperor,107 it is suitable to speak about violations of
the laws and the rights of citizens in cases of other than legal punishment
for citizens. Unlike the challenged authorization of the senate to deprive
citizens of their rights at its discretion the emperor disposed of the legal
basis: lex de imperio and the imperium itself. The fact that we have evidence
of immediate executions ordered by the emperor and torture of conspirators from the period of Caligula on (under Tiberius are questionable) is
consistent with the dating of the sixth article of the lex de imperio to the
accession of Caligula and with Augustus’ effort not to refer to his triumviral
past and the period of civil wars too much,108 which Tiberius, who partly
personally experienced that time, imitated.
Designation of a culprit as a revealed enemy could justify the emperor’s
use of exceptional means against the citizens of all social layers instead of
a judicial process; the reactions of the people and the senate (furor populi, approval of thanksgiving feasts, eventually acclamation of praetorian
guard) clearly suggest that the emperor’s acting was deemed an approved
way of the fulfillment of his rights and obligations to do anything for the
state. However, the sources often skillfully conceal that even to manifesti
hostes fair trial was indulged (persecution after the fall of Sejan, Caligula’s
executions, punishment of usurpers’ adherents under Septimius Severus)
and so especially during the High and Late Principate we can legitimately
ask to what extent emperors used extrajudicial power in difficult political
situations. That even under the emperors who are criticized by the sources
because they preferred extra ordinem penalties as for the amount and kind,
sentences to exile for crimes aimed against the emperor’s own life can be
107 Princeps’ powers unprecedentedly violated the balance of power already because
by holding imperium and tribunicia potestas he connected the executive power
of the state to the defence against it (Serrao 1991: 43).
108 Cf. Dowling (2009: 29ff.): Octavian’s crudelitas vs. Augustus’ clementia.
98
found109 proves that the emperors always used both options of punishment,
the imperium (eventually tribune power) and the lex Iulia.110 Sources not
always admit directly that the “bad” emperors also let pass sentences to a
milder punishment than to death of any form, we learn about it in some
cases retrospectively.111
Bibliography
Primary texts
Appian, Histoire romaine. Livre XIII: guerres civiles, livre I. Ed. P. Goukowsky
(2008). Paris: Les belles lettres.
Aurelius Victor, Sexti Aurelii Victoris Liber de Caesaribus. Ed. F. Pichlmayer
(1970). Leipzig: Teubner.
Cicero, M. Tullius, Le Catilinarie. Ed. E. Risari (2004). Milano: Mondadori.
Cicero, Orationes Caesarianae: Pro Marcello, Pro Ligario, Pro rege Deiotaro.
Ed. W. Y. Fausset (1893). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cicero, M. Tulli Ciceronis Cato maior de senectute. Ed. C. Simbeck (1912).
Leipzig: Teubner.
Codex Theodosianus. Vol. I: Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis. Pars posterior: Textus cum apparatu. Ed. Th. Mommsen –
P. Krueger (2006). Hildesheim: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Corpus iuris civilis. Vol. I.: Institutiones, Digesta. Ed. Th. Mommsen – P. Krueger (1908). Berlin: Weidmann.
Corpus iuris civilis. Vol. II.: Codex Iustinianus. Ed. P. Krueger (1880). Berlin:
Weidmann.
Dio Cassius, Dio’s Roman History in Nine Volumes. Ed. E. Cary (1914–1955).
London: W. Heinemann et al.
109 Even at the time of military monarchy: Herodian. 7.3.4 (Maximinus Thrax
punished senators either by death or exile).
110 Claudius: Cass. Dio 60.27.5 (Asinius Gallus, the son of Asinius convicted under
Tiberius; instead of being executed for conspiracy, he was sent into exile: οὐκ
ἀπέθανε δὲ, ἀλλ’ ὑπερωρίσθη).
111 Nero: Suet. Galba 10.1 (Galba exhibited paintings of the executed under Nero
and brought a boy who lived in exile until then); Commodus: Hist. Aug. Comm.
4.11 (expelled consuls Aemilius Iuncus and Atilius Severus mentioned in the
list of executions and alleged conspirators).
99
Herodian, Herodian in Two Volumes. Vol. II: Books V–VIII. Ed. C. R. Whittaker (1970). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Historia Augusta. The Scriptores Historiae Augustae in Three Volumes. Ed.
D. Magie (1967). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Ed. H. Dessau (1892–1916). Berlin: Weidmann. (= ILS).
Josephus, Flavius, Josephus in Nine Volumes. Vol. IX: Jewish Antiquities. Books
XVIII–XX, general Index to Volumes I–IX. Transl. L. H. Feldman (1969).
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Leges XII tabularum. Das Zwölftafelgesetz. Ed. D. Flach – A. Flach (2004).
Darmstadt: WBG.
Livius, Titus, Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita libri XXXI–XL, Tomus II: Libri
XXXVI–XL. Ed. J. Briscoe (1991). Stuttgart: Teubner.
Paulus, Iulius, Pauli Sententiae: Testo e interpretatio. Ed. M. B. Fossati Vanzetti
(1995). Padova: CEDAM.
Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana. (2 volumes). Ed. Ch. P. Jones (2005–
2006). Cambridge, Mass. – London: Harvard University Press.
Plinius, Caecilius Secundus, C. Plini Caecili Secundi epistularum libri novem.
Epistularum ad Traianum liber. Panegyricus. Ed. M. Schuster (1958).
Leipzig: Teubner.
Plutarch, Plutarchi Vitae parallelae. (volumen I, fasciculus 1). Ed. C. Lindskog – K. Ziegler (1960). Leipzig: Teubner.
Plutarch, Plutarchi Vitae parallelae. (volumen II, fasciculus 2). Ed. C. Lindskog – K. Ziegler (1935). Leipzig: Teubner.
Prosopographia imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. (pars I). Ed. E. Groag – A. Stein
(1933; ed. altera). Berlin – Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co. (= PIR2).
Prosopographia imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. (pars II). Ed. E. Groag – A. Stein
(1936; ed. altera). Berlin – Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co. (= PIR2).
Prosopographia imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. (pars III). Ed. E. Groag –
A. Stein (1943; ed. altera). Berlin – Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
(= PIR2).
Prosopographia imperii Romani saec. I., II., III. (pars VII, fasciculus 2). Ed.
M. Heil – K. Wachtel (2006; ed. altera). Berlin – Novi Eboraci: Walter
de Gruyter & Co. (= PIR2).
Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Ed. A. E. Cooley (2009). Cambridge: University Press.
Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre. Ed. W. Eck – A. Caballos – F. Fernández (1996). München: C. H. Beck.
Seneca, L. Annaeus, L. Annaei Senecae dialogorum libri XII. Ed. E. Hermes
(1923). Leipzig: Teubner.
100
Suetonius Tranquillus, Le vite dei Cesari. Ed. P. Ramondetti – I. Lana (2008).
Torino: UTET.
Tacitus, Cornelius, P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt. Tom. I: Ab excessu
Divi Augusti. Ed. H. Heubner (1994). Stuttgart: Teubner.
Tacitus, Cornelius, P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt. Tom. II., Fasc. 1:
Historiarum libri. Ed. H. Heubner (1978). Stuttgart: Teubner.
Tacitus, Cornelius, P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt. Tom. II, Fasc. 2: De origine
et situ Germanorum liber. Ed. A. Önnerfors (2011). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Tacitus, Cornelius, P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt. Tom. II, Fasc. 3: Agricola. Ed. I. Delz (1983). Stuttgart: Teubner.
Valerius Maximus, Valeri Maximi facta et dicta memorabilia. (2 volumes).
Ed. J. Briscoe (1998). Stuttgart: Teubner.
Velleius Paterculus, Storia Romana. Ed. R. Nuti (2001). Milano: Rizzoli.
Secondary texts
Barzanò, A. (1982). Plinio il Giovane e i Cristiani alla corte di Domiziano.
Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia, 36, 408–415.
Bauman, R. A. (1970). The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and
Augustan Principate. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand.
Bauman, R. A. (1973). The Hostis Declarations of 88 and 87 B.C. Athenaeum, 51, 270–293.
Bauman, R. A. (1974). Impietas in Principem. München: C. H. Beck.
Bauman, R. A. (1982). Hangman, Call a Halt! Hermes, 110, 1, 102–110.
Bauman, R. A. (1996). Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome. London –
New York: Routledge.
Birley, A. R. (1962). The Oath not to Put Senators to Death. Classical Review,
12, 3, 197–199. DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00214030
Brunt, P. A. (1977). Lex de Imperio Vespasiani. The Journal of Roman Studies, 67, 95–116. DOI: 10.2307/299922
Brunt, P. A. (1984–1985). Did Emperors Ever Suspend the Law of Maiestas? In V. Giuffrè (Ed.), Sodalitas: Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino.
Napoli: Jovene, 469–480.
Cantarella, E. (1991). I supplizi capitali in Grecia e a Roma. Milano: Rizzoli.
Castro-Camero, R. de (2000). El crimen maiestatis a la luz del senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.
Croisille, J.-M. (1994). Néron a tué Agrippine. Bruxelles: Editions Complexe.
Dowling, M. B. (2009). Clemency and Cruelty in the Roman World. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
101
Fraschetti, A. (2008). Marco Aurelio: La miseria della filosofia. Roma – Bari:
Laterza.
Freyburger, G. (1978). La supplication d’action de grâces sous le Haut-Empire. In H. Temporini – W. Haase, (Eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang
der römischen Welt. (II, 16. Band, 2. Teilband, 1418–1439). Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Garnsey, P. (1970). Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hammond, M. (1933). The Augustan Principate. In Theory and Practice during
the Julio-Claudian Period. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Levick, B. (1990). Claudius. London: B. T. Batsford.
Liddell, H. G. & Scott, R. (1996). A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: The
Clarendon Press.
Manuwald, B. (1979). Cassius Dio und Augustus. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.
McAlindon, D. (1956). Senatorial Opposition to Claudius and Nero. American Journal of Philology, 77, 2, 113–132. DOI: 10.2307/292474
Migliorati, G. (2003). Cassio Dione e l’impero romano da Nerva ad Antonino
Pio. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.
Millar, F. (2001). The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC–AD 337). London: Duckworth.
Mommsen, Th. (1899). Römisches Strafrecht. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
Morton Braund, S. (2012). Praise and Protreptic in Early Imperial Panegyric: Cicero, Seneca, Pliny. In R. Rees (Ed.), Latin Panegyric. Oxford:
University Press, 85–112.
Pani, M. (1993). Potere e valori a Roma fra Augusto e Traiano. Bari: Edipuglia.
Raaflaub, K. A. & Samons II, L. J. (1990). Opposition to Augustus. In K. A.
Raaflaub – M. Toher, (Eds.), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 417–454.
Radice, B. (1968). Pliny and the “Panegyricus”. Greece and Rome, 15, 2,
166–172. DOI: 10.1017/S0017383500017514
Roby, H. J. (2010). An Introduction to the Study of Justinian’s Digest. The
digitally printed version (c1884). Cambridge: University Press.
Rogers, R. S. (1931). The Conspiracy of Agrippina. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 62, 141–168. DOI:
10.2307/282970
Rohr Vio, F. (2000). Le voci del dissenso: Ottaviano Augusto e i suoi oppositori.
Padova: Il Poligrafo.
102
Schilling, A. (2010). Poena extraordinaria: Zur Strafzumessung in der frühen
Kaiserzeit. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.
Serrao, F. (1991). Il modello di costituzione: Forme giuridiche, caratteri polittici, aspetti economico-sociali. In G. Clemente – F. Coarelli – E. Gabba, (Eds.), Storia di Roma. Volume secondo: L’impero mediterraneo II:
I principi e il mondo. Torino: Einaudi, 29–71.
Sordi, M. (1984). I Cristiani e l’Impero Romano. Milano: Jaca Book.
Spielvogel, J. (2006). Septimius Severus. Darmstadt: WBG.
Szidat, J. (2010). Usurpator tanti nominis: Kaiser und Usurpator in der Spätantike (337–476 n. Chr.). Stuttgart: F. Steiner.
Vittinghoff, F. (1936). Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit: Untersuchungen
zur “damnatio memoriae”. Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt.
Yakobson, A. (2003). “Maiestas”, the Imperial Ideology and the Imperial
Family: The Evidence of the “Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre”.
Eutopia, 11, 1–2, 75–108.
Zanker, P. (2006). Augusto e il potere delle immagini. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
Zimmermann, M. (1999). Kaiser und Ereignis. München: C. H. Beck.
103
Tereza Antošovská — Roman Literature as a Historical
Source for the Study of Childhood
The study of childhood in ancient Rome is a topic that has not been closely examined yet by the Czech historiography of the ancient world (apart
from general exploration of issues related to upbringing and education in
education-oriented works, legal studies on Roman family law and patria
potestas, or manuals with general information).1 This “situation” is in sharp
contrast with foreign research, where the topic of childhood began to receive
attention in the 1960s and works written so far by many foreign historians2
offer a fairly detailed elaboration of family life and childhood in the ancient
world in a number of monographs, collections and specialized articles (based
on the study of Roman literature and law, as well as inscriptions, art and
archaeological findings from a historical, social, cultural and demographic
perspective). Despite the considerable interest and study not all questions
have been answered so far (and given the nature of the sources, many of
the questions is likely to remain unanswered). My aim is to introduce this
issue to the domestic environment and ideally to incorporate the results of
local research into the “international dialogue” about the history of childhood in ancient times.
In this short paper, I would like to focus on one of the most important
types of sources for the study of childhood, Roman literature, and outline
the limitations of its evidence, which is provided as a historical source to
explore childhood in the ancient world, as well as a possible image offered
by various kinds of ancient literature, which themselves represent specific
types of historical sources.
Roman literature belongs to the fundamental and rich historical sources
for the knowledge of the ancient world, its history, society, and culture, providing scholars in the field of childhood studies in the ancient world with
1
2
E.g. Lisový (2005); Groh (1972); Cipro (2002); Vacínová (2009); Brtko (2007);
Frýdek (2012) et al.
To name a few, Beryl Rawson, Suzanne Dixon, Keith Bradley or Christian Laes.
For a summary of the history of research in the topic of childhood, see Aasgaard
(2006).
105
a variety of material for examination. However, each historical source has
its limits in terms of its possibilities of use and interpretation. An article by
Mark Golden entitled The Other People’s Children points out the limitations
of preserved sources, their limits, and thus also our limited understanding
of the overall knowledge in a very inspiring way. To underline the idea
of how much our understanding of childhood in ancient times is limited
Golden reflects (using “practical” examples) on how researchers of future
generations might think of how we today see the issue of children in the
society and the family, or the issue of parental care, based only on a certain
type of a few surviving sources, whereas the resulting image can be greatly
distorted when based on these sources.3
When examining literature as a source it is necessary to always bear in
mind several basic and general limitations or aspects that need to be taken
into consideration in order to carry out a successful and relevant analysis
of literature. In particular, these are:
a) basic principles of literary and historical analysis, arising from the
nature of literature as such, if we analyze it as a historical source, which
should not be unknown to any historian (contemporary context, author,
content, function and genre of the work, state of preservation...);
b) limits of literature as evidence directly related to the topic of childhood which significantly affect the possibility of the information obtained
and conclusions of research (the fact that the motifs and the mentioning
of children in ancient literature are quite marginal, and the content value
of information that can be found in literature, the complexity and variety
of Roman society, in some cases the issue to determine if the source really
talks about a child as such4 and the necessity to define the term “child”
proper play an essential role here).
Before we look closer at the issue of literature and its possible evidence
related to childhood, I consider it important to briefly examine5 the last point
3
4
5
Golden (2011).
Here, I mean primarily the fact that from the perspective of older citizens (be it
a family member or a stranger) a young male adult may be referred to as a boy
(e.g. Plutarch, Cato maior 1) and the ambiguity of the word “puer” which can
refer to both a “boy” as such (child) and a young slave, but not necessarily of
child age. Therefore, it is important to consider the context whether the author
“means a child”.
The topic could be further examined in an independent study. For more, see
works by Gray-Fow (1985); Minten (2002: 59–83).
106
above, i.e. a definition of the concept of “child” proper, which at first glance
may seem trivial. It is necessary to realize that the content of the category
of “child” in the Roman sense of the word does not fully correspond to
the current concept, which applies both to the age limit for childhood and
to the fact that it is necessary to distinguish between the status of a child,
i.e. whether we are talking about a child of a legitimate free civil origin, an
illegitimate child, a stepchild or a child slave.6
Regarding the age, it is hard for us to understand that in legal terms girls
could be considered adult at 12 and boys at 14 years of age.7 In practice,
however, the end of childhood and the transition into the adult world was
rather vague – for girls it could be represented by entering into marriage, for
boys obtaining toga virilis (male robe) given in a traditional rite of passage
introducing young men to adults, whereas the age for giving a toga (the
same applies to the first marriage of daughters) was determined by the head
of the family (possibly as agreed with other family members, including the
mother, in accordance with the interests of the family, possibly considering the physical and mental state and abilities of the child).8 Legally, the
age limits of 12 and 14 years refer “only” to the minimum age at which a
child can be considered adult. There is no clear general transitional line
between childhood and adulthood (it is rather delineated by the period of
“youth” – iuventus/adulescentia).9 Some children could be treated as adults
when reaching this minimum age limit and some still as adolescent children.
Let me now return to the issue of literature and look closer at what needs
to be considered when studying it as a source for childhood and what information, or what image of childhood in ancient Rome this source can offer us if we
deconstruct and then re-construct individual bits of information available to us.
6
7
8
9
For the status of a child, see e.g. Rawson (1992: 170–200); Weaver (1992).
Concerning boys, there is a disagreement between two law schools about this age
limit as the minimum age for adulthood. The dispute was between the Proculian
school and the Sabinian and Cassian school. The former claimed that 14 years
of age is perfectly acceptable, whereas the latter argued that a fourteen-year-old
boy is usually not fully mature concerning his physical and intellectual development and advocated the need to consider the biological (ability to procreate)
and intellectual maturity (Gaius, Institutiones 1.96).
The age for giving toga ranged between 14 and 18 years; concerning girls, most
of them got married before they reached 20 years of age. Eyben (1993: 1–29);
Hin (2007: 12–13); Scheidel (2005: 1–14).
For the issue of individual life periods, see e.g. Gray-Fow (1985).
107
First, we should keep in mind that basically only a fragment of the total
volume of the ancient written word was preserved (admittedly, somewhat
larger, yet still a “fragment”); moreover, to a great extent influenced by selection, which took place in the following centuries. A degree of preservation of
literary sources also differs for each period of Roman history. While a large
body of literature is preserved for the period of early and high principate
(“gold” and “silver age” of literature), from which it is possible to draw information on family life and children,10 for other periods (e.g. the period of
the Republic when Roman literature is only on the onset, or from the period
of the fall of the Western Roman Empire) the situation is not so favorable.
It is important to perceive the nature and content of these literary
sources. Roman literature preserved to us primarily includes texts written
by men, plus assuming a higher level of education, which could be received
only by well-off individuals. Literature thus reflects a perspective of the peak
of the ancient world, its intellectual elite. It mediates the views of individual
authors that do not necessarily mean the “general trend”. And certainly there
is no need to remind that it is always necessary to deal with the figure of
the author proper (when he lived, who he was, what and why he created),
as well as the audience to which his works were intended.
Besides the contemporary context, the author and his audience it is
also necessary to take into account literary motives and rules (form and
content) which are characteristic for a certain type of literature, as well as
the functions of the work that need to be known and considered in order to
fully utilize the potential that literature as a source of information offers to
us, because different types of literature represent different types of historical
sources, requiring specific approaches to analysis (for example, it is important to keep in mind the significant influence of Greek models in the case
of drama, possible poetic fiction and inventiveness, as well as the increased
use of metaphors in poetry or “exaggeration” and hyperbole in the satirical
criticism or the rather fictional character of historiographical literature, etc.).
Of course, the above-mentioned principles are absolutely fundamental for a historian when working with literary texts. What is problematic,
although directly related to the study of childhood in the works of ancient
authors, is the marginality of provided information that in any way relates to
childhood. With the exception of work Institutio Oratoria by Quintilianus and
10 In particular, in works of the Augustan period where the celebration of family
life belongs to the important political topics (the Augustus’ program to support
family life).
108
a treatise De liberis educandis, formerly attributed to Plutarch, which can be
defined as “practical guidelines” dealing with the upbringing and education
of children of social elites,11 Roman authors do not consider it important
to focus more closely on the topic of child and childhood in their works.
Despite the marginal interest of authors concerning the recording of
information (or a targeted recording of something as “mundane” as a child,
who is a common and natural part of life), which could serve us today for
a “complete” reconstruction of an image of the child’s world in Roman
society, literature is a (relatively) rich source of information for the study
of childhood, offering a wide range of different topics and perspectives on
various aspects of children’s lives, even if some texts provide only a minimal
amount of information.
As mentioned above, each type of literature has its own rules which
need to be taken into account when working with them as historical sources.
Although the records about children and childhood are just a side issue of
ancient literature, “literary conventions” associated with a particular type
of literature still affect to some extent information we can get about childhood from a particular work. Given the function and objectives of the work,
there is an evident (both explicit and sometimes only implied) “interest” in
the reflection of different topics and elements associated with childhood,
which are relevant for a particular genre in terms of content and function,
and it is precisely the aspect of function and content that has contributed
to the fact that the various aspects of childhood appear in this or that genre
with more or less intensity. Various types of work describe child in different
“roles” “offered” by this thematic and literary motif, but these roles often
overlap and, thus, we cannot talk about the imaginary “monopoly” of a
particular method of using child or a reflection of the topic of childhood
in a specific genre.12
There are several reasons to argue that no genre has an exclusive “monopoly” for its most typical use and the recording of children and childhood,
and the associated individual topics and methods of use can be found across
different types of literature. Individual literary genres could mix and interact (either in form or content). Another reason is the “between-the-lines
11 Although the direct references in Quintilian (Institutio oratoria 1.3.14) suggest
that there were other works dealing with the topic of the upbringing of an offspring into a decent citizen, similar to a “how to guide for parents”.
12 Here, I draw from the topic of my diploma thesis entitled Children and Childhood
in Roman literature (Antošovská 2014).
109
nature” and “commonplace” of childhood which stands on the margin of
the interest and attention of authors, although, as any “phenomenon” in
the society (nota bene “generally known”), child and childhood may be
purposefully used as a motif.
Yet, each type of literature has its specifics concerning how and when it
talks about childhood. For example, we can show these specific features on
poetry, literature dealing with child’s upbringing, and satire. In the case of
poetry, we can see an increased level of idyllic conception that rarely connects childhood with “troubles” and primarily shows the child as a source
of pleasure, joy and life fulfillment, which serves, among other things, as
a means to encourage parenthood, which was promoted by the official
imperial policy. On the other hand, literature dealing with raising a child
presents a child as a constant parental concern and points out the burden
of parental responsibility for raising a child and the need for constant care
and supervision. These ideas are reflected in the philosophical works which
are close to theoretical and practical upbringing guidelines. A specific feature of satire is the targeted use of the motif of a child for pointing out the
decline in moral standards of the society, which was also reflected in the
relationship between parents and children, as well as the decline in school
education, which also contributes to the deepening of this moral decay.13
A thorough analysis of literary works shows their general and specific
ideas about children and childhood, along with a reflection of complex
social reality and the roles of children present there. These ideas were shared
at least among the elite of Roman society, whose opinions are primarily
mediated through Roman literature.
Concerning the content and facts, most references that can be found in
classical works present mainly an aristocratic offspring. At the forefront of
the writers’ interest (as well as the audience, which is primarily represented
by educated men of higher social strata)14 is the issue of legitimate, especially
male offspring, who are the heirs of the family, its hope for the future, the
13 Again, I draw information here from my diploma thesis. For a more detailed
analysis, see Chapter I (Childhood in the World of Roman Poetry in Antošovská
2014: 11–26) for poetry, Chapter VII for education literature (Didactic Literature and Rhetoric in Antošovská 2014: 106–122) and Chapter II (The Image of
Childhood in Satirical Literature in Antošovská 2014: 27–42) for satire.
14 Of course, that did not exclude women who had been educated from a literary
audience (according to Ovid, educated girls of higher social strata were supposed
to have a good grasp of literature. Ovidius, Ars Amatoria 3.310–355).
110
continuity of the family name and property, hope to improve its current
social and property situation, future potential (social and economic) that
the child can bring to the family, if he is properly trained and shaped because
these boys also represent the future and the potential of Rome as its future
citizens, soldiers, politicians and civil servants (if they reach adulthood).
In the case of girls, about whom literature provides much less information
when compared with boys, mainly their future roles of wives and mothers
are reflected. Therefore, childhood is often presented as a “waiting for the
future”, which is represented by adulthood.
Besides children of free legitimate civil origin (as there are only a few
scant references about illegitimate children or stepchildren) from the higher
strata of Roman society, there are “quite often” also references to “vernae”
and “deliciae”, i.e. child slaves who are depicted in literature mainly when
performing a wide range of works and services for their master and his
household, whose obvious and indisputable part they are as its workforce,
or when their relationship with the master is “described”.15
Although Roman literature is a necessary, interesting, useful and
beneficial source in the study of childhood, as it provides at least a partial
insight into the ideas of the Romans about family life, about children and
childhood, who in legal terms constitute a subordinate part of a household
entirely dependent on the decision-making of the head of the family (pater
familias), we should not (given the preservation, nature and limitations of
sources as well as the complexity of Roman society) completely generalize
on that basis when studying childhood, and we should not make definite
conclusions based on the study of Roman literature when trying to describe
what childhood “was” like in a certain defined period.
Given the possibilities of the preserved sources, our understanding of
approach to children in the Roman world will never be complete. Literature
alone cannot fully and adequately answer all possible questions a historian
may ask, e.g. questions concerning the training and education of girls, which
is in contrast to the education of boys, given the overall focus of literature
and society primarily on adult male citizens, are mentioned only sporadically; the issue of child labor, often mentioned only between the lines as
a matter of course; approach to child deaths as literature presents rather a
philosophical view of death as such, in which the issue of public mourning
is also a matter of self-representation, or in connection with the exploration
15 For the issue of “deliciae” and “vernae”, see e.g. Laes (2010); Rawson (2010);
Mouritsen (2011).
111
of paternal authority and interrelationships. For a deeper study of childhood
as such, its various aspects (from issues of birth and upbringing, through
child labor or game, to violence and death), it is necessary to examine also
non-literary sources (e.g. inscriptions, legal documents, monuments of
material nature), as shown in numerous works of foreign historians.
Bibliography
Works cited
Aasgaard, R. (2006). Children in Antiquity and Early Christianity: Research
History and Central Issues. Familia, 33, 23–46.
Antošovská, T. (2014). Děti a dětství v literatuře doby římské (Diploma thesis). Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého.
Bahník, V. (Transl.) (1985). Marcus Fabius Quintilianus: Základy rétoriky.
Praha: Odeon.
Bahník, V. et al. (Transl.) (2006). Plútarchos: Životopisy slavných Řeků a
Římanů. (volume I). Praha: Arista – Baset – Maitrea.
Brtko, R. (Ed.) (2007). Rímska rodina v sociálnych a právnych vzťahoch.
Bratislava: Bratislavská vysoká škola práva.
Cipro, M. (2002). Galerie světových pedagogů, Vol. 1: Od starověku k osvícenství. Praha: self-publ.
Dasen, V. & Späth, T., (Eds.) (2010). Children, Memory and Family Identity
in Roman Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eyben, E. (1993). Restless Youth in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge.
Frýdek, M. (2012). Právní, náboženské a politické aspekty starověké římské
rodiny. Ostrava: Key Publishing.
Golden, M. (2011). Other people’s children. In B. Rawson (Ed.), A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 262–275.
Gray-Fow, M. J. G. (1985). The nomenclature and stages of Roman childhood.
Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Groh, V. (1972). Život v antickém Římě. Praha: SPN.
Hin, S. (2007). Family Matters. Economy, Culture and Biology: Fertility
and its Constraints in Roman Italy. Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, Paper No. 100704, Social Science Research Network,
2015.07.22. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1426945.
Kincl, J. (Transl.) (2007). Gaius: Učebnice práva ve čtyřech knihách. Plzeň:
Aleš Čeněk.
112
Laes, Ch. (2010). Delicia-Children Revisted: The Evidence of Statius’s
Silvae. In V. Dasen – T. Späth, (Eds.), Children, Memory, and Family
Identity in Roman Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 245–272.
Lisový, I. (2005). Antické reálie I: Rodina, stravování, obydlí. České Budějovice: Jihočeská univerzita (CD-ROM Ostravská univerzita 2007).
Mertlík, R. (Transl.) (1963). Ovidius: Lásky, Listy milostné, Umění milovati,
Jak léčiti lásku. Praha: SNKLU.
Mouritsen, H. (2011). The Families of Roman Slaves and Freedmen. In
B. Rawson (Ed.), A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman
Worlds. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 129–144.
Rawson, B. (1992). Children in the Roman Familia. In B. Rawson (Ed.),
The Family in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge, 170–200.
Rawson, B. (1992). The Family in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge.
Rawson, B. (2010). Degrees of Freedom: Vernae and Iunian Latins in the Roman Familia. In V. Dasen – T. Späth, (Eds.), Children, Memory, and Family
Identity in Roman Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 193–222.
Rawson, B. (Ed.) (2011). A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman
Worlds. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Scheidel, W. (2005). Roman funerary commemoration and the age at
first marriage. Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, Paper
No. 110503, 2015.07.22. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/
~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/110503.pdf.
Vacínová, T. (2009). Dějiny vzdělávání od antiky po Komenského. Praha: Univerzita Jana Amose Komenského.
Weaver, P. R. C. (1992). Status of Children in Mixed Marriages. In B. Rawson (Ed.), The Family in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge, 145–169.
Other literature
Bradley, K. R. (1991). Discovering the Roman Family: Studies in Roman
Social History. New York et al.: Oxford Univ. Press.
Conte, G. B. (2008). Dějiny římské literatury. 2. ed. Praha: KLP.
Dixon, S. (2001). Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World. London:
Routledge.
Laes, Ch. (2011). Children in Roman Empire: Outsiders whithin. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Minten, E. (2002). Roman attitudes towards children and childhood. Private funerary evidence c. 50 BC – c. AD 300 (Dissertation). Stockholm:
Stockholm University.
113
Rawson, B. (2009). Children and childhood in Roman Italy. 2. ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Stiebitz, F. (1991). Stručné dějiny římské literatury. 4. ed. Brno: Masarykova
univerzita.
Šubrt, J. (2005). Římská literatura. Praha: Oikoymenh.
Wiedemann, T. (1989). Adults and Children in the Roman Empire. London:
Routledge.
114
Pavel Dadák — All Food Sails to Rome
The goal of this paper is to briefly describe the methodology and main research topics of the maritime supply issues of Rome and cura annonae in Late
Antiquity. This issue is wide-ranging and in order to provide a comprehensive
view, it is necessary to discuss several sub-topics facilitating readers’ understanding of the matters of Late Antique Roman maritime trade, transportation of materials and raw materials by sea in the western Mediterranean, Rome
supply mainly from the North African province of Africa Proconsularis and
operation of ports and also roman laws concerning these issues.
The dissertation thesis Maritime Supply of Rome and Cura Annonae in
Late Antiquity deals with the same topic and this paper serves as an introduction to the topic. The paper is divided into four main parts. Each part
investigates the fundamental characteristics of the late Roman maritime
trade, supply of the city of Rome, and legal and administrative matters relating to the maritime travel and transport of raw materials. Late Antiquity,
the fourth to sixth century AD, has been chosen to define the period the
paper deals with. The paper addresses areas of the Western Roman Empire,
especially Italy and North Africa, the province of Africa Proconsularis, that
became the birthplace of the Vandal Kingdom in the fifth century. The aim
is to describe and to map the basic features of Rome’s supply from this province and the changes and the impact on the supply and trade in the Western
Mediterranean after the Vandal Kingdom was founded and the trade relations between the late Western Roman court and the Vandal government.
The objective of this article is to bring the topic closer and to discuss a
part of the methodology issues using an example. Therefore, this article is
also divided into four short informative parts briefly describing the four main
areas that are to be addressed if we want to study the issues of the supply
system of the city of Rome in Late Antiquity. The main part deals with one
of the sub-topics, namely how big the role the city of Carthage played in
supplying Rome within the system known as the cura annonae. The article
attempts to find a methodology to solve the question whether Carthage
was critically important for the national supply of Rome or whether it was
only a very important trading port without much influence on the state
transports of grain, olive oil and other products from the province of Africa
Proconsularis in Late Antiquity.
115
The goal of the final paper is to determine how Rome was supplied
from this province in practice. This requires the use of several methods. In
particular, it is the method of analysis focused on the archaeological surveys
conducted in the key areas. Because of the extent of the topic in question,
this chapter focuses mainly on the Rome–Ostia–Portus complex in Italy
and the port infrastructure in Carthage.1 The analysis of the archaeological material is supplemented with an analysis of accounts of those ancient
writers who wrote about or mentioned the supply and the operation of
the port infrastructure (such as Appian, Aurelius Augustinus, Procopius of
Caesarea...). Epigraphic inscriptions which were preserved in larger quantities in Ostia, Rome and Portus are a very important source of information,
too.2 Individual port infrastructures are compared in order to determine
how much material could have been reloaded/loaded/unloaded in each of
them (for example, for a general overview of the port architecture of Rome,
Ostia and Portus: Keay 2012; for Carthage e.g. Hurst 2008).
The main sites of the port infrastructure that are to be studied in order
to understand the issue are:
Rome – Portus Tiberinus
Rome – Campus Martius
Rome – Emporium
Rome – Werehouses in Trastevere area
Anchorage and warehouses at Ostia
Anchorage and warehouses at Portus
Anchorage and warehouses at Carthage
Anchorage and warehouses at Leptis Magna
However, the archaeological aspect of the study must not be only limited to the original points of ship departures and places which their loads
headed for, but the content of these ships must be studied too. This is possible using the analysis of the archaeological accounts of the research of
the shipwrecks found on the busiest maritime connections between North
Africa and Ostia or Portus. In this respect, it is necessary to compare the
contents of the transported containers found in the shipwrecks and to create
1
2
See for example Appian’s description of the Carthaginian port at the time of the
Third Punic War – App. Pun. 14, although many centuries older than the period
studied, yet still great for creating an idea of the size of the ports. Roman ports
in Carthage copied the old Punic ones more or less.
In particular the inscriptions from Ostia from CIL database – Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
116
an overview of what used to be transported on the route, where from, and to
identify the places of origin of the individual kinds of goods. However, not
only the comparison of the accounts of various underwater archaeological
surveys are used (e.g. Royal & Tusa 2012; Ikäheimo 2003 or Costa 2013),
but also ancient literary sources (as supplementary sources of information)
and basic data such as weather reports in different seasons in the Western
Mediterranean. This information together with the information of the previous research of the content of the horrea help us to decipher the origin
of individual goods transported. Certain cargoes, such as olive oil, were
imported from certain provinces and was the most favorite in the City (e.g.
Dressel 20 amphorae with olive oil found in huge quantities in Rome – famous Monte Testaccio). It was either because of easier transport to Rome,
better quality of the goods or other. In order to facilitate understanding and
better comparison of the results it is necessary to establish statistics of the
amount of occurrence and origin of the individual most important imports
to Rome based on the information obtained from archaeological findings
at the quaysides and in the warehouses in Italy, archaeological findings in
the shipwrecks and content of their transport containers (if analyzable
content is preserved).
Other two important issues which can help us to illustrate the view of
the supply system and its operation are the legal regulations of the Roman
maritime trade and its operation in terms of the administrative matters.
Based on the Roman laws arising from the Lex Rhodia (necessary to ask
whether the so-called Lex Rhodia was really so important for the formation of and how much it influenced the Roman maritime laws)3 and on the
information from the Digest of Justinian (Book XIV), the interest is focused
on the analysis of the legislation of traveling at sea, maritime trade, handling
cargoes of ships in crisis situations (e.g. if a ship is damaged and it is necessary to get rid of the cargo, its subsequent financial compensation etc.) and
other matters related to the Roman maritime law. The issue of laws related to
the production of grain and foodstuff intended to supply Italy is also to be
discussed. The task is also to analyze the accounts of the contemporary authors and inscriptions relating to the cura annonae in the capital. In addition
to the analysis of these materials, the information about the infrastructure
of the complex supplying Rome is used. The deduction method is used for
this – based on all currently available epigraphic, literal and archaeological
knowledge we discover further information on the operation of the cura
3
See for example Benedict (1909).
117
annonae in Rome; the annona in the capital can be compared with the annona at Ostia or Carthage using a comparative method.
The final topic is the issue of trade relations between North Africa and
Italy after the Vandal Kingdom was founded. The main task is to find out
how the business conditions between Rome and the Vandals changed after
seizing Carthage and what impact on the supply of the city of Rome the
Vandal invasion had. The treaty with the Vandals of 442 was probably made
still from a position of a kind of Roman superiority, which has been also
confirmed by the fact that Gaiseric’s son Huneric was taken as a hostage
to Rome. This superiority must have been noticeable even in the treaty on
African grain and trading in it.4
When working on this topic, it is necessary to face several problems
associated with both archeological and literary sources. One of them is to
determine sufficiently important underwater archaeological sites, which
have published research reports. While the underwater archeology is very
popular in modern times, it is still very difficult and the results of its research
are less accessible. It is necessary to select those that are relevant to the
topic. Another problem related to the archeology is – often mentioned –
damage or complete destruction of the historic sites. This can be seen on
the example of the river ports at Ostia. Due to the change in the flow of the
Tiber in the 16th century, most of the port architecture has been irretrievably lost. The same can be said of damage to many other localities due to
the medieval, modern and contemporary buildings or damage due to not
perfectly conducted archaeological surveys in the 19th or early 20th century
(for example locations in the Campus Martius in Rome). It often seems
problematic to determine the content of the individual horrea correctly,
too. It is obvious that the horrea with the raised floor were used primarily
for storage of grain, but as for many others, for which there is a lack of this
hint, there are several options. Many of the storage buildings were also
used by private individuals, only a part by the state for the annona (until
Late Antiquity when the ratio of the private to the state was changed in
favor of the state). Another common problem of every work based at least
partly on an analysis of sources is criticism of their determinativeness. As
we know, the ancient literature was written only for educated audience
limited in number and thus certain knowledge of facts and general affairs
of the time was presumed. Therefore, many ancient authors often omitted
certain information considered general knowledge. In combination with
4
Linn (2013).
118
preserved fragments of many ancient works, their interpretations are dependent on the capabilities of any modern scholar, which may of course
vary. Sometimes only with difficulties can a number of ancient fragments
be critically evaluated, because the opportunity to compare them is often
missing. Among other things, the position of the Lex Rhodia in Roman law
is related to this. It is true that the Digest mentions the Rhodian maritime
law, however, only on a few occasions and in a form not making clear that
the whole or at least a part of the Roman maritime law arose from it (Rhodian law is not cited).5
One of the big questions of supply of Rome from Carthage is the position
of Carthage. Since the days of the Punic Republic, the city always used to be
considered one of the largest ports in the Mediterranean. With its two major
and several minor ports, it was the largest port in the Western Mediterranean
until the construction of the Trajanic hexagonal port at Portus (Claudian
port at Portus may be larger in terms of the area, however, Carthage was
able to handle more ships at once due to the greater quay length). Yet after
a thorough analysis of the archaeological accounts a surprising question
arises – what role did Carthage play in the annonary supply system of Rome?
Some modern authors (Keay 2012) use the term “annonary ports” for
ports participating in the supply system of Rome to a greater extent. However, this term may be slightly misleading. For instance Hurst (2008) states,
that the majority of the ports which the Romans occupied or built in the
Mediterranean were originally of a commercial nature and they started to
be used for the needs of the annona later. The only exception is, of course,
Portus itself which was established entirely in order to secure the supply
for the capital.
Thanks to the archaeological surveys, Ostia and Portus have been researched very well, other ports in the western Mediterranean not in such
detail. Carthage was described by Appian (App. Pun. 14) as early as in
the time of the Third Punic War. His description dates back to the siege
of Carthage by the Romans and it excludes that the Lake of Tunis, a large
body of water separated from the sea by a sandy embankment of natural
origin, was used as a port. Only later, after the siege by the Byzantines in
the sixth century, the attackers used the lake as a port for their fleet, because
the port in the city, Mandrakion, was too small. Procopius describes that
592 ships of the Belisarius’ fleet anchored in the lake port called Stagnum,
about 7 km from the city.
5
See for example Benedict (1909).
119
At the time of the Punic Wars, as it is known from Appian once again,
the circular inner port served as Navalia for the Punic war fleet while the
rectangular port connecting it with the sea served as port for merchant ships.
They both have been supported by archaeology – a plenty of anticipated
jetties were found in the rectangular port, particularly in the east, under
the inner side of the Punic walls and in the west, where further the temple
of the goddess Tanit used to be. At its northern side the circular military
port was connected and ships entered it from the south. Later, rectangular
port was extended by the Romans southwards.
In the second century AD or slightly later the so-called Ilot de l’Amirauté
in the center of the circular harbor served as a monumental colonnaded
piazza.6 There was a hexagonal building and a little temple. Later, small
rooms (perhaps offices or small shops) were added to the colonnade, which
reminds us of Piazzale delle Corporazioni at Ostia. Around 30 ceramic fragments, with a description proving that they had come from trade in olive oil
dated back to 372–373 AD, were found there.7 The research also revealed
two buildings, probably associated with the cloth production and other
crafts to the north of Ilot de l’Amirauté. It could be therefore concluded that
the inner port served for the needs of annona in terms of administrative
“offices” and maybe even a place of reloading amphorae with olive oil for
the needs of Rome. It is also possible that the construction on the Ilot de
l’Amirauté was associated to the creation of Commodus’ grain fleet, Classis
Commodiana8 (and renaming Carthage to Colonia Commodiana Togata)
in 186 AD. Another possibility is that the buildings in the inner port were
markets in which the goods of annona occurred only in a limited number
and that the goods produced in the surroundings of the ports were also
for commercial purposes only, not for the purposes of the state transport.
The rectangular harbor retained its Punic form, however, it was modified and extended southwards to the new Roman entrance which provided
it with more space for anchorage of ships. In the west there was a quayside
area about 15 m deep backing onto a street running parallel to the harbor
side behind which there was a temple complex with cults probably to Saturn,
Venus and Caelestis (the original location of the Tanit temple).
6
7
8
In fact, it is an island in the middle of the port connected by a road with the rest
of the city in the north.
Hurst (2010: 55).
Classis Africana Commodiana Herculea – Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Vita Commodi, 17.7.
120
The archaeological surveys on the seafront from the Antonine Baths
southwards have suggested that the sea retreated in some places up to tens
of meters between about the seventh century BC and second century AD
(a process which continued later, too).9
The smaller buildings built next to each other in a long line stretching
from the Antonine Theater along the original Punic walls and along the
whole coast southwards to the anchorages are very important for us. They
were first recorded on the Falbe’s plan of 1833.10 These buildings are completely regular, however, they are of a relatively small plan and it is assumed
they served as storage or business premises. Others probably stretch further
to the southeast of the rectangular port. A very similar architecture was found
at Leptis Magna. Same buildings of uniform size fronted with colonnades
in the north and east of the Severan port can be seen in this best-preserved
North African port city. At Leptis Magna they were evidently built for the
purpose of storage space tied up at the quaysides for storage of goods to
be easily loaded onto or taken from ships. Very similar port architecture
can be seen at Ostia or Portus or in Rome. Their mutual similarity can be
easily deduced based on the comparison of these locations and thus it can
be safely assumed that it was a storage space (however, it is not certain
whether for the annona or privates). In Carthage they are about 1.6 km
long. A wall from the debris of different, originally architectural material
stretches along them. It was originally interpreted as a port loading architecture (a part of quays), however, more recent researches suggest that it
is a part of a decorated colonnade, which suggests rather an aesthetic than
practical function. Another archaeological finding from the coast is, for
example, a monumental structure dated in the “later Empire”11 (probably a
triumphal arch), which the foundations of the sea walls bypass. This means
that the walls are younger. As Hurst believes, the sea walls were perhaps
not included in the original construction plan of the city. He believes that
the sea walls were built in 425 or after the repairs made by Belisario after
533. Thus, this means that the storage facilities were originally built on the
coast and they could have been used directly for the goods unloaded there.
9 Hurst (2010: 53).
10 Named after the Danish consul C. T. Falbe who created the first map capturing
the Roman structures he had discovered, published in his work in the same year
(1833): Recherches sur l’emplacement de Carthage, suiv. de renseignements sur plus
inscriptions puniques. Cf. Hurst (2010).
11 Hurst (2010: 60).
121
Again, a comparison with Leptis Magna can be made as for the appearance and size of warehouses. The wall identified as the original colonnade
can be traced even much easily at Leptis Magna, too; in both cases probably
as a decorative part of the fronts of the warehouses. The quays at Leptis
were three-stage (three stepped, descending into the water). Unfortunately,
robbing of building material at Carthage has removed evidence for it, but
in theory, we can think of it using a deduction. The difference between the
two cities is the size of the individual storage buildings is very curious. At
Leptis they are on average 5–6 m wide and 10 m deep, while at Carthage
they are only about 3.6 m wide and only 7 m deep.12 Their size proportion
is roughly the same, however, at Leptis they are proportionally greater.
Another source describing a solid ground before the Punic walls being
able to carry large buildings and quays (remember that over the centuries
the sea retreated from the original city thus it gave more space for structures
between the two internal ports and the coast) is again Appian.13 In his description of the conquest of Carthage by Scipio he says that in front of the
walls there were quays for unloading merchant ships. When the Romans
came to the city, the Carthaginians fortified those quays, but after they lost
them, Scipio camped 4,000 men there. The presence of the Carthaginian
quay then implies that there must have been a very strong sub-surface in the
same place where the Romans built their own warehouses and quays later.
Another thing is that at Carthage the wind blows mostly from the northeast, thus the jetties assumed in front of the warehouses would expose the
ships anchored to the vagaries of weather.
A very interesting part of the ports was “Quadrilateral of Falbe” named
by Hurst (according to the Danish consul who drew the first map of the
ports and was the first to discover the storage premises, see above), which
is located in the south of the city, in the east of the entrance into the rectangular port. It is an artificial or natural (and man-modified) “peninsula”
with a complex of jetties that was already used by Carthaginians for several
purposes.14 First it was once again surrounded by port jetties, but mainly as
12 Hurst (2010: 62) believes, that the smaller size can be explained by that the
warehouses on a prestigious place right at the bank could serve to private businessmen.
13 App. Pun. 18.123–125.
14 The only one of possible Punic date is a line of boulders – it could originally serve
as a breakwater, protection or remains of the old jetty; no clear interpretation
has been offered so far – Hurst (2010: 63).
122
it can be assumed it could have been a refuge from the wind for the ships
anchored in the unprotected embankment in the north – in the south it is
skewed in the direction NW-SE, thus it provides a close downwind side.
The northern side could have also acted as a breakwater. There is at least
one storage building probably of similar age as the other storage buildings
mentioned above. The next port architecture was mentioned by St. Augustine.15 When leaving the city, he mentioned that he was leaving by a
ship made ready close to the church of St. Cyprian. This means there must
have been at least an anchorage at the northern part of the city (where the
church is located).16 Unfortunately, because of its proximity to the Presidential Palace and modern built-up it has not been possible to study this
area in detail. Anyway, previously conducted surveys revealed that there
are several older structures in the area; most likely it has been a parallel to
the “Quadrilateral of Falbe” having served similar purposes.17
It is thus known with some certainty that Carthage in the Roman period
was very similar to the older Punic – at least in port architecture. With its
port architecture it was the second largest harbor in the Western Mediterranean, but the amount of loads that must have been processed on its jetties
paled in comparison to Portus. More than 1.6 km of storage space has been
discovered behind the coastline of Roman Carthage. However, their small
sizes remain a problem. In comparison with the huge horrea known from
Ostia, Portus or Rome itself these are much less significant. This suggests
that they did not serve state purposes of annona, but for private business
matters. Huge amounts of grain and other raw materials would have required
storage areas of much larger size. This theory would be implied by the appearance of the inner circular harbor with its island including a colonnade
with small shops or offices. This “maritime agora” could serve either as the
main center where the administrative machinery taking care of annona
for Rome was or simply as a marketplace. While it is possible that there is
a large storage space yet undiscovered (it is even probable given the huge
unexplored area) at Carthage, these are probably not in the vicinity of the
ports. Their distribution of goods from a place further away from the seaside could be long and difficult, once again contrary to the system known
15 Confessions V, 8, 15.
16 To give an idea, it is the coastal area close to the ancient Antonine Baths.
17 Cicero referred to Carthage as succincta portibus – surrounded by harbors, too.
He might have had the coastal jetties surrounded by the northern and southern
port “Quadrilateral” from both sides on his mind – Cic. Agr. 2.32.87.
123
at Ostia or Portus. The vast majority of port cities in the supply system of
Rome were not built primarily for the purpose of annona. The ports had
to be gradually adapted and modified to it. There is no doubt that Carthage
served annona for Rome, and that ships with content intended for horrea
in Portus or Ostia were sent from here; however, the question remains: in
how large quantities? Was Carthage really a business center due to the vast
majority of its functions and capacity only or was annona really crucial for
this city at least in Late Antiquity? Is it possible that the goods destined
for Rome moved so fast in the Carthaginian ports that it had not been
necessary to use more storage space? These questions can be answered if
we compare the knowledge gained by studying shipwrecks which sank on
the way from Carthage to Rome. When their goods are analyzed, it will be
found out what, from where and to what extent were transported. Likewise,
if analyzing and comparing the stamps of the transport containers found at
Ostia, Portus and Rome it can be determined from where the majority of
imports of goods in question came and how big role Carthage itself eventually played in this system. This knowledge should help us to decipher how
big the role of Carthage in supplying the capital of the Roman Empire was.
Among ancient authors who deal in their works, at least to some extent,
with topics mentioned above belong for example Procopius of Caesarea,
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Gaius Plinius Secundus, Libanius, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Zosimus, Dio Cassius, Ammianus
Marcellinus, Aurelius Augustinus and Appianos of Alexandria). But by no
means only them.
Bibliography
Primary texts
Appian of Alexandria, Roman history of Appian of Alexandria. Transl. H. White
(1899). London: Bell.
Appian of Alexandria, Appian’s Roman History I: Book 1–8. Transl. H. White
(1998). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Augustine, Confessions. E. B. Pusey’s nineteenth century translation, copyright Èuloquos (2007), 2015.02.11. Retrieved from http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0022/_P38.HTM.
Procopius of Caesareia, Hyper ton polemon logoi. Ed. G. Wirth (1963).
Leipzig: Teubner.
124
Procopius of Caesareia, Válka s Peršany a Vandaly. Transl. A. Hartmann –
K. Rubešová (1985). Praha: Odeon.
Vita Commodi. Historia Augusta published in the Loeb Classical Library
(1921), 2015.02.11. Retrieved from http://penelope.uchicago.edu/
Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Commodus*.html#17.
Secondary texts
Bang, P. F. & Ikeguchi, M. & Ziche, H. G., (Eds.) (2006). Ancient economies, modern methodologies: archaeology, comparative history, models and
institutions. Bari: Edipuglia.
Benedict, R. D. (1909). The Historical Position of the Rhodian Law. The
Yale Law Journal, 18, 223–242. DOI: 10.2307/785136
Costa, S. (2013). The Late Antique Economy: Ceramics and Trade. Late
Antique Archaeology, 10/1, 91–130.
Falbe, C. T. (1833). Recherches sur l’emplacement de Carthage, suivis de renseignements sur plusieurs inscriptions puniques... Paris: Imprimerie royale.
Humphrey, J. H. (Ed.) (2009). Studies on Roman pottery of the provinces of
Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena (Tunisia): homage à Michel Bonifay,
Journal of Roman Archaeology 76. Portsmouth, R.I.: JRA .
Hurst, H. (2010). Understanding Carthage as a Roman port. In H. Di Giuseppe – M. Dalla Riva, (Eds.), 17th International Congress of Classical
Archaeology: Meetings between Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean.
Rome, 22–26 September 2008, Bolletino di Archeologia online, I, 49–68,
2015.02.11. Retrieved from: http://www.bollettinodiarcheologiaonline.
beniculturali.it/documenti/generale/6_Hurst_paper.pdf.
Ikäheimo, J. P. (2003). Late Roman African Cookware of the Palatine East
Excavations, Rome: a holistic approach. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Keay, S. & Boetto, G. (2010). Portus, Ostia and the Ports of the Roman
Mediterranean. Contributions from Archaeology and History. In H. Di
Giuseppe – M. Dalla Riva, (Eds.), 17th International Congress of Classical Archaeology: Meetings between Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean.
Rome, 22–26 September 2008, Bolletino di Archeologia online, I, 1–4,
2015.02.11. Retrieved from: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/336908/1/1_
Keay_Boetto_introduction.pdf.
Keay, S. (2012). The Port System of Imperial Rome. In S. Keay (Ed.), Rome,
Portus and the Mediterranean, Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome 21. London: The British School at Rome, 33–67.
125
Kehoe, D. P. (2007). Law and the rural economy in the Roman Empire. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kingsley, S. A. & Gerth, E. & Decker, M., (Eds.) (2014). Rome in Spain,
Spain in the Americas: Amphoras, Olive Jars & the Economics of Long-Distance Trade. In G. Stemm (Ed.), Oceans odyssey 4: Pottery from the
Tortugas shipwreck, Straits of Florida: a merchant vessel from Spain’s 1622
Tierra Firme Fleet. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 245–259.
Lavan, L. (Ed.) (2013). Local economies? Production and exchange of inland
regions in late antiquity, Late Antique Archaeology 10/1. Leiden: Brill.
Linn, J. (2013). The Grain Supply, 442–455. Journal of Late Antiquity, 5/2,
298–321. DOI: 10.1353/jla.2012.0015
McCann, A. M. (2000). Amphoras from the Deep Sea: Ancient Shipwrecks
between Carthage and Rome. Rei Cretariæ Romanæ Favtorvm Acta, 36,
443–448.
McCann, A., M, (2001). An Early Imperial Shipwreck in the Deep Sea off
Skerki Bank. Rei Cretariæ Romanæ Favtorvm Acta, 37, 257–264.
Royal, J. G. – Tusa, S. (2012). The Levanzo I Wreck, Sicily: a 4th-century AD
merchantman in the service of the annona? International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 41/1, 26–55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2011.00334.x
Wells, B. W. (Oct. 1923). Trade and Travel in the Roman Empire. The Classical Journal, 19/1, 7–16.
Wells, B., W. (Nov. 1923). Trade and Travel in the Roman Empire (Continued from October Issue). The Classical Journal, 19/2, 67–78.
126
Miroslav Morcinek — Environmental Problems
in Ancient Literature
Environment is undoubtedly one of the widely discussed topics of modern
times. Every problem has some historical roots whose knowledge cannot
be ignored if we want to come to an effective solution. A possible scope
emerges even for sectors that seem to have nothing to address the today’s
modern society. Classical philology is one of them. One of the ways to
increase its attractiveness is to engage it in the research of the so-called environmental history. Historians do their share in this research field through
the work with written sources. A classical philologist can cover an area of
ancient documents.
Present Situation of the Research
What is “Environmental History”? Basically it is an inter-discipline at the
intersection of history and ecology that explores interactions of human
society and nature from a historical perspective. The cradle of the environmental history is the U.S. where it was born in the 70s of the 20th century
in response to the expansion of the environmental movement at that time.
Traditionally conceived historiography focuses primarily on investigation
of human society but this approach has not satisfied the demand for new
topics which also include the growing global environmental crisis. On the
other hand, a question has arisen whether the existing historiography is
able to adequately explain historical processes if the interest is restricted
only to the human and his creations.1
Environmental History and Antiquity
Environmental history was initially aimed at more recent history, resp. industrial age (i.e. the period roughly since the mid-18th century). However,
humans have been influencing the environment at least since the Neolithic
1
On the environmental history in general Jeleček (2010). On the significance of
the knowledge in environmentalism for the study of the Ancient history Hughes
(2014: 3–5).
127
Revolution. Yet the intensity of the interventions into the landscape has not
definitely grown in direct proportion with time. The period of Antiquity enjoys special (sometimes uncritical) interest among history enthusiasts as it is
perceived as an era of advanced civilizations which are separated by the “Dark”
Middle Ages from a further period of progress. There have been attempts
to compare the ancient world with the contemporary Western civilization.
Regardless of possible questions about the degree of comparability of the
two units, there is no doubt that the ancient period cannot be neglected
if writing environmental history. The following works are included among
the fundamental pieces of environmental history of the Classical Antiquity:
The Geography of the Mediterranean Region: Its Relation to Ancient History (E. Ch. Semple, 1931) – pioneering work in environmental history of
the Classical Antiquity;2
Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (R. Meiggs, 1982) –
first modern work;
USA: Environmental problems of the Greeks and Romans ( J. D. Hughes,
2014) – representative of the latest production in the American environment;
Europe: An environmental history of ancient Greece and Rome (L. Thommen, 2012) – representative of the latest production in the European environment.
Environmental History in the Czech Republic
Environmental history started to penetrate into the Czech historiography
after 1989. However, focus on political and cultural history prevails though
the development of social and economic history having a number of common points with environmental topics is promising. Historical geography3
which is closest to the environmental history4 has been fostered already for
some time in the Czech Republic and it was founded by the geographer Leoš
Jeleček in the mid 90s of the 20th century.5 Writers of environmental history
2
3
4
5
There are, of course, predecessors of the environmental history of Antiquity
already in the late 19th century – Hughes (2014: 2).
E.g. the famous journal Historická geografie has been published since 1968.
The historical geography examines changes of the geographical space in time,
in general. Cf. Mihola (2009). Basic information on historical geography in the
Czech Republic e.g. the periodical Historická geografie (Šimůnek 1968–2015).
1994 can serve as an illustrative landmark when Jeleček published his study
Nová historiografie? Environmentální dějiny v USA: Vývoj, metodologie, výsledky
128
in the Czech Republic as well as members of historical geography are logically
focused rather on the Czech lands; however, their interest is directed mainly
to more modern phenomena at a wider geographical level.6 Research on
environmental history of the ancient world is a “new ground” in the Czech
Republic. Fairly soon, however, works partly related to the environmental
history have appeared. These include e.g. famous topographies of the sites
of the ancient world: Topografie starých Athén (F. Groh, 1909–1913) and
Topografie starověkého Říma (L. Brtnický, 1925). History of ancient geography
is to be mentioned too: Dějiny zeměpisu, I: Starověk a středověk (B. Horák,
1954) and Dějiny geografie: Antika a orient ( J. Kolář, 1968). Achievements
in the field of environmental history have emerged only recently and they
are associated with the philologist Lubor Kysučan. These include e.g. a study
drawn up with Jarmila Bednaříková called Mezi uctíváním a drancováním:
Vztah k lesu v klasickém starověku (in the collection Člověk a les, 2006), further
Otázka ekologická, a chapter from a collection of essays Oni a my: Dvanáct
neodbytných otázek mezi antikou a postmodernou (L. Kysučan, 2010) or the
paper Evropská krajina mezi antikou a novověkem (L. Kysučan in the monograph Venkov a krajina, 2014). Among other products related to environmental history in the Czech Republic, I would mention archaeologists’ studies
Antická krajina ve středním Podunají (P. Juřina, J. Musil, 1994 in the journal
Dějiny a současnost) and Rekonštrukcia počasia v regióne stredného Podunajska
a priľahlej časti Podunajskej nížiny v 2. polovici 2. storočia (P. Chrastina 1999, in
the anthology Historická geografie). Chapters devoted to Antiquity in the works
by the biologist H. Librová Láska ke krajině? (1988) and by the sociologistenvironmentalist K. Stibral Proč je příroda krásná (2005) are also noteworthy.
Environmental Problems in Ancient Literary Texts
Classical Philology and Levels of Environmental History
The study of environmental history is based on an interdisciplinary approach,
on joining humanities and natural sciences. Humanities are represented
6
(see bibliography). On environmental history in the Czech Republic and its
reception Hudeček (2012).
E.g. L. Jeleček examines the historical land-use of the Czech lands of the 19th and
20th centuries. Cf. his personal page at the Faculty of Science, Charles University
in Prague: https://www.natur.cuni.cz/geografie/socialni-geografie-a-regionalnirozvoj/jelecek.
129
mainly by history and related disciplines, natural sciences primarily by geography and ecology.7 As for environmental history, there are three levels
of research which correspond to the concept of the classic dialectical triad
of space, time and human “Nature – Culture – Technology”:8
1 reconstruction of the environment in the past – understanding nature
itself and its functioning;
2 history of interaction between manufacturing technologies and nature – human impact on nature and reverse effects at the material level:
– how the changing manufacturing methods have changed the man’s
relationship with the environment, how people have changed themselves and
thus the social relations, long-term interactions between the socio-economic
spheres and life and natural environment by transforming the Earth;
– can be designated as political-economic environmental history;
3 history of environmental thinking:
– in what terms, ideologies, ethics, laws and myths, art the contact of
an individual or a group of people with nature was reflected;
– can be called as political-social environ. history;
– traditional historians are best prepared to study it.
Historians participating in writing the environmental history draw mainly
on written sources, including literary monuments.9 The primary object of
their research is, however, the environment itself and the relationship to it,
not the reflection mediated in art and literature.10 The study of literary works
7
8
On interdisciplinary nature of environmental history e.g. Hughes (2014: 4).
Jeleček (2010: 255–256). Donald Worster, founder of environmental history, is
the author of the scheme. Original version: “... The first deals with understanding
nature itself, as organized and functioning in past times ... The second level, in this
history brings in the socioeconomic realm as it interacts with the environment.
Here we are concerned with tools and work, with the social relations that grow of
that work, with the various modes people have devised of producing goods from
natural resources ... Then, forming a third level for the historian is that more intangible and uniquely human type of encounter – the purely mental or intellectual, in
which perceptions, ethics, laws, myths, and other structures of meaning become
part of an individual’s or group’s dialogue with nature.” Worster (1988: 293).
9 Thommen (2012: 1).
10 Hughes mentions three types of sources for environmental history of Antiquity:
literary sources, archaeological sources and results of the research of the natural
science disciplines (paleobotanics, paleoclimatology etc.). However, the authors
resisted to use literary sources for a long time for two reasons: fragmentary
preservation and time distance (tendentiousness, anachronisms) – Hughes
130
can deepen the third level of the research of environmental history. Reading
literary texts through an environmentalist’s eyes provides an opportunity to
complete our image of the authors and their works. It is therefore possible to
mutually enrich the general environmental history and classical philology.
Definition of an Environmental Problem
“An environmental problem is any change of state in the physical environment which is brought about by human interference with the physical
environment, and has effects which society deems unacceptable in the light
of its shared norms.”11 This basic concept can be extended to problems
not caused by human activities such as natural disasters.12 Due to a great
difference between the mentality of contemporary and ancient man it is
not irrelevant to include also phenomena that are not considered an environmental problem from today’s perspective but they were perceived
negatively from the perspective of the people of the ancient Antiquity (e.g.
occurrence of some representatives of fauna such as wolves or snakes).
Reflection of environmental problems in literature can be divided into two
levels: specific phenomena and their general principles.
Characteristics of a Relevant Text
(Using Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones
as an Example)
Range
These are usually only brief fragments and allusions variously scattered
throughout the text. In Book III, Seneca only unwittingly mentions drought
(2014: 6–7). There is only one primarily focused on written sources in Thommen’s list of basic works on environmental history of the ancient world (Thommen 2012: 14): Fonti greche e latine per la storia dell’ambiente e del clima del mondo
greco by the Italian researcher G. Panessa (1991).
11 Sloep & Dam-Mieras (1995: 42).
12 Overview of the basic environmental problems of the Ancient world e.g. by Thommen; he lists only phenomena caused by humans. They are divided as follows: period
of Greek dominance: deforestation, mining, destruction of fields in wars; period
of Roman dominance: the same plus problems related to towns: waste and noise.
He also mentions extinction of some of animal species. – Thommen (2012: 2–3).
131
and remove of a forest in the Haimos Mountains: fuit aliquando aquarum
inops Haemus, sed cum Gallorum gens a Cassandro obsessa in illum se contulisset
et siluas cecidisset, ingens aquarum copia apparuit, quas uidelicet in alimentum
suum nemora ducebant; quibus euersis umor, qui desiit in arbusta consumi,
superfusus est. idem ait et circa Magnesiam accidisse. (III 11, 3).13 We do not
learn anything more, e.g. how long the water shortage lasted, what was the
intensity of the drought. In Book VI there is an allusion to occurrence of
toxic fumes from the ground in Italy without naming specific locations: quid
quod pluribus Italiae locis per quaedam foramina pestilens exhalatur uapor,
quem non homini ducere, non ferae tutum est? (VI 28, 1). A herd of sheep
reportedly died in the earthquake in Campania and Seneca only wants to
argue that the immediate culprit was not the seismic activity itself (VI 27,
1–4). A more complete section rarely occurs in the work in which there are
more news next to each other – e.g. a passage of naturally intoxicated water
(VI 1, 1–3). Only Book VI (earthquake) is focused on an environmental
problem, however, if we understand this term very broadly.
Content
There are various types of environmental problems in Naturales quaestiones.
Most of them are rather non-anthropogenic matters such as natural water intoxication: Lynceius amnis (III 20, 6), the Arcadian river called Styx (III 25, 1),
noxia aqua ... circa Tempe (III 25, 2). The already mentioned exhalation from
the earth cavities (VI 28, 1). In terms of the broader concept of the studied topic a record of the eruption of Mount Etna (II 30, 1) and the already
mentioned seismic activity in Book VI (starting with a description of the
known earthquake in Campania in 63; VI 1, 1–3) can be taken into account.
Furthermore, there are reports of water shortage: the drought in the Haimos
Mountains (III 11, 3), disappearance of water nearby Arcadia (III 11, 5–6) and
aridity of the area at the Upper Nile (IV 2, 1). In these cases a certain degree
of human contribution (deforestation, farming, erosion) can be reckoned
although Seneca does not present it in this way. Similarly, the case of floods on
the Aras River, Caucasus (VI 17, 1) can be thought of. The last part of Book
III covers the prediction of the great flood. The description of its expected
pattern may reflect the experience of the common flooding. Conversely, it is
more difficult to trace the anthropogenic factor in case of the omitted Nile
13 All examples used in the paper have been taken from the Teubner edition of
Seneca’s work listed in the bibliography.
132
flooding (IV 2, 16). In any case, the analysis of all the mentioned phenomena
requires a research based on a comparison with the results of natural sciences.
Geographical Names
Although the places of occurrence of most of the phenomena examined
are mentioned, accurate identification of the sites may be difficult. Let’s go
back first to the Haimos Mountains (III 11, 3). It is conceivable that the
drought could have covered the entire area. However, a question arises how
much forest the dwelling Gallic tribe could have cut down and in which
part of the mountain range. The Haimos is identified with the mountains
today called Stara Planina which runs through the center of Bulgaria from
the east to the west14 and it is therefore a relatively large area. The question
is how much this identification is valid for any of the ancient authors. The
Tempi valley has retained its name until today. But what can be meant by
the expression noxia aqua in Thessalia circa Tempe (III 25, 2)? For example,
rivers, swamps or subsurface water can be taken into account. Also the name
Etna hides the same volcano. During one explosion the sky got dark due to
the volcanic material, which frightened the citizens (II 30, 1). However, it
is not specified how far, which would certainly help the image of the force
of the eruption. As for some geographic locations, their identification is
not clear e.g. rivers (Arcadian Styx /III 25, 1/, Amnis Lynceius /III 20, 6/)
or in the case of the city of Magnesia where a similar phenomenon as in
the Haimos Mountains supposedly occurred (III 11, 4). Indeed, there are
two cities of that name, one in Ionia, and the other in Lydia.15
Chronology
Some phenomena are dated directly though, of course, based on the period practice, so the actual date may be questionable. Thus, for example
Nonis Februariis ... [Regulo et Verginio consulibus] there was an earthquake
in Campania (VI 1, 2),16 biennio continuo regnante Cleopatra ... decimo regni
14 See Haimos in Der Neue Pauly (through the server Litterae ante portas) and in
Encyklopedie antiky.
15 Nat. Quaest. in Schönberger edition (1998) notifies of the dual option also in
his commentary to this passage.
16 The Consulate falls in 63 (Tacitus dates the earthquake in 62) – see the commentary on the passage – Schönberger (1998).
133
anno et undecimo17 the Nile flooding did not come (IV 2, 16). In other cases,
there are struggles with the relative chronology and it is necessary to derive
dating – either by context, as in the case of the earthquake prior to the one
in Campania – anno priore in Achaiam et Macedoniam ... nunc Campaniam
(VI 1, 13) or e.g. on the basis of dating determined by a factual indicator
such as here: fuit aliquando aquarum inops Haemus, sed cum Gallorum gens
a Cassandro obsessa in illum se contulisset... (III 11, 3). Dating is quite often
missing and it is substituted by a general adverb – e.g. Aetna aliquando multo
igne abundauit (II 30, 1).
Linguistic Aspect
Vocabulary used for the afore-mentioned phenomena should not be left aside.
There is an idea to create a database of lexical units related to environmental
issues. However, the analysis will be relevant after a larger amount of the
material has been collected and thus the possibility to compare the individual
texts. To take the stylistics of texts into account may seem pointless in this case
because it is work with particular fragments in most cases. Stylistics, however,
played an important role in ancient literature of all kinds (e.g. prose rhythm,
rhetoric) and it certainly had an impact on the lexical side of the work.
Information Sources Used by the Author
While writing Naturales quaestiones, Seneca draws on the previous literary
works, especially on the works of Greek philosophy but he does not avoid
citations from the Roman poets, too.18 He gives the name of some of the
authors here and there: ait ... Theophrastus (III 11, 2), de quo Ouidius ait
(III 20, 3). However, he does not do it in every segment of his work and
then it is difficult to find from where the information is, whether by the
last cited author or by someone else. A number of cases are controversial
and therefore the answer cannot be found in the annotated translations
every time. Like when examining chronology, it is often necessary to go
through a broader context. A database of classic texts is available; however, the search is successful only if it is a literal quotation. We often face
the question whether Seneca cites the source completely or briefly and
17 42 and 41 BC – see the commentary on this passage Nat. Quaest. in Schönberger
edition (1998).
18 To the question of sources of the works e.g. Gross (1989).
134
whether there is any distortion of the original, whether intentionally or
not. It should be borne in mind that Naturales quaestiones is not a scientific
work of today’s meaning and it is close to the so-called consolatio.19 Due
to the famous Roman compiling it is worth finding out how much of the
material in question is the contribution of Seneca himself. Although he
often polemicizes with the theories, e.g. in the case of disappearance of
water in Crete (causam siccitatis hanc ponit, quod obduruerit constricta tellus
nec potuerit imbres inagitata transmittere. quomodo ergo plurimos uidemus
in locis desertissimis fontes? /III 11, 5–6/) or in the view of the water cycle
(e.g. the passage: Aduersus hoc multa posse dici uides. /III 7, 1/). However,
this is not for sure that it is a whole own author’s contribution (it may be
based e.g. on the attitude of Stoic philosophy which he proclaimed).
Summary
Generally speaking, investigation of environmental problems in ancient literature is quite difficult matter, which I demonstrated on the example Seneca’s
Naturales quaestiones. The examined subject is scattered throughout the text
more or less and it is often represented only in the form of brief references.
First it is necessary to find these fragments. There is an option to search text
databases, which is, however, not as effective as it might seem. Environmental
themes can be hidden under a number of key terms and there is always a risk
that a number of entries and thus existing passages escape researchers’ attention and the gained picture will not be complete. On the other hand, even as
long as possible investigation will mostly bring a quantitatively inadequate
outcome arising from a realistic representation of the relevant issues in the
text. The target can be hit partly through the results of previous research, i.e.,
through the secondary literature devoted to environmental problems of the
ancient world. However, the sections or references cited there are usually only
a selected illustration and it is not an exhaustive listing of the ancient texts.
With respect to the just mentioned and to the above discussed question of chronology and information sources used in ancient literary texts,
the study of the reflection of environmental issues in ancient literature
requires among others (besides the results of previous research in the field
of environmental history of the ancient world, and at least the elementary
knowledge of natural sciences) excellent knowledge not only of source
literary works but also works by other authors. It is more efficient to first
19 This aspect – see e.g. Williams (2012).
135
know where to find the needed passages and it is desirable to be aware of
the broader context. It goes without saying that hardly anybody is able to
be a great expert in environmental history and at the same time to know all
Greek and Roman authors by heart. As a viable precursor of investigation of
the environmental issues may be to focus on general themes that occupied
a peculiar position already in ancient literature, e.g. the issue of water and
earthquakes. There are longer and more coherent text units20 available,
which allow us to focus first on a narrower circle of texts (wider context
can be handled temporarily through secondary literature). A researcher
may find passages regarding environmental problems while reading and for
the time being to summarize them in separate chapters and subchapters.
Bibliography
Primary sources
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, Physical Science in the Time of Nero: Being a Translation
of the Quaestiones Naturales of Seneca. Transl. J. Clarke (1910). London:
Macmillan and Co. (Available via the web of University of California,
2015.01.27: https://archive.org/details/physicalsciencei00seneiala).
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, L. Annaei Senecae Naturalium quaestionum libros.
Ed. H. M. Hine (1996). Stuttgart: Teubner. (Available also via the server
Litterae ante portas at Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina).
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, Natural Questions. Transl. H. M. Hine (2010).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, Naturales quaestiones – Naturwissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen. Transl. E. Schönberger – O. Schönberger (1998).
Stuttgart: Reclam.
Secondary sources
Bednaříková, J. & Kysučan, L. (2006). Mezi uctíváním a drancováním:
Vztah k lesu v klasickém starověku. In P. Klvač (Ed.), Člověk a les. Brno:
Masarykova univerzita, 18–27.
20 In Naturales Quaestiones Books III, IV (water) and VI (earthquake). Of other Roman literary works in which there are essays of these phenomena are for instance
as follows: Lucretius – De rerum natura (Book VI), Vitruvius – De architectura
(Book VIII), Plinius Senior – Naturalis historia (Book II and XXXI).
136
Brtnický, L. (1925). Topografie starověkého Říma. Praha: Česká akademie
věd a umění.
Cancik, H. & Schneider, H. & Landfester, M., (Eds.) (2015). Der Neue
Pauly online: Enzyklopädie der Antike. Brill Online Reference Works.
Leiden: Brill, 2015.01.28. Retrieved from http://referenceworks.
brillonline.com/browse/der-neue-pauly.
Chrastina, P. (1999). Rekonštrukcia počasia v regióne stredného Podunajska a priľahlej časti Podunajskej nížiny v 2. polovici 2. storočia. In
E. Semotanová (Ed.), Historická geografie: Pocta Jaroslavu Kašparovi.
Sborník k 70. narozeninám doc. PhDr. Jaroslava Kašpara, CSc. Praha:
Historický ústav AV ČR, 41–51.
Gauly, B. M. (2004). Senecas Naturales Quaestiones: Naturphilosophie für
die römische Kaiserzeit. München: Beck.
Groh, F. (1909–1913). Topografie starých Athén. (2 volumes). Praha: Česká
akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění.
Gross, N. (1989). Senecas Naturales quaestiones: Komposition, naturphilosophische Aussagen und ihre Quellen. Stuttgart: Steiner-Verlag Wiesbaden.
Horák, B. (1954). Dějiny zeměpisu, I: Starověk a středověk. Praha: Nakladatelství československé akademie věd.
Hudeček, O. (2012). K několika důvodům nezájmu o environmentální
dějiny mezi českými historiky a historičkami. Dějiny – teorie – kritika, 2,
246–261.
Hughes, J. D. (2014). Environmental problems of the Greeks and Romans.
Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins University Press.
Jeleček, L. (1994). Nová historiografie? Environmentální dějiny v USA:
Vývoj, metodologie, výsledky. Český časopis historický, 92, 510–540.
Jeleček, L. (2010). Environmentální dějiny: Jejich vznik, konceptualizace
a institucionalizace (USA, Evropa a svět). Annales historici Presovienses, 9, 255–256.
Juřina, P. & Musil, J. (1994). Antická krajina ve středním Podunají. Dějiny
a současnost. Kulturně historická revue, 16/4, 6–10.
Kolář, J. (1968). Dějiny geografie: Antika a orient. Praha: Státní pedagogické
nakladatelství.
Kysučan, L. (2010). Oni a my: Dvanáct neodbytných otázek mezi antikou
a postmodernou. Brno: Lipka.
Kysučan, L. (2014). Evropská krajina mezi antikou a novověkem. In P. Jelínek – L. Kysučan, Venkov a krajina: Evropská krajina mezi venkovem
a městem, mezi antikou a novověkem. Brno: Masarykova univerzita,
64–120.
137
Librová, H. (1988). Láska ke krajině? Brno: Blok.
Meiggs, R. (1982). Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Mihola, J. (2009). Historická geografie jako věda. Studijní materiály
předmětu PdF:De2MP_HiG1. Informační systém Masarykovy univerzity,
2015.01.28. Retrieved from http://is.muni.cz/el/1441/podzim2009/
De2MP_HiG1/HISTORICKA_GEOGRAFIE-uvod__metodologie.
doc/.
Panessa, G. (1991). Fonti greche e latine per la storia dell’ambiente e del clima
nel mondo greco. (2 volumes). Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.
Semple, E. Ch. (1931). The Geography of the Mediterranean Region: Its Relation to Ancient History. London – New York: H. Holt and Company.
Sloep, P. B. & Dam-Mieras, M. van (1995). Science on environmental problems. In P. Glasbergen – A. Blowers, (Eds.), Environmental Policy in an
International Context, 1: Perspectives. London: Arnold, 31–58.
Stibral, K. (2005). Proč je příroda krásná: Estetické vnímání přírody v novověku.
Praha: Dokořán.
Svoboda, L. et al. (Eds.) (1973). Encyklopedie antiky. Praha: Academia.
Šimůnek, R. et al. (Eds.) (1968–2015). Historická geografie. Institute of
History, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 2015.01.28.
Retrieved from http://www.hiu.cas.cz/cs/nakladatelstvi/periodika/
historicka-geografie.ep/.
Thommen, L. (2012). An environmental history of ancient Greece and Rome.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weiblinger, F. P. (1977). Senecas Naturales Quaestiones: griechische Wissenschaft und römische Form. München: Beck.
Williams, G. D. (2012). The cosmic viewpoint: a study of Seneca’s Natural
questions. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.
Worster, D. (Ed.) (1988). The ends of the earth: Perspectives on modern environmental history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
138
Tomáš Štěpánek — Transformation of Cities
under the Rule of the Ostrogoths
One of many things that our history has left us up to the present is the concept of a city. From its origin in ancient Mesopotamia to the peak experienced
in Antiquity through the early medieval decline, they rose again in order to
become the driving force of power and major economic force both in the
Modern Period and contemporary times. Many of today’s European cities
have their roots in Antiquity and have undergone a long development. In
this paper I deal with cities in northern Italy in the fifth and sixth century
AD where barbarian1 Ostrogoths settled and had to cope with the persisting
legacy of the vanished Roman Empire. While examining this question several
problems have arisen the author would like to deal with in his later papers.
First it is necessary to explain and define the concept of an ancient city.
In the Internet encyclopedia Der Neue Pauly2 an ancient city is defined as
enclosed space with different types of buildings, specialization of labor,
numerically and socially differentiated society and with the central function (economic, political) for the surrounding area in terms of topography
and administration. In the Mediterranean archeology a city means not just
housing estates or physical features but rather a socio-political aspects of
formation of a civil society. The question whether it is a city or not must
be resolved by applying physical (presence of certain buildings, building
elements) and social criteria (e.g. economic specialization, hierarchy of
society, spatial differentiation, religious and cultural function). Of course,
individual inhabitants of the ancient Mediterranean had their own concept
of a city. E.g. Greeks believed that a city was rather defined by an intellectual
and moral concept, not by its physical form whereas the Roman concept
was more legislative and physical.3
The methods by which the role of cities under the rule of the Ostrogoths
may be examined can be divided into archaeological, written and analogous.
1
2
3
I use the term meaning “non-Roman”, not pejoratively meaning underdeveloped,
rough and uncivilized citizens.
“Town, city” in Brill’s New Pauly.
“Town, city” in Brill’s New Pauly.
139
All the methods have their advantages and disadvantages therefore the best
solution is to combine them. As already mentioned, many cities have survived
from the ancient times until today. This, however, means worse possibilities
for archaeological research which must follow the actual construction-architectural situation in the city in question rather than a scientific interest. The
continuity of settlement plays another role. For example, there is the Roman
Mediolanum – which has undergone a thousand-year-long building development before the Western Roman Empire fell and other fifteen centuries full
of alterations, fires, military attacks, demographic and economic changes up
to today’s Milano – on a Celtic settlement of around the sixth century BC.
Of course, archaeologists cannot destroy a medieval church to see what is
underneath. They have to also rely on the methods used in archaeological
research. Despite the unusual development of the modern non-destructive
methods (e.g. geophysical), it is the professional destruction of sites that
is often the greatest possibility to get valuable information. Archaeological
excavations may also demonstrate an insight into the economic role of cities.
The density and intensity of business contacts around the Mediterranean
can be estimated based on the distribution of various kinds of ceramics or
amphorae and their subsequent findings at archaeological sites.
Written sources provide a slightly selective testimony. Either by that only
some literary heritage (a matter of luck rather than being selected) has been
preserved. Or by influence under which the author – who either wanted
to please the ruling class or, contrary, was hypercritical of it – could have
been. A good example is one of the main written sources for the examined
period – Cassiodorus’ Variae. They contain 468 documents (letters, edicts
and forms – formulae) written in a careful neat rhetorical style, arranged
into 12 books. They contain a selection of official activities: public office
appointments, tax collection and management of state property, criminal
cases and judicial activities, diplomatic correspondence between the Ostrogothic rulers and the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire and also
other “barbarian” rulers. The name itself – Variae – reflects the diversity of
the used rhetorical styles (Barnish 2006: XIV). However, Cassiodorus did
not publish all the letters he had written during his rich career as a clerk. He
used only those that fitted into a carefully planned concept (Barnish 2006:
XV–XVI). At the time when Cassiodorus was compiling and publishing the
letters (537/8) there were Justinian’s troops led by Belisario in Italy. It was
therefore highly desirable to emphasize continuity with and organization
of the barbarian government and administration similar to that of the late
Roman. Variae should have perhaps also politically rehabilitated a member
140
of the Italian elite who had served the Ostrogoths and thus to provide an
opportunity to work for the new government – the Eastern Roman Empire – in Ravenna (Bjornlie 2013: 5–6). Therefore, nowadays Cassiodorus’
Variae must be considered a product of semi-official propaganda of the
barbarian-ruling regime (Lafferty 2010: 122).
In this paper I do not mention any legal sources in connection with
the decline of cities in the third and fourth century AD which have been
preserved in later collections (e.g. Thesiodos Codex) and so they may not
reflect the situation of that time. The scope of the legal sources is significantly
limited and findings from these sources cannot be completely generalized
due to the chronological development and local particularities.
In the search for answers and solutions to our problems we can refer
to analogies. A similar situation as the Ostrogoths in Italy other barbarian
kingdoms arising on the ruins of the Western Roman Empire had to tackle,
too. If a piece in the mosaic depicting the role of cities in the Ostrogothic
Italy is missing, it is possible to refer to similar mosaics in the neighboring
successor states – Franks in Gaul, Visigoths in Spain and Vandals in North
Africa. It is also possible to use the healthier Roman sister in the East that
lived up to a ripe old age. The local cities also went through their own economic, political, administrative and architectural development. However,
that was not controlled or influenced by any of the successor barbarian states
but it was in line with the surviving Eastern Empire. Such a comparison is
of course not perfect and ideal, however, not deplorable.
As for the ancient history, there are two views of Late Antiquity. To
put it simply, one group (e.g. Bryan Ward-Perkins, Peter Heather) sees the
fall of the Western Roman Empire, whenever it happened, as the end of
the civilized world followed by the onset of the Dark Ages and the Early
Middle Ages. The other group (e.g. Averil Cameron, Peter Brown) rather
believes in transformation of Antiquity through Late Antiquity into the
Middle Ages. In certain aspects, it sees continuity and transformation into
other instead of decline. Similar tendencies could be applied to cities, too.
Did it come to the fall of its tendons and muscles – cities – along with the
fall of the Empire? If so, how to explain that? Where should it be dated?
The advent of the Ostrogoths? Of the Lombards? The end of efforts of the
Eastern Roman for renovatio imperii? Or did it come to their transformation
in the changed political situation? Did cities in Late Antiquity (the fourth
and fifth centuries AD) continue to be economic, administrative, cultural,
religious and military centers as they had been in their greatest boom? And
what about under the Ostrogoths and Lombards?
141
The model civitas was formed by a city together with the adjacent administrative and economic territory which was important for it. As it has
been said, a classic city in the narrow sense formed a political, economic,
administrative, cultural and religious center for the surrounding territory.
Let’s leave aside a classic ancient city of the republican Rome and the early
empire meeting all the above written aspects of a central settlement and
let’s concentrate on the period of the crisis and transformation. The crisis
transforming cities started already at the beginning of the third century.
This gradually led to the increasing isolation of urban elites gathering more
assets. On the other hand, these elites were not afraid to show their wealth
and built stately homes (houses) but they did not spend on public buildings
for their fellow citizens any more (Liebeschuetz 1992: 8).
The effort to cope with the economic and military decline was to involve
the coming barbarian ethnics into the structures of the Roman Empire.
The presence of not always loyal barbarians in and outside the Roman territory had often the opposite effect, which was a permanent state of war
and further economic collapse as a result of territorial losses. Thus, the
greater emphasis was placed on the fiscal economy (Marazzi 1998: 126).
The supreme self-governing body of the city was a city council (curia) that
played an integral role in maintaining the fiscal economy and subsidies
for urban areas. Its members were called decurions – decuriones or synonymously curiales. Duties not only to collect taxes, distribute benefits,
transport and storage of natural benefits, payment of wages, but also the
necessity to maintain perfect accounting were heaped on their shoulders
by the reforms of Diocletian. If anything went wrong, a decurion could
have been punished on the body or he had to balance the shortfall from his
assets (Liebeschuetz 1992: 6–7). This, of course, did not add popularity
of this office and a lot of decurions tried to leave their office. As the laws of
the last Roman emperors (e.g. Majorian)4 show, many of the city’s officials
managed to flee from their positions and take refuge in the countryside at
the rich landlords’ and the imperial government had many problems with
their return or replacement ( Jones 1964: 762).
Curials were like the muscles of the empire and the heart of the city
for the emperor ( Jones 1964: 749). They collected and arranged collection
of imperial duties and taxes, repaired roads, supervised the public postal
service, called up army recruits, managed mining (mines) and although the
government sometimes tried to find substitutes for one or more of their
4
More on the legislation of the Emperor Majorian see Klouda (2011).
142
roles, such experiments had a very short life. Like hearts, cities ensured
conveniences of city life (e.g. games or bath) which were a fundamental
component of the civilized life in Roman eyes ( Jones 1964: 749). It is
therefore understandable that the last emperors and the Ostrogothic kings
tried to keep this urban pumping muscle alive.
The Christian Church represented by the local church and its bishops
that was more and more focused on the city organization, economic activity
and local patronage benefited from the decline of city councils (Bjornlie
2013: 9). Designation of church dignitaries in the city’s leading positions
was convenient for the imperial administration. So the often sprawling and
costly bureaucracies were falling back. Bishops were elected by the priests
of the diocese in question but also by the inhabitants of the city (laymen)
and so they became the natural leaders of the city, especially in emergency
situations (for instance siege by barbarians etc., Liebescheutz 1992: 14).
According to Liebescheutz (1992: 18) three quarters of a hundred municipia survived in northern Italy and Tuscany until 1000. Most of these
abandoned settlements never had a bishop. So the bishops took the leading
position in the West in the fifth century (more on this see e.g. Rapp 2005).
Since the third century the goods (wine, oil) was rather imported to
Italy than exported from there. Likewise, there was a limitation of own
production e.g. kitchen or tableware (Marazzi 1998: 136). For example,
the production of quality ceramics from Vandal Africa rose again in the
second half of the fifth century (Marazzi 1998: 137).
According to Brogiolo (2011: 196), from an archaeological point of
view, the transformation of the classical ancient city proceeded in three
phases in the period from the third to the sixth century. New structures
were built during the first, ancient monuments and infrastructure were
destructed, demolished or their function was changed in the second, and
the rest was transformed in the third. Late ancient cities included Christian
buildings, palaces of new autocratic authorities which replaced the urban
town councils and productive or craft activities that had been earlier relocated to the suburbs (Brogiolo 2011: 196). An important aspect was to
strengthen the already existing fortifications (Aquileia, Verona, Mantua,
Brescia) or construction of new (Milano, Ravenna). The cities often turned
into heavily fortified fortresses, protecting only some of the populated parts.
According to Marazzi (1998: 144) the classical Roman Empire where cities played a dominant role and thus formed the basic building units (cells)
became an empire of provinces where the cities played a role of a sieve
(funnel) through which the central government drew funds from the plebes.
143
In Late Antiquity in Italy (5th century) administrative and economic
changes to cities took place (except maybe Ravenna) which had to rely on
themselves more; without the support of the central settlement/center
which was monopolized by the Episcopal authority, when present (Marazzi
1998: 130). As the assets accumulated in the hands of the state/imperial
administration, aristocracy (potentes) and the Church, they were not redistributed into the economic municipal system through investment in
infrastructure (Marazzi 1998: 130–131). The opposite could be a situation when the army requiring funds was operating in the area around and
then, under certain circumstances, it put them back into the economic
cycle from which, however, only some layers of the population benefited.
State investments were aimed at building walls and aqueducts, i.e. the basic
and necessary parts of a Late Antique city. That is seen as a defensive dam
and not as an economic center of the surrounding countryside (Marazzi
1998: 142–3). However, cities continued to operate as civil, religious and
administrative centers, a sanctuary for local residents and a military base
even in the fifth century (Liebescheutz 1992: 16).
When the Ostrogoths came to Italy a change took place. Since 493 there
was a long forty-year period of peace and expansion (Dalmatia, Noricum,
Provence region). Theodoric renewed the fiscal system and started to invest
in urban infrastructure once again. A characteristic feature was for example
the development of Ravenna. According to Marazzi (1998: 132–3), different structure of the Gothic army helped to improve the situation, too.
Verona, North Italy, may be a good example of the transformation of
an ancient city into a Late Antiquity (early medieval) one. First, the capital
city of Theodoric and then of Langobardic King Alboin had a convenient
location on the river of Adige, which connected it with the Adriatic Sea and
Ravenna. According to the iconographic sources of the sixth to the ninth
century, an ideal city is considered that city which is enclosed by walls
and where monumental buildings from the Roman period – public spaces,
temples, streets with porticoes and Christian churches are (Brogiolo 2011:
195). The evidence supporting this statement can be found for example in
the mosaic of Madaba ( Jordan) where an ideal city is shown (in the form
of Jerusalem, Brogiolo 2011: 196). The iconographic representation of
Verona (Iconographia Rateriana, Brogiolo 2011: 198) shows two stripes
of perimeter walls, an arena, a theater, the Palace of Theodoric on the left
riverbank, porticoes on the forum horreum (granary), a stone bridge and
some churches. In this work the “defunct” ancient glory is wedded to the
new urban ideological representation – Christian churches.
144
According to Brogiolo (2011: 195) a similar phenomenon occurred in
written sources, too. Two poems reporting of the past of two cities – ancient
with their monuments which are mixed with the Christian – churches,
catacombs and their martyrs, and their protective function. It is important
that this ideal view of a Late Antique/early medieval city comes from higher
layers. It does not describe neither depicts buildings of lower layers of the
society – houses of the poor, production facilities, neglected (abandoned)
facilities that have lost their function or have been converted into cultivated
land (Brogiolo 2011: 196). This can be seen well in Brescia or Rome where
the excavations have demonstrated that a part of the city was used for agricultural purposes (growing cabbage, spices and herbs, and vineyards have
been documented, Brogiolo 2011: 198). This land differed from the private
gardens; it was the “right” urban field.
As Brogiolo shows (1999: 105–108) there were efforts to achieve the
“dingy” ancient glory of cities with new buildings (theaters, spas and related
aqueducts) under Theodoric. To do this, construction materials from abandoned buildings and money from private donations as in the case of the
Roman porticu curva and horrea or similar porticoed buildings in Spoleto
were used. As supported by the inscription in Pavia in which the Ostrogothic nobleman and magister militie Italiae Asbad was celebrated that he
got the walls of several cities repaired and gave them back their lost glory
(Brogiolo 1999: 106), barbarian Ostrogoths tried to legitimize their rule by
the adoption of classic antique architectural elements. So, the Ostrogoths
represent a sort of transition between the late ancient and early medieval
conception of the city. At the time of the Gothic wars in the sixth century,
they were on decline once again and when the Lombards came at the end
of the sixth century, the idea of a city changed for good.
Cassiodorius’ Variae (Books VI and VII) suggest that the administration of the early sixth century was highly differentiated, specialized and
compared with the imperial administration of the fifth century only just
a little bit of it was removed. Preserved letters show that the Theodoric’s
central bureaucracy consisted of an extensive and specialized set of officials
composed of both civil and military circles with clearly defined and separate functions similar to those of the administration of the late emperors
(Lafferty 2010: 122).
Under the Ostrogoths city councils continued to operate although in
a slightly altered form. In fact, the curials fulfilled mainly the office of tax
collectors as noted in Cassiodorus’ Variae (Var., I. 19, II. 17, II. 24, XII. 8).
Similarly like defensores the curials task was to oversee the repair of the city
145
walls and the secondary use of building materials (Var., IV. 49), transport of
materials (wood, Var., IV. 8), to keep sewage systems clean (Var., VIII. 29)
or to arrange transport of eminent people to the royal court (Var., IV. 45).
In Cassiodorus’ work (Var., IX. 4) we learn about the case of curials who
wanted to get rid of their rank and to become common landowners. At that
time, city council with curials were mainly responsible for the collection
of taxes, further testimony and record of legal transactions, such as wills,
gifts, emancipation of slaves, adoption, oaths and sale of assets. Operation
of city councils until the beginning of the seventh century is captured in
the preserved Ravenna’s documents. These documents contain certified
copies of proceedings held before the city’s curia in Ravenna, Reata and
Syracuse ranging in date from 489 to 625 (Lafferty 2010: 137).
Factors that led to the decline of cities could be many – from a small
territory that a city dominated/utilized, barren land, weak distributive or
productive role, absence of bodies of civil, military or religious administrations to the weak crew/protection. The action of one of the factors (or
combinations thereof) could cause a decline in the population or a reduced
ability to restore/re-colonize a war-destroyed or abandoned settlement.
They were usually not completely abandoned but gradually adapted to the
new conditions. For example Luni, Italy, that was not abandoned at once
but gradually. Sometimes the population was greater than the fortified area
could indicate. Poor people could inhabit sub-urban areas not included in
the city’s fortifications. The fifth century showed greater ruralisation and
rush of urban elites into the countryside. The degree of physical and demographic continuity between the ancient and medieval city varied from
region to region in the former Western Roman Empire (Liebescheutz 1992:
25). The largest was at the coast and in northern Italy, but the weakest in
the UK and around the Danube. It did not come to the demise of the cities before the arrival of the Lombards. The economic, administrative and
religious system starts to change with their arrival drastically and rapidly,
which leads to that the existence of the empire is not guaranteed and based
on the presence of cities.
The world of classical ancient cities with their typical monumental
architecture (temples, circuses, theaters, amphitheaters, thermae, forums,
cemeteries outside the housing districts and along roads) changes into
Late Antique and early medieval cities based on new other basic characters (churches, Episcopal palaces and monasteries, walls, cemeteries intra
muros, public palaces and utility land inside the walls). In the sixth century
Cassiodorus saw the classic monumental buildings still as an essential part
146
of the urban landscape which, however, could not be effectively renewed.
A Christian sanctuary was a characteristic feature of the city in the eighth
and ninth centuries.
As for the historians, the study of historical sources implies that the
concept of civitas and continuity of the city as a privileged estate of public
authorities and as the focal point of social and economic relations in the
region was persisting. On the other hand, the archaeological excavations
indicate a rural character of the early medieval cities especially during the
reign of the Lombards. Thus, we can talk about transformation rather than
of decline of cities in Italy in Late Antiquity (La Rocca 1992: 162).
Bibliography
Primary texts
Cassiodorus, Variae. Ed. T. Hodgkin (1886). Oxford: Horace Hart.
Jordanes, Getica. Ed. Ch. Ch. Mierow (1915). London: Oxford University
Press.
Secondary texts
Barnish, S. J. B. (2006). Cassiodorus: Variae. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Bjornlie, M. S. (2013). Politics and Tradition between Rome, Ravenna and
Constantinople. A Study of Cassiodorus and the Variae, 527–554. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Brogiolo, G. P. (1999). Ideas of the Town in Italy during the Transition from
Antiquity to the Middle Ages. In: G. P. Brogiolo – B. Ward-Perkins,
(Eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antuquity and the
Early Middle Ages. Boston: Brill, 99–126.
Brogiolo, G. P. (2011). From ancient to early medieval Town: reflections
starting from the case of Verona. In: O. Heinrich-Tamáska (Ed.),
Keszthely-Fenékpuszta im Kontext spätantiker Kontinuitätsforschung
zwischen Noricum und Moesia, Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense 2.
Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 195–212.
Cancik, H. & Schneider, H. & Landfester, M., (Eds.) (2015). Brill’s New
Pauly. Brill Online Reference Works, Leiden: Brill, 2015.02.01. Retrieved
from http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/
town-city-e1120500.
147
Deliyannis Mauskopf, D. (2010). Ravenna in late antiquity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hodgkin, T. (1886). The Letters of Cassiodorus. London: Henry Frowde.
Jones, A. H. M. (1964). The Later Roman Empire 284–602. A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey. (volume II). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Klouda, T. (2011). Zákonodárná činnost císaře Maioriana (Bachelor thesis,
Department of Classical Studies, Masaryk University).
La Rocca, C. (1992). Public buildings and urban change in northern Italy
in the early medieval period. In: J. Rich (Ed.), The City in Late Antiquity.
London: Routledge, 161–181.
Lafferty, D. W. (2010). The Edictum Theoderici: A Study of a Roman Legal
Document from Ostrogothic Italy (Dissertation, University of Toronto).
Liebeschuetz, W. (1992). The End of the Ancient City. In J. Rich (Ed.), The
City in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1–49.
Marano, Y. A. (2011). The towns of the central and eastern Venetia in the
Ostrogothic period. In O. Heinrich-Tamáska (Ed.), Keszthely-Fenékpuszta im Kontext spätantiker Kontinuitätsforschung zwischen Noricum und
Moesia, Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense 2. Rahden: Verlag Marie
Leidorf, 173–194.
Marazzi, F. (1998). The destinies of the late Antique Italies: politico-economic
developments of the sixth century. In R. Hodges – W. Bowden, (Eds.), The
Sixth Century Production, Distribution and Demand. Leiden: Brill, 119–160.
Rapp, C. (2005). Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity. The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition. London: University of California Press.
Svoboda, L. et al. (1973). Encyklopedie antiky. Praha: Academia.
148
Silvie Šimordová — Chronicles in Late Antiquity
“Chronicle” is a genre of historiographical literature which first appeared
in the fourth century AD and over time became so popular that it was the
most important historical genre for a long time, spreading deep into the
Middle Ages.
Before we begin to talk directly about chronicles, it is necessary to define this category within the historiographical literature. In ancient times,
or more precisely in Antiquity, historiography experienced a great development and a variety of literary forms were created. The most common
were historiae, they could have the form of universal history or historical
monographs; biographies, portraits and autobiographies, commentaries and
historicizing travel books were written, too. Epic poetry, especially historical
epics, can be partly included in the category of historical works as well. All
these works share both historiographical (i.e. effort to record an event or
a series of events) and literary ambitions (it should also engage and entertain readers and listeners), meaning they operate under the motto docere
et delectare. And it is this literary dimension of chronicles of Late Antiquity
that is missing and, therefore, it is one of the elements characterizing and
distinguishing them from other historiographical literature. However, not
entirely. There is another very similar kind of work and when distinguishing
it other considerations must be taken into account.
Annals1 are this relative genre. It is a very old autochthonous category
of Roman literature which was very important for the further development
of historiography. They began to appear probably in the fourth century BC
and were kept up to the mid-second century. They were brief official records
written year after year on the so-called tabula dealbata which were publicly
displayed by the Pontifex Maximus. They contained lists of elected officials
and other important state-building events (wars, agreements, establishing
colonies, etc.), but also reports of prophecies and prophetic phenomena,
dates of celebrations and ceremonies, etc. Later historians drew information about the origins of Rome from these annals. In the earlier periods
the so-called annalists copied the structure of these writings and arranged
their works chronologically by years, too.
1
Conte (2003: 29); Conte (2003: 73–75); Conte (2003: 91–93).
149
If talking about the genre in its pure form, what annals and chronicles
have in common is not only the chronological arrangement of events, year
by year, but also the missing literary component. However, there are quite a
lot of differences between them. If you compare the Roman annals with the
chronicles of Late Antiquity, there is a noticeable difference in chronological
classification at the first sight. Annals ceased to be written in the mid-second
century BC while chronicles did not appear until in the fourth century AD.
Another major difference lies in the general classification of the genre – while
annals were works written by Roman officials, chronicles were associated
with literary activities of Christian scholars. As for the content, the scope
of chronicles was greater in terms of time and location as well as facts; in
addition, they provided a larger amount of information, thus they were
more comprehensive and detailed. Although information was arranged
chronologically, chronicles did not have to necessarily contain a record for
each individual year, which could not be the case in annals.
As stated above in the introduction, chronicles continued to develop
until the Middle Ages (and even later they were not exceptional). And
once again in that period the genre got into a “confrontation” with the
annals – medieval this time – for which the word “letopis” is sometimes
preferred in Czech. These medieval annals2 first appeared in monasteries
in the seventh century. Originally they were recorded into the so-called
Easter tables showing the calculated dates of Easter and other Christian
holidays derived from the Easter a few (even dozen) years ahead. These data
were recorded individually for each year on a separate sheet or in a separate
paragraph and later when the monks were writing or rewriting the Easter
tables they began to use the free space to insert notes on important events
which had happened that year. Gradually annals became independent and
so a new medieval historiographical genre was created. However, at that
time, chronicles had been fairly extensively developed and they kept being
different from the annals mainly in much more detailed concept of entries.
In the following text I will mention four main characteristics of the
chronicles in Late Antiquity, two of them formal and two factual.
Chronological order
The first and most important distinguishing feature of chronicles is their
chronological arrangement.3 In the first chronicles,4 chronology was not
2
On the importance of annales in Medieval times see Gurevič (1978: 85–86).
150
only a means to organize the text but it was the goal to create the text;
the chronicle genre arose from the need to identify and organize data of
important events of selected nations or empires. Over time, the author’s
attention shifted to other topics, however, chronology remained an integral
part of all chronicles and not only theirs; it became a typical feature of the
medieval Christian historiography at all.34
As for chronicles, chronology is especially important in terms of the
structure because the arrangement by individual years serves as an outline
of the whole work and events recorded in one chapter or section of the text
are often not related in a way other than that they happened in the same
year. The chronological arrangement of the text is also linked to the overall
perception of the course of time, the course of history and its division into
individual stages. As already mentioned, “chronicle” is a genre of Christian
literature and this also affects the question of perception of time that was
perceived by Christianity linearly5 (i.e. with exactly given beginning – the
moment of creation of the world – and end – the moment of the Last Judgment), as opposed to the cyclical conception of the antique and ancient
historians before. As for the question of time, chronicles are governed by
the Bible. Narratives often start with the Creation or any other significant
biblical event (e.g. the life of Adam, the life of Abraham etc.), they usually
finish in the author’s time, exceptionally they may contain a kind of presage
of things to come referring specifically to the Doomsday at the end. Only
one time that included all the history of mankind existed in the Christian
chronicles; the mythical, prehistoric – e.g. in Greek historiography considered everything before the first Olympics – time was missing. Of course,
the Christian authors divided the monolithic time into shorter sections
and there were two major concepts of that periodization.6
The first one is called “succession of empires” or “sequence of ages”
and the history is divided into stages defined by the dominance of one nation, one empire over the rest of the world. That world domination is then
transferred from one entity to another. E.g. Republican Roman historian
Velleius Paterculus distinguishes five such stages, five nations – the Assyrians,
3
4
5
6
Galán Sánchez (1994: 16–20).
Codoñer (1985: 131–132).
Gurevič (1978: 87).
Some interesting insights in the conception of time in christian chronicles can
be found in the article by Fernando Alvarez García, e.g. Alvarez García (1997:
12–30).
151
Medes, Persians, Macedonians and Romans. However, this view of human
history is also incorporated in the Bible; the idea is most developed in the
Book of Daniel, particularly the Daniel’s prophecy in which he speaks of
a sequence of four human kingdoms, empires (gold, silver, bronze and
iron) after which the Kingdom of God will come. This method of history
periodization was used in the first chronicles mainly.
Later, mainly because of the huge influence of Isidore of Seville who
preferred this periodization, the history was divided into six ages according
to the six days of Creation, the last stage should have been the kingdom of
God corresponding to the seventh day of Creation. This system was thus
clearly inspired by the Bible, however, in this respect, Isidore was inspired
especially by Saint Augustine who had developed this Christian history
periodization in his key work De Civitate Dei.
Simple style
The second distinguishing feature of chronicles is their simple style7 lacking
literary ambitions. Texts are written in a simple language seeking to be as
brief as possible.8 Not only the extent but also the used vocabulary (often
repeated phrases or words) and syntactic variety of sentences, which is entirely dominated by simple juxtaposition, i.e. composing sentences one after
another without using any coordinating and subordinating conjunctions,
were reduced. As a result, it is a very formal style full of stereotypical phrases.
This austerity of the language lends chronicles impersonal nature, it is
almost impossible to distinguish the styles of individual authors as they kept
repeating the established phrases and there was no space for own invention.
However, this repetition and copying applied not only to the style but to the
content too. Authors often copied or rephrased works of their predecessors
adding reports of new events and information. However, this is not specific
to the chronicles only, it was common in ancient historiography in general.
Simplicity of the recorded events goes hand in hand with the simplicity
of language and chroniclers wrote without evaluating the message critically
in any way, they did not address the causes, circumstances or consequences
of the events, they did not try to explain or seek the relations. Therefore,
chronicles are sometimes referred to as an example of an objective view
7
8
Galán Sánchez (1994: 20–25).
For the characteristics of this simple style in Iohannes Biclarensis see Campos
(1960: 54–55).
152
of history. Though it is true that they leave no room for e.g. an extensive
propaganda or presentation of own thoughts and opinions, yet the authors
were able to manipulate the history in a different way. Their procedures
were not flashy or showy (not allowed by the genre) but the more difficult
it is to reveal them and the more careful it is necessary to be when working
with these sources (the author could, for example, deliberately omit some
of the information in his work,9 he could use only slight variations such as
in addressing the rulers or date formula, etc.).
Universalism
Universalism10 is a concept fully spread along with Christianity and its
core is the application of certain ideas to all countries, all people regardless
of race or nationality. History discussed in a universal way thus stands in
contrast to the history of nations, regions or history focused on selected
events or individuals.
The tendencies of universalism can be found even in ancient authors,
mainly the Greek ones, for example, already Herodotus tells not only of
Greek history but also of events from the surrounding areas in his work.
However, these only serve as excursions that should somehow reflect, supplement or explain the main events, i.e. history of the Greeks. Universalism,
i.e. an effort to approach more than one history in a work, then became a
relatively common feature especially of the Hellenistic historians, however, it did not passed into Roman literature. Roman historians almost
exclusively devoted to the history of the Roman Empire. The only more
significant exception was the work by Pompeius Trogus11 Philipicae where
Rome ceases to be the center of all the affairs; the attention is focused on
the neighboring empires.
However, universalism of chronicles was legitimate for other purposes.
It did not arise from the need to compare some historical events with others
but it was created due the Christian theology which says that the whole
world and everything in it is the work of the only God, it forms one single unity and thus there is only one history. Therefore, the strict division
9
As an example we can once more use Iohannes Biclarensis. Kenneth Baxter
Wolf (Baxter Wolf 1999: 6–7) in his text points out some of these problematic
passages.
10 Galán Sánchez (1994: 25–30).
11 Conte (2003: 345–346).
153
between nations has disappeared, all people are descendants of Adam and
Eve and the history of all mankind is described in this way.
As for chronicles, universalism is applied in three ways – time, space
and topic. Universalism in terms of time has been already mentioned and
it lies – just to remind the readers – in an attempt to accommodate all the
history from the beginning (which is often the moment of Creation) to the
author’s time. Regarding universalism in terms of space, it is manifested in
that way that reports of all known nations may appear in chronicles, there
are often references to events in the western and eastern parts of the Empire next to each other, to the barbarian countries in Europe and oriental
empires in the Levant etc. The third application of universalism is then the
choice of topics that appear in chronicles. Like in history works of previous
times, there are reports on political and military events. However, reports on
events in the Church, which get completely to the forefront of the author’s
interest in some chronicles, play a very important role. Furthermore, there
are reports on natural phenomena, social and cultural events, important
figures, etc. in chronicles.
However, universalism in its full extent was not sustainable from the
practical point of view. Therefore, it was often just proclaimed in the introductory passage of chronicles, and then the scope of chronicles was narrowed
down to a certain period and/or region in the text itself.
Providence
The last of the characteristic features of chronicles was the faith in Providence12 which controls everything that happens on the earth. Of course,
this feature did not appear in the earlier, non-Christian historians. However,
the Stoics whose teaching had a lot of common points with Christianity
applied a similar view of history. Even they assumed the presence of a higher
principle watching over all the world events. The element of the Divine
Providence is contained in the Bible in both the Old and New Testament
and thus it was first a part of the Christian theology and philosophy. In
historiography, it was first applied in the works by St. Augustine and his
student Paulus Orosius. Since that time, the God that controls everything
that happens through its Providence has been the main initiator of history.
In chronicles, the faith in the Divine Providence was manifested in three
main ways. The first one was the awareness that history takes place following
12 Galán Sánchez (1994: 30–40).
154
a predetermined order or plan, which is related to the already mentioned
biblical periodization of history. The fate or coincidence does not exist;
everything has its predetermined significance. The chosen people are the
tool of the Providence to intervene in the course of the mankind history.
It was the Jews in the Old Testament and later all Christians became the
chosen people. However, later the Roman Empire got into the forefront of
these Christian nations and already in the transitional period it can be registered that Christianized barbarian nations such as the Visigoths13 got into
the role of the chosen nation. The second way in which faith in Providence
extends into the description of history is the perception of the individual
historical events as instruments of the Divine Justice. Actually, there were
fixed rules how to interpret given situations: if something good happened
to someone good, it was considered a divine reward; if something bad
happened to someone evil, it was a divine punishment. If something bad
happened to someone good, it was a test that God imposed on that person.
And finally, when something good happened to someone evil, it could be
explained in two ways – either that individual was an instrument through
which the God wanted to punish all mankind for their sins or that person
only seemed to be evil or he/she was evil due to his/her ignorance. And
if it was not possible to fit the situation to any of the predetermined relationships, it could be always written that it was a secret and unpredictable
intentions of the God. The third manifestation of the faith in that the God
controls everything that happens is the fact that the miracles were considered common inherent part of everyday life.
Of course, as the chronicles were developing for many centuries, the
concept of this genre was changing and so medieval chronicles did not have
to necessarily reflect the characteristics of the first works of Late Antiquity.
Bibliography
Alvarez García, F. (1997). Tiempo, religion y política en el “Chronicon” de
Iohannes Biclarensis. La España medieval, 20, 9–30.
13 For example in the Chronicon by Iohannes Biclarensis the Visigoths are this new
chosen people. The most explicit demonstration we find in the last chapter of his
text, where he sais: … in hoc ergo certamine gratia divina et fides catholica, quam
Reccaredus Rex cum Gothis fideliter adeptus est, esse cognoscitur operata… (Ioh.
Bicl., Chron., Mommsen 1894: 218). This was noticed by several experts, e.g.
Muhlberger (1998: 92–93) or Hillgarth (1969: 283–284).
155
Baxter Wolf, K. (1999). Conquerors and chroniclers. Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press.
Campos, J. (1960). Juan de Bíclaro. Obispo de Gerona. Madrid: Consejo
superior de investigaciones científicas.
Codoñer, C. (1985). Las crónicas latinas del siglo IV. In Los géneros literarios. Actes del VII Simposi d’Estudis Clàssics; 21–24 de març de 1983.
Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 121–140.
Conte, G. B. (2003). Dějiny římské literatuty. Praha: KLP.
Galán Sánchez, P. J. (1994). El género historiográfico de la chronica. Las crónicas hispanas de la época visigoda. Cáceres: Universidad de Extramadura.
Gurevič, A. J. (1978). Kategorie středověké kultury. Praha: Mladá fronta.
Hillgarth, J. N. (1969). Historiography in visigothic Spain. Settimane di
Spoleto, XVII, 259–311.
Mommsen, Th. (Ed.) (1894). Iohannis abbatis Biclarensis chronica a. DLXVII–
DXC, MGH, Auct. ant. XI. Berlin: Weidmann, 207–220.
Muhlberger, S. (1998). War, warlords, and Christian historians from the fifth
to the seventh century. In A. Callander Murray (Ed.), After Rome’s Fall:
Narratives and Sources of Early Medieval History. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 83–93.
156
Adéla Křížová — On Origins of the Franks
It is necessary to start at the very beginning, which is from where the
Franks came, in order to create an overall picture of the Franks and to be
able to find one’s feet in the issue of this nation. With this it will be then
possible to answer questions such as who are the Franks, with whom
are they related, and why did they consider themselves brothers of Romans? Although their interpretations are different, the following sources
(Chronicle of Fredegar and Liber Historiae Francorum) locate the origin of
the Franks in Troy, more precisely to the time when Troy was conquered
by the Greeks. For the complete list of works, it is necessary to mention
Gregory of Tours and his work Historia Francorum who has, however,
a different opinion on the origin of the Franks and locates them in Pannonia. The main content of the paper is therefore to analyze and then to
use the comparative method to investigate the origin of the myth of the
Trojan origin. After this issue is resolved, we will move with the Franks
in Rhine region where they used to elect their Reges Criniti and began
creating the first laws. The last task of this paper is to outline the origin of
the name Franci with which more ancient authors dealt, however, their
explanations are not consistent.
Sources
First it is necessary to introduce two main sources upon which the article was created. The so-called Chronicle of Fredegar is a Frankish chronicle
written in Burgundy probably in the seventh century. Theodor Mommsen,
Wilhelm Levison and Wallace-Hadrill,1 prominent historians, believed
that the work had been written by several authors, it is said most often that
they were three (in terms of the language style). However, there have been
constant disputes about the number of the authors and the contemporary
historian Walter Goffart defends the opinion of one author for a change.2
Structurally, the work is divided into four books. Book one, Liber Genarationis, contains extracts from the works by Hippolyte and a chapter from
1
2
Wallace-Hadrill (1958: 531).
Goffart (1963).
157
the work by Isidore of Seville that deals with the creation of the world.
There is also a list of the Roman emperors up to the Emperor Alexander
Severus. There are excerpts from the works by Hieronymus and Hydatius
in Book two. There is a summary of the first six books by Gregory of Tours
in Book Three. However, the so-called Fredegar added his notes to these
first three books and he partially modified the text. The original work by
the so-called Fredegar can be read only in Book Four, which begins with
584 and ends with 642. Yet the work seems to be suddenly interrupted and
thus incomplete.3
The Liber Historiae Francorum was written by an unknown author in
727 as it is obvious from the text itself (the end of the sixth year of the reign
of King Theuderic IV who assumed the throne in 720) in Neustria.4 The
author as well as the author of the so-called Chronicle of Fredegar based at
least a part of the book on the work by Gregory of Tours.5 The book begins
with the tale of the origin of the Franks and ends with the reign of King
Theuderic IV. It provides us with so much valuable information on the history of that time. The book is divided into three parts. Part one contains
the transcript of the work by Gregory of Tours and describes events up to
584. Part two (584–700) is based on the works of authors whose works,
unfortunately, have not been preserved. Part three (700–727) consists
primarily of the memories and observations of the author of this work.
Despite the fact that both works are based partly on Gregory of Tours
from whom passages about the history of the Franks were transposed to
a greater or lesser extent, each work has retained its unique character. Although the Liber Historiae Francorum is younger, there is no evidence that
the author drew on the so-called Chronicle of Fredegar.6 This makes it possible to compare how different their views of the Franks, their history and
politics were.
The original homeland of the Franks
Gregory of Tours7 gives extensive information about the Franks in his Historia Francorum. He also cites earlier authors thanks to which at least fragments
3
4
5
6
7
Goffart (1963).
Broome (2013).
Broome (2013).
Wood (2006: 114).
Gregory of Tours (538–593/4).
158
of the work by Sulpicius Alexander and Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus were
preserved. In the passage about the origin of the Franks, Gregory writes that
the Franks came from Pannonia. From there they came to the west where
they first inhabited the banks of the Rhine, then they crossed the Rhine and
went to Thuringia where they settled. They elected long-haired kings from
the first and noblest family as their leaders.8 However, St. Martinus (St.
Martin), patron of Frankish kings and people,9 came from Pannonia and this
may be the reason why Gregory puts the origin of the Franks into this area.
Other works dealing with the question of the origin of the Franks are
rather of later date. It is the so-called Chronicle of Fredegar (around 660)
and the Liber Historiae Francorum (around 727). Both authors derive the
origin of the Franks from the Trojans; however, there are already considerable differences in their descriptions of the origin. Both versions begin when
Troy was conquered and its people were taking flight under the leadership
of King Priam.10
The so-called Fredegar says that the first king of the Franks (after the
fall of Troy) was Priam and then Friga assumed power. A part of the nation
settled in Macedonia where it merged with the local population,11 the other
part elected Francio the king under whose leadership they first wandered
across Asia12 and then they went to Europe, specifically to the area between
the rivers Rhine and Danube13 where Francio died. After his death the people
elected duces as their leaders.14 Here the Franks resisted the onslaught of
other tribes until they, together with other tribes in Germania, were subdued by the Romans. However, the Franks allied with the Saxons and freed
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Greg. Tur. HF II, 9. Tradunt enim multi, eosdem de Pannonia fuisse degressus, et
primum quidem litora Rheni amnes incoluisse, dehinc, transacto Rheno, Thoringiam
transmeasse, ibique iuxta pagus vel civitates regis crinitos super se creavisse de prima
et, ut ita dicam, nobiliore suorum familia.
Pernoudová (2000).
In Latin Priamus.
Fredeg., Chron. II, 4.
Fredeg., Chron. II, 6. A group called after its leader Torcoth, Torcorum (Turks)
broke away there and they settled there. Not very large group went to the River
Rhine.
Fredeg., Chron. II, 4–6: In postremum, eo quod fortissimus ipse Francio in bellum
fuisse fertur, et multo tempore cum plurimis gentibus pugnam gerens, partem Asiae
vastans, in Eurupam dirigens, inter Renum vel Danuvium et mare consedit.
Fredeg., Chron. II, 6: Ibuque mortuo Francione, cum iam per proelia tanta que
gesserat parva ex ipsis manus remanserat, duces ex se constituerunt.
159
themselves from the Romans.15 The so-called Fredegar says that since then
there has been no one who managed to overcome or defeat the Franks.16
The unknown author who wrote the Liber Historiae Francorum gives
another version of the origin of the Franks. According to him, the progenitors of the Franks were Trojans,17 however, after the fall of Troy when Aeneas
went to Italy, Priam and Antenor with 12 000 men broke away from him
and they landed on the banks of the Don.18 Then they went to Pannonia
where they founded a city called Sicambria.19 However, at that time there
was a rebellion of the Alans who were defeated by the Romans.20 And so
the Alans fled to the area of Palus Maeotis,21 and the Emperor Valentinian I
(365–378) made an offer: tribe that would evict the Alans would be relieved
from taxes for ten years. The Trojans grasped that offer and evicted the
Alans. The Emperor Valentinian I called them Franks (wild) due to their
bravery. After ten years tax collectors came, the Franks killed them and as a
result there was a great battle in which Priam was killed. The Franks then left
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Here the so-called Fredegar smoothly changes from reges to duces as the leaders
of the nation thereby avoiding the issue when and under what conditions duces
and when reges ruled the Franks.
Fredeg., Chron. II, 6: Attamen semper alterius dicione negantes, multo post tempore
cum ducibus transaegerunt usque ad tempore Ponpegi consilis, qui et cum ipsis demicans seo et cum reliquas gentium nationes, quae in Germania habitabant, totasque
dicione subdidit Romanam. Sed continuo Ranci cum Saxonibus amicicias inientes,
adversus Pompegium revellantis, eiusdem rennuerunt potestatem. Pompegius in Spaniam contra gentes demicans plurimas, moretur.
Fredeg., Chron. II, 6: Post haec nulla gens usque in presentem diem Francos potuit
superare, qui tamen eos suae dicione potuisset subiugare.
LHF I, 1: Principium regum Francorum eorumque origine vel gentium illarum ac
gesta proferamus. Est autem in Asia opidum Troianorum, ubi est civitas quae Illium
dicitur, ubi regnavit Aeneas.
LHF I, 1: Alii quoque ex principibus, Priamus videlicet et Antenor, cum reliquo
exercitu Troianorum duodecim milia intrantes in navibus, abscesserunt et venerunt
usque ripas Tanais fluminis.
Serieys (1811: 146). The name of the town was derived from the name of the
tribe of the Sicambri. Medieval writers considered this tribe for that tribe that
came from Troy via Pannonia into the Rhineland. Some researchers, however,
are of the opinion that a unit of Sicambri was stationed there under the Emperor
Alexander Severus and this place was named after them.
LHF I, 1.
Territory of about today’s estuary of the Don into the Azov Sea.
160
Sicambria and went to Germania to the banks of the River Rhine where they
lived with Marcomer, the son of Priam, and Sunno, the son of Antenor.22
It can be assumed from the aforementioned that the author of the Liber
Historiae Francorum did not read the so-called Chronicle of Fredegar.23 At
the same time neither work has been based on any classic text and has
very little in common with the Greek and Roman versions about the city
of Troy – especially if focused on the fate of Priam and Antenor. Thus, an
obvious question arises, namely, why did both authors choose the Trojans
as the ancestors of the Franks? It is possible that the basis of this theory
could have occurred earlier at the Gauls. It was the Franks who considered
themselves to be the successors of Gauls. They derived their origin (at least
according to some authors) from the Trojans, too. The Greek historian
Timagenes already mentioned by Ammianus Marcelinus writes about a
sort of connection between the Trojans and the Gauls in his work.24 In
feeling as the successors of the Gauls in the territory in question, the Franks
were able to accept this tradition, transform it and consider it theirs. As
for this issue, it is necessary to mention the Arverni, a Gaulish tribe, of
which Sidonius Apollinaris speaks as the brothers of the Romans and the
descendants of the Trojans.25
Colonia ulpia traiana
In the past the aforementioned theory about the Frankish origin was also
supported by its advocates with the foundation of the so-called Little (New)
Troy at the bank of the Rhine. The earliest reference is once again in the
so-called Chronicle of Fredegar where it is written about a group led by
Francio that settled at the banks of the Rhine and they tried to build a city
22 LHF I, 4; Marcomer and Sunno are historically verifiable figures. Hieron. Chron.
ad a. 377; Ammian. XXX, 3, 7; XXXI 10, 6; Orosius, Hist. adv. pag. VII 32, 10;
Greg. Tur. HF II 9.
23 Wood (2006: 114).
24 Ammian. XV 9, 2: Ambigentes super origine prima Gallorum scriptores veteres notitiam
reliquere negotii semiplenam, sed postea Timagenes et diligentia Graecus et lingua haec
quae diu sunt ignorata collegit ex multiplicibus libris. Cuius fidem secuti obscuritate
dimota eadem distincte docebimus et aperte; Ammian. XV 9, 5: Aiunt quidam paucos
post excidium Troiae fugitantes Graecos ubique dispersos loca haec occupasse tunc vacua.
25 Sid. Apoll. Ep. VII 7, 2: Arvernorum, pro dolor, servitus, qui, si prisca replicarentur,
audebant se quondam fratres Latio dicere et sanguine ab lliaco populos computare.
161
named after the city of Troy not far from the river.26 The city of Colonia
Ulpia Traiana (today Xanten) was considered that place.
This whole theory is based on a remarkably similar Roman name of
Traiana and Troiana. Modern scholars, however, attribute this similarity
mere coincidence that might have arisen by mangling especially the oral
version of the name Traiana into the name Troiana,27 which was probably
used by the advocates of this theory in the past, especially at the time when
it was important to realize one’s own history. Another incentive could have
been the fact that the Sugambri were settled in those areas as early as in the
period of the Roman Empire.28 Therefore, it is possible to read in the works
of medieval authors that Xanten was described as Little Troy. In the description of the Bishops’ customary rights of Xanten of 1463 it is mentioned
ind hefft dese stat Xancten Klein Troien geheiten translated Xanten is (was)
called Little Troy.29 In the treatise Magnum Chronicon Belgicum of 1498 it
is stated: in troia minori (scilicet Xantis).30 The reference in the Chronik der
Grafen von Cleve and in the work by the archbishops of Cologne between
1499 and 1558: Troiae minoris, nunc Xanten.31
Building independence and own lineage of kings
In both works further development of the Frankish society is described,
especially explanation of the origin of their independence. After settling in
the territory around the Rhine, they began to build independence and they
elected a king as their leader. According to the so-called Chronicle of Fredegar,
everything happened in the way that after the Romans subdued the Franks,
the Franks allied with the Saxons, they rebelled against the Roman domination and thus gained independence.32 Since then they refused foreign rules.33
26 Fredeg., Chron. III, 2: Eurupam pervagantis, cum uxoris et liberis Reni ripam occupant, nec procul a Reno civitatem ad instar Trogiae nominis aedificare conati sunt.
Ceptum quidem, sed inperfectum opus remansit.
27 James (1997: 231).
28 Bednaříková (2009: 160).
29 Hommel (1956: 328).
30 Magnum Chronicon Belgicum, 65.
31 Hommel (1956: 328).
32 Fredeg., Chron. II, 6.
33 Fredeg., Chron. III, 2: Multis post temporibus cum ducibus externas dominationis
semper negantes.
162
The so-called Fredegar writes about Priam and his successors, Friga and
Francio, as the kings (reges).34 After they settled at the Rhine, the Franks
experienced times of reign without kings and duces (chiefs, leaders) ruled
instead of them. This period has not been described here further. However, then there was a situation when they elected Theudemer, the son of
Ricomere, which was a descendant of Francio, their king. They sought for
a long-haired king among their people in order to build on the earlier tradition.35 It is then written in the Liber Historiae Francorum that when the Franks
came to Germania, they established their own laws and lineage of their own
kings36 in the way that Priam’s son Marcomer advised the Franks to elect his
son Pharamond their long-haired king.37 In this treatise, however, Priam,
Antenor and their sons Marcomer and Sunno are portrayed as principes.38
There is no doubt that it was extremely important for the Franks as a
newly emerging nation to create their own lineage of kings, respectively
own laws, in order to be able to further build on something and to further
develop themselves in the future. It is obvious from the aforementioned
sources that the Franks elected reges crinite, in other words long-haired kings,
as their leaders. From this it can be concluded that the people considered
these men wise and brave.
History of the merovengian dynasty
According to the so-called Chronicle of Fredegar, Merovech was born to
Chlodio’s wife and the mythical sea creature Quinotaur.39 By this the author most probably wanted to point to and justify why the Franks were so
exceptional in terms of their abilities at seas and waterways.40 In the writings
by Gregory of Tours and in the Liber Historiae Francorum it is mentioned
that Merovech was a Chlodio’s relative, not his son.41
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Fredeg., Chron. III, 2.
Fredeg., Chron. III, 9.
LHF I, 4.
LHF I, 4: Marchomiris quoque eis dedit hoc consilium, et elegerunt Faramundo,
ipsius filio, et eleveverunt eum regem super se crinitum.
LHF I, 3.
Fredeg., Chron. III, 12.
Broome (2013: 7).
LHF 5; Greg. Tur., HF II, 9: Chlogio autem, missis exploratoribus ad urbem Camaracum, perlustrata omnia, ipse secutus, Romanus proteret, civitatem adpraehendit,
163
The Franks were really exceptional as for shipping and seamanship. For
example, it is documented in the Panegyrici Latini how the Franks settled in
the Black Sea region were able to sail back to their homeland by ships they
had made.42 As for their penetration into the interior of Gaul, they widely
used local rivers on which they travelled from the area around the Rhine
up to those remote locations.
The name Franci
Already several ancient authors were engaged in the origin of naming the
Franks. The first person that claimed that the Franks had named themselves
after their leader was Johannes Lydus.43 The same explanation can be found
even in the so-called Chronicle of Fredegar where it is specifically stated that
they named themselves after their king Francio.44
The Liber Historiae Francorum gives slightly different naming conditions.
After they evicted the Alans upon order of the Emperor Valentinian I they
earned the name Franci, which means wild in the Attic language, thanks
to their bravery.
Isidore of Seville45 gives both types of naming. According to him, some
believe that the name Franks was created after their leader, others are inclined to the theory that they earned this designation thanks to their rude
behavior and wild mind.
Confrontation with historical facts, roman
literature and archaeological findings
The basic lack of the theory about the origin of the Franks can be found
already in those sources that say that two generations passed from the fall
of Troy till the Franks settled in the Rhineland and according to the Liber
42
43
44
45
in qua paucum tempus resedens, usque Sumenam fluvium occupavit. De huius stirpe
quidam Merovechum regem fuisse adserunt, cuius fuit filius Childericus.
Paneg. Lat. V, 18.
Lydus, J., De Magistratibus III, 56.
Fredeg., Chron. II, 5; III, 2: … et per Francionem hii alii vocati sunt Franci.
Isid. Orig. IX, 2, 101: Franci a quodam proprio duce vocari putantur. Alii eos a
feritate morum nuncupatos existimant. Sunt enim in illis mores inconditi, naturalis
ferocitas animorun.
164
Histroriae Francorum, their short stay in Pannonia and their arrival in Germania was in the fourth century AD.46
Settlement in the area around today’s Xanten may date back to the fourth
century BC. However, as for the city itself, there was initially a military camp
for invasions behind the Rhine (1st cent. BC) and later civilian buildings
were annexed. In 100 AD the Emperor Trajan gave it the statute of Colonia
and the town was renamed to Colonia Ulpia Traiana.47
It is said in the primary sources (firmly stated in the Liber Historiae
Francorum in particular) that the Franks arrived in the Rhineland in the
fourth century AD. Thanks to the written sources, it is possible to locate
the individual Proto-Frankish tribes in the Rhineland already at the time
before Christ. The oldest references can be found in Commentarii de Bello
Gallico by C. Julius Caesar.48 He mentions a meeting with the Usipetes and
Tencteri tribes that during the retreat before the Germanic Suebi in 55 BC
crossed the Rhine. Caesar wanted these tribes to settle in the territory of
the Ubii that he situated on the right bank of the Middle Rhine. Finally,
however, there was a war and the remnants of the Usipetes and Tencteri
found their refuge at the Sigambri’s, a tribe living on the Lower Rhine in
Germania.49 Krüger says the original position of the Usipetes and Tencteri
was in the area between the rivers Lippe, Lahn and Fulda until 70 BC when
Suebi came to this territory and thus forced the aforementioned tribes to
migrate.50 We learn about the other Proto-Frankish tribes in connection
with the fight in the Teutoburg Forest where under the leadership of Arminius the tribes of Bructeri, Cherusci, Marsi, Chatti, Sicambri and Chauci
allied.51 More references to the Proto-Frankish tribes can be found in this
period. The author’s aim has been to only substantiate evidence that there
have been written records of these tribes in the areas around the Rhine
already since the mid-first century BC.
In connection with the written sources, it is necessary to mention geographic works. In his Geographica52 Strabo locates the tribes of Sicambri,
Cherusci or Chatti. The oldest map which displays some of the Proto-Frankish
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
LHF 1.
Müller (2008).
Caesar, BG IV.
Bednaříková (2009: 18).
Krüger (1983: 52).
Rochala (2005).
Strab., Geographica.
165
tribes is the Ptolemy’s Geógrafiké Hyfégésis in which53 the author mentions
the Bructeri, Sicambri, Tencteri, Usipetes tribes and others.54
Proto-Frankish ceramics can be dated no sooner than back in the second
century AD. Von Uslar locates it in the area between Koblenz and Nijmegen,
east of the Rhine to the River Weser.55
Archaeological excavations at the sites of Vermand, Samson, Eprave and
Haillot,56 large Frankish burial grounds, provide material from the end of
the fourth century AD to the early sixth century AD.57 Ceramics and glass
finds are largely represented, weapons and jewelry to a lesser extent. The
development of the Salia from their status foederati, settled on the outskirts
of the Roman Empire, through their expansion into Gaulish inland, to establishing an independent state of Franks can be proved especially based
on the ceramics.58
As for the two works on which this paper has been mainly drawn
(Chronicle of Fredegar and Liber Historiae Francorum), they differ in details
only, however, they have at least one thing in common. Both works seek to
explain the origin of the Franks and to show continuity between the mythical origins and past which can be historically documented.
Both mentioned sources provide a fictional theory about the origin
of the Franks. However, these data are interesting in how important in the
early Middle Ages it was for the Franks, as a newly thriving nation, to create
their own history on which they could rely during crises. It was the Franks
who after the fall of the Roman Empire conquered a large part of Western
Europe and who felt to be the Roman successors or even brothers (quite
rightly in the context of maintaining Christianity and protection of the
Roman monuments). The theory about Trojans as the common ancestors
of the Franks and Romans was of great historical significance for them.
53 Claudius Ptolemaeus, Geógrafiké Hyfégésis II, 10.
54 Ptolemy, Geographia: Habitant autem Germaniam praeter Rhenum fluvium, si a
septentrionibus progredimur, Bructeri minores et Sygambri, infra quos Suevi Langobardi; deinde Tencteri et Incriones inter Rhenum et Abnobaeos montes.
55 James (1997: 39).
56 Rogge (2004: 403, 407).
57 Schmauder (2003: 283).
58 Lasko (1971: 21).
166
Bibliography
Barlow, J. (1995). Gregory of Tours and the Myth of Trojan Origins of the
Franks. Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 29, 86–95.
Bednaříková, J. (2009). Frankové a Evropa. Praha: Vyšehrad.
Bednaříková, J. (2013). Stěhování národů. Praha: Vyšehrad.
Bleiber, W. (1988). Das Frankenreich der Merowinger. Wien: Böhlau Verlag.
Boone, W. J. (1954). De Franken van hun eerste optreden tot de dood van
Childerik. Amsterdam: Laporte & Dosse.
Broome, R. (2013). Approaches to the Frankish Community in the Chronicle
of Fredegar and Liber Historiae Francorum. Introduction, 2015.01.29.
Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/3708458/Approaches_
to_the_Frankish_community_in_the_Chronicle_of_Fredegar_and_
Liber_Historiae_Francorum.
Collins, R. (2007). Die Fredegar-Chroniken, Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Studien und Texte 44. Hannover: Hahn.
Dörler, P. (2013). The Liber Historiae Francorum – a Model for a New
Frankish Self-confidence. In T. Barnwell – J. R. Berg – R. Broome,
(Eds.), Networks and Neighbours. (volume 1, 23–43). Leeds: Punctum
books.
Goffart, W. (1963). The Fredegar Problem Reconsidered. Speculum, 38,
206–241. DOI: 10.2307/2852450
Hommel, H. (1956). Die trojanische Herkunft der Franken. Rheinisches
Museum für Philologie, 99, 323–341.
James, E. (1997). Frankové. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.
Kaiser, R. (1997). Die Franken: Roms Erben und Wegbereiter Europas? Idstein: Schulz-Kirchner.
Krüger, B. (1983). Die Germanen: Geschichte und Kultur der germanischen
Stämme in Mitteleuropa. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Krusch, B. (1882). Die Chronicae des sogenannten Fredegar. Neues Archiv
der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 7, 421–516.
Lasko, P. (1971). The Kingdom of the Franks: Northwest Europe before Charlemagne. London: Thames and Hudson.
Macmaster, T. J. (2014). The Origin of Origins: Trojans, Turks and the
Birth of the Myth of Trojan Origins in the Medieval World. La légende
de Troie de l’Antiquité Tardive au Moyen Âge. Variations, innovations,
modifications et réécritures. Atlantide, 2, 1–12.
Müller, M. (2008). Colonia Ulpia Traiana. Xanten und sein Umland in römischer Zeit. Mainz: Zabern.
167
Nonn, U. (2010). Die Franken. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Périn, P. & Feffer, L. Ch. (1997). Les Francs. Paris: Armand Collins.
Pernoudová, R. (2000). Martin z Tours: Ten, který věděl, co je správné. Praha:
Volvox Globator.
Perry, W. C. (1857). The Franks, from Their First Appearance in History to
the Death of King Pepin. London: Spottiswoode & Co.
Rochala, P. (2005). Las Teutoburski 9 rok n.e. Warszawa: Bellona.
Rogge, M. (2004). Sint-Gillis-Dendermonde (Prov. East-Flanders), Grave
B2-1933 and the 5th-century Migrations of Thuringian Foederati in
the Scheldt Valley and Northern France. In F. Vermeulen – K. Sas –
W. Dhaeze, (Eds.), Archaeology in Confrontation: Aspects of Roman
Military Presence in the Northwest, Archaeological Reports Ghent University 2. Ghent: Academia Press, 393–424.
Schmauder, M. (2003). The Franks (Archaeology). In H. W. Goetz – J. Jarnut – W. Pohl, (Eds.), Regna and Gentes: The Relationship between Late
Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation
of the Roman World. Boston: Brill, 271–306.
Sergeant, L. (1898). The Franks: From Their Origin as a Confederacy to the
Establishment of the Kingdom of France and the German Empire. New
York: G. P. Putnam’s sons.
Serieys, A. (1811). Bibliothèque académique ou Choix fait par une société de
gens de lettres de différens Mémoires des Académies françaises et étrangères,
la plupart traduits, pour la première fois, du latin, de l’italien, de l’anglais,
etc. Paris: Delacour.
Vingo, P. (2010). From Tribe to Province to State: an historical-ethnographic
and archaeological perspective for reinterpreting the settlement processes of
the Germanic populations in western Europe between Late Antiquity and
the Early Middle Ages. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. (1958). Fredegar and the History of France. Bulletin
of the John Rylands Library, 4, 527–550.
Whittaker, C. R. & Garnsey, P. (1997). Rural life in the later Roman empire. In
A. Cameron – P. Garnsey, (Eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History Volume
13: The Late Empire, AD 337–425. (volume 13, 277–311). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wood, I. (2006). Defining the Franks. Frankish origin in early medieval
historiography. In T. F. X. Noble (Ed.), From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms. London: Routledge, 110–119.
Zöllner, E. (1970). Geschichte der Franken bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts. München: Beck.
168
Marek Meško — An Overview of Byzantine Sources
about the Pechenegs (11th and 12th centuries)
From today’s retrospective point of view, it is possible to state with great
certainty that the 11th and 12th centuries represent a key period in the
millennial history of the Byzantine Empire. Not only did Byzantium reach
its greatest political and cultural boom in this period, its development in
this period also left behind significant traces and predestined the direction
of other important events in the centuries to come. Its cultural radiation
in this period reached to a greater or lesser extent all parts of the then Europe; however, many incentives also directed eastward into the Eurasian
steppe area, which has always been the subject of lively Byzantine interest.
Successive migration waves of nomadic peoples have been coming from
there for centuries and oftentimes had destructive effect on the Byzantine
territories in the Balkans. Byzantine historians repeatedly documented
raids of new and previously unknown invaders from the steppe. In the
11th and 12th centuries, these were mainly the Pechenegs and, to a lesser
extent, also the Uzes and the Cumans. The purpose of this paper is to
provide a brief overview of the sources from this period mentioning these
nomadic peoples.
Michael Psellos
Michael Psellos represents one of the most interesting historical figures of
the Byzantine Empire in the 11th century. He was born soon after 1018.1
He started his career at the imperial court in the first half of the 11th century and thanks to his exceptional education and intellect he made it to
important positions at court (especially regarding law). During the reign of
emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (1042–1055), he held the position
of the so-called consul of the philosophers (hypatos ton filosofon)2 and later
became a personal advisor and, to some extent, also an eminence grise of
other emperors, e.g. Isaac I Komnenos (1057–1059) and Constantine X
1
2
Σάθας (1874: xxx).
Σάθας (1874: lvi).
169
Doukas (1059–1067).3 He ended his varied and lengthy political career at
the imperial court, which he pursued also thanks to his highly developed
skills of intriguing and a large dose of political opportunism, serving as a
personal teacher of Michael, Constantine X Doukas’ son, who succeeded
on the imperial throne in 1071 as Michael VII. At the end of his life (he
died probably in 1082), he wrote a text entitled Chronographia,4 where he
described historical events of the Byzantine Empire from 976 to 1077 from
his own perspective.5 It is a continuation of the chronicle of Paul Diakonos.
However, this is not a typical historical work, because Michael Psellos does
not bother with exact dating of events he mentions or with a thorough description of all the details. The work includes only his own memories and
personal depiction of backstage practices of high-level Byzantine policy at
the imperial court in Constantinople.6 Despite, or perhaps because of this,
his work sometimes offers unprecedented insightful and detailed information about some events. Its great contribution lies in his particularly pertinent
and plastic literary portraits and psyche of emperors and empresses who
Michael Psellos gradually served in the course of his long career.
Although this author de facto does not mention the Pechenegs (except
for the expedition of Isaac Komnenos),7 I included him into this overview,
as his work provides us with useful backstage information about activities
at the Byzantine imperial court in the second half of the 11th century, i.e.
during the period of conflicts with these nomadic peoples.
Michael Attaleiates
Michael Attaleiates was a younger contemporary of Michael Psellos. He came
from the port city of Attaleia (today’s Antalya, Turkey) to Constantinople
at a young age to pursue studies in law.8 His career at the imperial court
in Constantinople culminated during the reign of Romanos IV Diogenes
(1068–1071), Michael VII Doukas (1071–1078) and Nikephoros III Botaneiates (1078–1081),9 when he served as krités epi tou hippodromou kai
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 304).
Psel. (1928).
Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 304).
Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 304).
Σάθας (1874: 249).
Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 305).
Kazhdan & Franklin (1984: 24).
170
tou vélou.10 In 1080, towards the end of his life, he wrote a historical work
entitled Historia,11 which covers the period between 1034 and 1079.12 This
work is particularly important because it, in a sense, complements the work
Chronographia by Michael Psellos, and provides us with an alternative view
of some events. Michael Attaleites also described events which he often directly witnessed.13 The text contains several clearly celebratory parts in honor
of the aforementioned emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates;14 therefore,
it is probable that Michael Attaleiates dedicated his work to this emperor.
Attaleiates’ historical work includes a very detailed, yet incomplete,
description of a massive invasion of the Pechenegs to the south of the Danube in the winter of 1046/47,15 the first Byzantine-Pecheneg war between
1049 to 1053,16 as well as fighting against these nomads during the reign
of emperor Isaakios Komnenos.17 This author also described the invasion
of the Uzes in 1064/65 which was stopped with the help of the Pechenegs
living in Paristrion,18 and finally also some episodes from the fight for the
imperial throne in 1078 where also the Pechenegs fought on the side of
the rebellious general Nikephoros Bryennios at the battle of Kalavryai.19
John Skylitzes
Synopsis historion penned by John Skylitzes20 represents another important source for the history of Byzantium in the 11th century. It is a classic
chronicle describing the history of humanity since the creation of the world.
Therefore, older periods are less interesting than the description of events
between 811 and 1057, which is actually a continuation of the well-known
chronicle of Theophanes.21 Very little information has been preserved about
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Krumbacher (1891: 74).
Attal. (1853).
Krumbacher (1891: 74); Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 305).
Krumbacher (1891: 74); Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 305).
E.g. Attal. (1853: 56, 185); Kazhdan & Franklin (1984: 24).
Attal. (1853: 30–31).
Attal. (1853: 31–43).
Attal. (1853: 66–68).
Attal. (1853: 83–87).
Attal. (1853: 288–291).
Scyl. (1979).
Krumbacher (1891: 138); Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 300).
171
personal life of John Skylitzes; it is assumed that he was born in the thema
Thrakésion around 1040 and died after 1101. John Skylitzes was a peer and
a contemporary of Michael Psellos.22 During his life, he received a highranking court title kouropalatés and the position of the chief of the watch
(droungarios tés víglés), and as the work of Georgios Kedrenos notes, he is
identified with his own name as John Thrakesios.23
Considering information about the Pechenegs, Skylitze’s chronicle covers contacts between the Pechenegs and the Byzantines during the 10th and
the beginning of the 11th centuries, as well as their first raids to the Byzantine
territory starting from 1027, which intensified until 1036.24 Unfortunately,
these events are described in a dry, minimalist style. The overview of the
Pechenegs shortly before their massive invasion to the Byzantine territory
to the south of the Danube in 1046/47 is more detailed and complements
the text of Michael Attaleiates.25 The same applies to the description of the
first Byzantine-Pecheneg war from 1047 to 1053.26
John Skylitzes continuatus
In some manuscripts, the text Synopsis historion by John Skylitzes does not
end in 1057 (see above), but continues uninterrupted until 1079.27 Therefore, the text covering events from 1057 to 1079 is nowadays considered
an independent piece of work entitled as continuation of John Skylitzes, or
John Skylitzes continuatus.28 Based on the comparative textual methods,
some historians believe that the author was also John Skylitzes, some deny
this possibility.29
This work narrates about the expedition of Isaac Komnenos against
the Pechenegs in 1059,30 as well as the aforementioned raid of the Uzes in
1064/65 (again, it is possible to confront these passages with the text of
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Krumbacher (1891: 138).
Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 300).
Scyl. (1979: 343–399).
Scyl. (1979: 455).
Scyl. (1979: 465–471).
Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 306).
Scyl. con. (1968).
Kazhdan & Franklin (1984: 33); Scyl. con. (1968: 76–99); Seibt (1976: 81);
Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 306).
30 Scyl. con. (1968: 106–107).
172
Michael Attaleiates).31 Contrary to the Attaleiates’ chronicle, Skylitzes describes the insurgency in the province of Paristrion, which was later headed
by the Pechenegs residing in this area,32 as well as other activities of various Pecheneg groups in the turmoil preceding the accession of Alexios I
Komnenos to the throne.33
Anna Komnene
The Alexiad by the first-born daughter of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos34
represents a unique historical source in the context of the whole history
of the Byzantine Empire from the end of 11th to the beginning of the 12th
centuries. The impulse to write this text was for this purple-born historian
the death of her husband Nikephoros Bryennios. Nikephoros Bryennios
left behind an unfinished historical work, whose aim was to describe the life
and reign of his father-in-law Alexios Komnenos.35 After Bryennios’ death
(after 1136), Anna decided to continue in his unfinished work. Therefore,
the Alexiad focuses solely on the description of events which happened
during Alexios’ life and reign, i.e. between 1069 and 1118.36
Since Anna Komnene wrote her work after a long period of almost half
a century since the historical events she described happened, there have
been doubts among historians about the authenticity of information it
contains.37 Although she was born in December of 1083, Anna could not
witness most of the military activities in the first half of her father’s reign
she describes because of her young age.38
Historians have pointed out several times that this narrative full of details
and dedicated descriptions of military operations does not really correspond
to the philosophical and art “humanistic” education which the princess received during her life at the imperial court.39 Historian J. Howard-Johnston
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Scyl. con. (1968: 113–115).
Scyl. con. (1968: 166).
Scyl. con. (1968: 175–176, 180–182, 184–185).
Alexias (2001).
Buckler (1968: 230).
Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 325).
Χριστοφιλοπούλου (2001: 21); Angold (1997:28). Cf. Birkenmeier (2002: 3–4).
Howard-Johnston (1996: 264, 274–275).
Χριστοφιλοπούλου (2001: 18); Hunger (1978: 401–402); Chalandon (1900:
viii–ix); Krumbacher (1891: 78); Howard-Johnston (1996: 265–266).
173
put it very aptly when he said that if historians did not know the name of
the author of the Alexiad, they would probably came to conclusion that
the work had been written by an experienced high-ranking military officer, regularly participating in person on military campaigns of Alexios I
Komnenos.
A key to solve this problem is the relationship between the text of Anna
Komnene and the text Hylé historias written by her husband Nikephoros
Bryennios, including the notes and excerpts which he definitely gathered
when writing from 1118 until his death. His material had to be extensive
and probably contained already processed information which was based
on his personal experience, as well as on archival materials. No scientists
nowadays deny that Anna Komnene directly drew information from her
husband’s work when writing the first two books of the Alexiad, and to some
extent also took it over, so that some parts verbatim match passages from
Hylé historias.40 Her text faithfully copies the relevant part of her husband’s
work also in other cases. However, Anna Komnene usually avoided using
Bryennios’ specific military terms and replaced them with more general
expressions; she also modified his mostly straightforward and objective
style of narration to the more artistic and archaizing one that was in line
with the models of ancient Greek historical texts.41
In terms of information about the Pechenegs and the Cumans, the
Alexiad represents a very valuable historical source since it is the only work
which in some detail describes the second Byzantine-Pecheneg war under
the reign of Alexios Komnenos;42 yet, her description is not exhaustive
and there are significant gaps, as well as chronological inaccuracies. Anna
Komnene also details the great Cuman invasion to the Balkans in 1094/95.43
John Zonaras
Historical work Epitomé historion by John Zonaras44 consists of eighteen
books and describes historical events from the creation of the world to
1118.45 Description of the Byzantine history (i.e. the period from the reign
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chalandon (1900: x); Birkenmeier (2002: 4); Любарский (1964: 103).
Любарский (1964: 103–106).
Alexias (2001: 199–251).
Alexias (2001: 283–295).
Zon. (1897).
Hunger (1978: 416).
174
of Emperor Constantine I the Great) starts with the book XII.46 During the
reign of Alexios I Komnenos, John Zonaras belonged to the higher-ranking
bureaucracy strata in the capital, first as megas droungarios tés viglés (chief of
the watch in Constantinople) and then as protoasekrétés (senior secretary)
of the imperial office.47 Later, he withdrew from public life and became a
monk in the monastery on the island of St. Glykeria in Propontidos.48 It
was there where his historical work was written; he gathered information
for the text from Byzantine sources of the 11th century.49 There is no direct
information about his further life, but he most certainly lived until the
mid-12th century.50 Zonaras’ evidence of the reign of Emperor Alexios I
Komnenos is generally highly valued by historians, as when compared to
the panegyric-like text of the Alexiad, it offers more independent and critical
evaluation of the reign of this emperor.51
The text which also mentions the war of Alexios I Komnenos against
the Pechenegs can be found in book XVII and is considerably shorter than
the narrative of Anna Komnene. In fact, Zonaras condensed the long-time
course of two main Byzantine military campaigns of 1087 and 1091 into a
single brief description52 – i.e. the same campaigns that are more detailed
in the text by Anna Komnene. In view of this finding, it is obvious that the
main source of information of John Zonaras in relation to the war against
the Pechenegs was the Alexiad, and therefore, besides the critical tone, his
text cannot offer us any new information diametrically different from the
details known from Anna Komnene’s description.
John Kinnamos
Historical treatise entitled Epitome (Greek: summary, digest) penned by the
Byzantine historian John Kinnamos53 consists of seven books and describes
46 Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 321).
47 Krumbacher (1891: 141); Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 321); Χριστοφιλοπούλου
(2001: 23); Hunger (1978: 416).
48 Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 321).
49 For a detailed analysis of sources used by John Zonaras and recently published
by D. Černoglazov, see: Черноглазов (2004: 137–154).
50 Krumbacher (1891: 142); Χριστοφιλοπούλου (2001: 23); Hunger (1978: 416).
51 Χριστοφιλοπούλου (2001: 23); Hunger (1978: 417); Birkenmeier (2002: 7).
52 Zon. (1897: 740–741).
53 Cin. (1836).
175
the events from 1118 to 1176, i.e. the events that occurred during the reign
of Emperors John II Komnenos (1118–1143) and his son Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180).54 John Kinnamos was born shortly after 1143.55 It is
believed that he pursued his career at the imperial court during the second
half of the reign of Manuel I Komnenos.56 John Kinnamos wrote his historical treatise probably between the years 1180–1183.57 In this respect, it is
apparent that this Byzantine historian was unable to recount the historical events, which occurred already during the reign of John II Komnenos,
based on his own life experience. However, owing to his post of imperial
secretary (basilikos grammatikos),58 John Kinnamos had access to the imperial archives, where he could easily obtain documents necessary for the
Epitome. Nevertheless, the historians who have done a detailed analysis of
his works often state that his style of describing historical events is short
and laconic, especially in the first book of his chronicle.59 Moreover, the
chronological data provided by the author are often inaccurate. Additionally, besides speaking about expeditions of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos
against the Hungarian Empire, in which he participated personally, his text
rarely contains lively and detailed narration.60
Niketas Choniates
The chronicle of Niketas Choniates entitled Historia61 consists of 21 books
and covers the period of the Byzantine history between 1118 and 1206.62
Like the above-mentioned John Kinnamos, also Niketas Choniates was
born in the Phrygian city Chonai in the western Asia Minor after the death
of Emperor John II Komnenos around 1150, or according to some historians after 1160.63 The young prospective historian started his career in the
Byzantine administration towards the end of the reign of Emperor Manuel I
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 345).
Krumbacher (1891: 82); Grecu (1949: 194).
Birkenmeier (2002: 23).
Krumbacher (1891: 82); Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 345).
Krumbacher (1891: 83).
Krumbacher (1891: 84).
Birkenmeier (2002: 27).
Chon. (1975).
Grecu (1949: 197); Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 355).
Krumbacher (1891: 84); Grecu (1949: 197).
176
Komnenos.64 Under Emperor Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195), he became
logothétés tón sekretón.65 Thanks to his successful career as a government
official, Niketas Choniates belonged to the elite living in the Byzantine
capital. Events related to the arrival of the IVth crusade in 1203 and the
conquest of Constantinople by western knights in April 1204 represented
a sharp turning point in his brilliant career. Under dramatic circumstances,
Niketas Choniates had to leave the Byzantine capital and settled down in
Nicaea where he held a senior position at the court of the first emperor
of the so-called Nicaean empire, Theodore I Laskaris (1204–1222).66 He
completed the writing of his extensive historical work in Nicaea, where he
probably died shortly after 1210.67
Regarding the characteristics of Choniates’ Historia, the same conclusions apply to it as to the work of John Kinnamos. Although the whole
work is from a rhetorical point of view written in richer and more colorful
language, events of the reign of John II Komnenos are described there with
a similar lack for details, which is characteristic of the work of Kinnamos.68
Striking similarity of both historical works has led many historians to a
conclusion that Niketas Choniates knew the chronicle of John Kinnamos
well and that he used it as a basis for his own work, especially when describing the reign of John II Komnenos (1118–1143) and Manuel I Komnenos
(1143–1180).69 However, when comparing the two chronicles we can see
that Choniates’ Historia contains more detailed information than the work
of John Kinnamos. This finding is probably based on the fact that a higher
position at the Constantinople imperial court offered Choniates much
easier access to various documents in the imperial archives than to the
lower-ranked official John Kinnamos.
Abbreviations
Alexias — Annæ Comnenæ Alexias. Ed. D. Reinsch – A. Kambylis (2001),
CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.
64
65
66
67
68
69
Birkenmeier (2002: 30).
Birkenmeier (2002: 31).
Καραγιαννόπουλος (1987: 355).
Krumbacher (1891: 85).
Birkenmeier (2002: 30).
Grecu (1949: 197, 200–201).
177
Attal. — Michaelis Attaliotæ Historia. Ed. I. Bekker (1853), CSHB. Bonn:
Weber.
CFHB — Corpus Fontium Historiæ Byzantinæ
Chon. — Nicetæ Choniatæ Historia. Ed. I. A. van Dieten (1975), CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Cin. — Ioannis Cinnami Epitome. Ed. A. Meineke (1836), CSHB. Bonn:
Weber.
CSHB — Corpus Scriptorum Historiæ Byzantinæ
JÖB — Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik
Psel. — Michel Psellos: Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle à Byzance (976–
1071). Ed. E. Renauld (1926–1928). (2 vols). Paris: Societe d’Edition
„Les Belles Lettres”.
REB — Revue des Etudes Byzantines
Scyl. — Ioannis Scylitzæ Synopsis historiarum. Ed. I. Thurn (1973), CFHB.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Scyl. con. — He synecheia tes chronographias tou Ioannou Skylitse. Ed. E. Th.
Tsolakes (1968). Thessaloniké: Hetaireia Makedonikon Spoudon.
Zon. — Ioannis Zonaræ Epitome Historiarum. (tomus III). Ed. M. Pinder
(1897), CSHB. Bonn: Weber.
ВВ — Византийский Временник
Bibliography
Primary texts
Anna Comnena, Annæ Comnenæ Alexias. Ed. D. Reinsch – A. Kambylis
(2001), CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Attaliata, Michael, Michaelis Attaliotæ Historia. Ed. I. Bekker (1853), CSHB.
Bonn: Weber.
Kinnamos, Ioannes, Ioannis Cinnami Epitome. Ed. A. Meineke (1836),
CSHB. Bonn: Weber.
Nicetas Choniates, Nicetæ Choniatæ Historia. Ed. I. A. van Dieten (1975),
CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Psellos, Michel, Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle à Byzance (976–1071).
Ed. E. Renauld (1926–1928). (2 vols). Paris: Societe d’Edition „Les
Belles Lettres”.
Scylitzes, Ioannes, Ioannis Scylitzæ Synopsis historiarum. Ed. I. Thurn (1973),
CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.
178
Scylitzes, Ioannes continuatus, He synecheia tes chronographias tou Ioannou
Skylitse. Ed. E. Th. Tsolakes (1968). Thessaloniké: Hetaireia Makedonikon Spoudon.
Zonaras, Ioannes, Ioannis Zonaræ Epitome Historiarum. (tomus III). Ed.
M. Pinder (1897), CSHB. Bonn: Weber.
Secondary texts
Angold, M. (1997). Η Βυζαντινή αυτοκρατορία από το 1025 έως το 1204. Μία
πολιτική ιστορία. Athens: Papademas.
Birkenmeier, J. (2002). The Development of the Komnenian Army 1081–1180.
Leiden – Boston – Köln: Brill.
Buckler, G. (1968). Anna Comnena, a Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Chalandon, F. (1900). Essai sur le règne d’ Alexis Ier Comnène (1081–1118).
Paris: A. Picard.
Grecu, V. (1949). Nicétas Choniatès a-t-il connu l’histoire de Jean Cinnamos? REB, 7, 194–204. DOI: 10.3406/rebyz.1949.1012
Howard-Johnston, J. (1996). Anna Komnene and the Alexiad. In M. E.
Mullet – D. Smythe, (Eds.), Alexius I Komnenos Papers of the Second
Belfast Byzantine International Colloquium, 14–16 April 1989. Belfast:
Belfast Byzantine Enterprises, 260–302.
Hunger, H. (1978). Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 1:
Philosophie – Rhetorik – Epistolographie – Geschichtschreibung – Geographie. München: Beck.
Kazhdan, A. & Franklin, S. (1984). Studies on Byzantine Literature of the
Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krumbacher, K. (1891). Geschichte der Byzantinischen Literatur von Justinian
bis zum Ende des Oströmischen Reiches (527–1453). München: Beck.
Seibt, W. (1976). Ioannes Skylitzes, zur Person des Chronisten. JÖB, 25,
81–85.
Καραγιαννόπουλος, E. Ι. (1987). Πηγαί τής Βυζαντινής Ιστορίας. Thessaloniké: Purnaras.
Σάθας, Κ. (1972 [1874]). Mεσαιωνική Bιβλιοθήκη. (τόμος Δ΄). Athens:
Gregoriades.
Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Α. (2001). Βυζαντινή ιστορία Γ΄1 1081–1204. Athens.
Любарский, Я. Н. (1964). Об источниках „Алексиады“ Анны Комниной.
BB, 25, 99–120.
Черноглазов, Д. А. (2004). Хроника Іоанна Зонары и её источники
(IX–XI века). ВВ, 63, 137–154.
179
Marek Meško — Nomads and Byzantium.
Problematic aspects of maintaining diplomatic
relations with the Pechenegs
Byzantine Empire could particularly thank its active diplomacy for its millennial duration, as diplomacy was one of the main tools of the Byzantines
to maintain and protect its territory.1 Byzantine art of diplomacy as such
represented legacy of ancient Rome and its implementation was carried out
in the spirit of Roman imperial traditions until the end of the Byzantine
Empire. With a few exceptions (Sasanian Empire, Arab Caliphate) no other
contemporary country could boast with a similar basis to enforce its influence. As in the present time, the diplomacy represented art to carry out
negotiations between two parties2 mediated by authorized representatives
also in the past, and these negotiations were intended to regulate relations
between the parties. In the case of Byzantium, it was essentially about maintaining the premise that the supreme Christian ruler designated by God
was the Byzantine emperor who should be for this reason the sole ruler of
the whole Christian oikumene.3 If the real situation was too different from
this ideal, another important task of the Byzantine diplomacy was to ensure
peace and validity of this premise, at least on the Byzantine territory that
actually was subject to the emperor residing in Constantinople.
Even though the Byzantines did not have any specifically designated
and trained representatives to conduct negotiations as it is today, there were
several high-ranking officials carrying out diplomacy as part of their duties,
who belonged to the highly sophisticated administrative apparatus in the
imperial capital.4 Diplomatic embassies were regularly sent to countries that
were on almost the same level in the spirit of the Byzantine universalism,
as well as to other partners. Regular contact was considered the basis for
successful negotiations, which distinguished Byzantium from most of its
neighbors who sent their own embassies ad hoc. Byzantine envoys travelled
1
2
3
4
Moravcsik (1976:151).
Smythe (1992: 305).
ODB (1991:634); Ahrweiler (1998: 12).
ODB (1991:635).
181
in all directions, especially to areas that were important for the protection
of the Byzantine oikumene. One of these areas was the steppe north of the
Black Sea, a place through which successive waves of nomadic peoples,
starting with the Huns, have been coming to the Byzantine territories in
the Balkans (and thus also in the direction of the capital of Constantinople)
since the 4th century.5 For various reasons, it was the task of the Byzantine
diplomacy to master these dangerous neighbors. Problematic aspects of
maintaining diplomatic relations between Byzantium and the nomads are
showed in detail in the case of the Pechenegs, who dominated the aforementioned area from the end of the 9th century to the first quarter of the
11th century, and due to their position they played a very important role
as the Byzantine allies.
Geographical distance
One of the factors which greatly complicated the maintaining of regular
diplomatic contacts between the Byzantines and the Pechenegs was the
great geographical area and the distance between their territories which,
in addition, were not directly neighboring. In the 10th century, this area –
called quite naturally Patzinakia by the Byzantines6 – spread from the mouth
of the Danube to the Volga (or to the Don)7 and covered the steppe belt
north of the Black Sea and the Azov Sea several hundred kilometers wide.
It was intersected by the lower reaches of the Siret, Prut, Dniester, Bug,
Dnieper, Donets and the Don rivers (from the west to the east).8 There
were no land communications in the area and no bridges spanned over the
reaches of the aforementioned rivers and their tributaries. In the summer,
the Pecheneg steppe territory turned into an arid, hot and inhospitable area
(with the exception of the territory on the banks of the numerous rivers),
which was covered with deep snowdrifts in winter months.9 Even though
the Byzantines had a good overview of the whole area and its neighboring
states, or peoples,10 it still did not alleviate their difficulty in organizing
5
For the information overview of the migration of nomadic peoples since the arrival
of the Pechenegs, see Golden (1987–1991: 41–54); Grousset (1965: 226–238).
6 De adm. imp. (1967: 166).
7 Grousset (1965: 238).
8 Толочко (2003: 46).
9 Sinor (1990: 34–36). See also Плетнева (1958: 187).
10 De adm. imp. (1967: 166, 185–187).
182
contacts with these nomads, because in addition to the mentioned weather
changes, it was necessary to cover a relatively long distance, too.
There were two ways for the Byzantine delegations to reach the Pechenegs. The first one was that the imperial envoy used the Byzantine port of
Kherson in the Crimea,11 which due to its location was directly neighboring with the Pecheneg territory, as the starting point of his journey and,
therefore, the whole journey was considerably shorter.12 The other way of
travelling to the Pechenegs used the Byzantine capital Constantinople as
the starting point, where the envoy boarded a warship, which then took
him across the Black Sea to the mouth of one of the rivers flowing through
Patzinakia.13 The ambassador and his entourage disembarked there and
sent delegations to the Pechenegs, who in turn sent guides to meet him.
Accompanied by the guides, he then headed inland to a place where negotiations were to take place.14 It is obvious that the latter was rather time
consuming. The situation “streamlined” after 1018, when the Byzantines
annexed the Bulgarian territory after the wars of the emperor Basileos II
against the Bulgarians, and the northern Byzantine border again followed
the course of the lower Danube.15 Since then the Byzantine Empire and
Patzinakia were direct neighbors, which made the travelling considerably
easier. Even greater geographical “rapproachment” occurred after the massive
Pecheneg migration in the winter of 1046/47 to the south of the Danube.
As a result of this migration, part of the Pechenegs settled down right in the
territory of the Byzantine province of Paradounavon (Paristrion). These
Pechenegs were later granted a status of allies (symmachoi).16
Decentralized state organization
Another factor preventing effective implementation of the Byzantine diplomacy with the Pechenegs was the free, or decentralized political system
11 Besides the fact that Kherson was an important port and trade center, it also
represented an invaluable center for the Byzantines for collecting information
from neighboring areas of the north Black Sea area; Shepard (1992: 45); Malamut
(1995: 112–113). There were several other such locations, e.g. Sugdaia (later
Sudak) or Tmutorokan, but Kherson was by far the most important.
12 De adm. imp. (1967: 54).
13 De adm. imp. (1967: 54–56).
14 De adm. imp. (1967: 57).
15 Stephenson (1999: 89).
16 Meško (2012: 54); Malamut (1995: 127–128).
183
of the Pecheneg society. The fundamental social and economic unit of any
nomadic group is a nuclear family and its home and property in the form of a
herd, which provides it with livelihood and all the basic needs.17 In terms of
territory, it is an area where the family leads a nomadic way of life. All other
higher units of a nomadic society (families, clans, tribes, etc.) simply represent only a sum of individual families, which usually connect largely due to
joint political, economic, and military interests on the basis of blood kinship
unions, whether real or imaginary established often ex post, to legitimize the
existing political reality.18 The emergence of a charismatic leader/family/
clan, who could ensure the survival and prosperity to all his followers and
subjects thanks to the divine favor, or luck (qut) sent from heaven,19 was a
very important, but not the only impetus for the establishment of higher
social units in nomadic peoples (tribal unions and nomadic empires).20
The appearance of similar charismatic leaders led to the emergence of
vast nomadic empires in the steppe in a relatively short time span. Since the
empire of the Hsiung-nu (Asian Huns), these states were led by a ruler called
kagan, whose importance is similar to the title emperor.21 States created this
way were not very politically stable. As soon as the favorable conditions supporting the growth and existence of a nomadic empire ceased to exist (e.g.
inflow of the spoils of war from the conquest campaigns, supply of the tribute,
extinction of a charismatic clan, or inability of the descendants of the founder
of the empire), centrifugal political forces started to dominate in such a state
organization and the nomadic empire disintegrated as quickly as it emerged.22
The Pechenegs represented one of the branches of the West Turkish
kaghanate which existed between 552 and 659, when it disintegrated.23 The
imperial tradition then passed over to the Karluk tribal union, from which
Bulgars and Khazars later separated. Both these nations then established
their own steppe empires in the northern Black Sea area during the 7th
17
18
19
20
Sinor (1977: 174); Golden (1987–1991: 69).
See Lindner (1982: 696–697, 699).
Golden (1982: 45–46).
Lindner (1982: 700). In other words, it is the so-called sacred kingdom in the
nomadic context.
21 Golden (1987–1991: 46).
22 Lindner (1982: 700–701); Golden (1982: 51–52). According to the typology
of E. Sagan, nomadic societies corresponded to his definitions of primitive and
complex society, see: Sagan (1985: xvi–xxi); Golden (1987–1991: 43–44).
23 Grousset (1965: 124–142); Golden (1982: 57).
184
century and acquired and used the title kagan for their paramount ruler,
as well as the lower titles (yabgu, šad, čur/čor, tudun, tarqan, gyula, etc.).24
In the following century, also other nomadic ethnicities emerged, including the Pechenegs, who won hegemony at the end of the 9th century in
the aforementioned area and thus replaced the Khazars. However, from
a political point of view, they did not acquire the whole structure of the
previous empires. Their grouping can be rather characterized as a tribal
union.25 According to the testimony of the text De administrando imperio
by Constantine VII Porfyrogennetos from the mid-10th century, it was
headed by the supreme ruler who did not use the title kagan.26 The whole
of Patzinakia was divided into eight provinces (themata) led by chieftains/
rulers/princes (archontai); each province consisted of five districts (meroi)
led by lower chieftains (elattonai archontai).27 All chieftains28 were independent and conducted their own policies. The first four provinces west of the
Dnieper River formed the right wing and the other four east of this river
the left one.29 In addition to this relatively loose political structure, there
probably also was an assembly of all free warriors (komenton).30
It is not clear from the mentioned description of the Byzantine emperor,
who uses contemporary Byzantine terms of the state administration to
talk about a structure he is not very familiar with, whether the mentioned
provinces were the seats of individual Pecheneg tribes and districts of lower
social units, i.e. clans, or families. Yet, it is highly probable. It also seems that
the report about the three most important provinces as the center of the
political power in Patzinakia corresponds to the reality, as concentration
of the Pecheneg settlements was confirmed by archeological finds in the
basin of the Ros river (right tributary of the Dnieper) south of Kiev.31 In
the first third of the 11th century, the Pechenegs lost their territory east of
the Dnieper thanks to the pressure of the Uzes and the number of districts,
24 Golden (1982: 57–60); Golden (1987–1991: 50).
25 Golden (1990: 273); Golden (2001: 40).
26 The title kagan is documented only in the later Arabic sources from the 13th
century. Pritsak (1981a: 15); Golden (1990: 273).
27 De adm. imp. (1967: 166); Spinei (2003: 105).
28 They could also hold lower titles čur/gyula adopted from the aforementioned
Turkish kaganate, occassionaly documented in historical sources. Golden (1987–
1991: 53).
29 De adm. imp. (1967: 166–168); Golden (1990: 272–273); Spinei (2003: 105).
30 Scyl. (1979: 460); Baсильевскій (1872: 128); Pritsak (1981a: 16).
31 Pritsak (1981a: 16, 28).
185
or clans was reduced from 40 to 13,32 but they kept their supreme ruler
(archegos) Tyrach and the individual chieftains retained their freedom in
decision-making.33 The same principle also applies to the Pechenegs inhabiting the Byzantine area in the Balkans in the second half of the 11th century.
It is apparent that the loose structure of the Pecheneg tribal union had
to be rather confusing for the Byzantines. There was no absolute ruler with
whom they could negotiate and with whom they would be able to conclude
agreements binding upon all the Pechenegs. On the contrary, agreements
concluded with one of the Pecheneg chieftains were typically valid only for his
immediate subjects, but were not binding upon other clans, or tribes because
of their independence. The Byzantines then repeatedly found themselves in
a situation when they virtually had to negotiate with each and every chieftain
to reach desired agreement.34 Similar negotiations had practical limitations,
whether in term of time or the number of available material resources.
Cultural differences
Besides these practical aspects, which made the activity of the Byzantine
ambassadors among the Pechenegs more difficult, there were also significant
cultural differences between the Byzantines and the nomads. Byzantine
civilization was based on three main pillars – the first one consisted in the
Christian religion, the second one in the Roman law and the third one in
Greek classical knowledge and culture. The Byzantines also inherited Roman
imperial ideology, which then lasted enshrouded in the Christian veil for
the whole duration of the Byzantine Empire. Within this worldview, only
the so-called just war (dikaios polemos) to protect the Roman (Byzantine)
oikoumene and the Christian citizens living there was recognized as justifiable and also the Byzantine foreign policy conformed to it.35 The war was
perceived as a necessary evil.36
Nomadic peoples, including the Pechenegs, who were based on totally
differing cultural traditions, perceived war as a natural part of life and did not
32 Spinei (2003: 106).
33 Scyl. (1979: 455); Spinei (2003: 106).
34 For example, Emperor Issac I Komnenos managed to conclude peace in 1059
with almost all the Pecheneg leaders of the Paristrion, except for a chieftain
named Selte. Scyl. con. (1968: 107).
35 Stouraitis (2009: 267ff.).
36 Stouraitis (2009: 207).
186
see any significant difference between achieving various goals by means of
peace or war.37 Although the Pechenegs knew and practiced the conclusion
of peace agreements, their frequent breach did not bother them too much
if there was possibility to obtain benefits, and therefore, the Pechenegs
got the reputation among the Byzantines as dangerous and unpredictable
oath-breakers.38 The surprise and indignation of Byzantine elites was often
all the greater that the nomads let the Byzantines give them gifts for the
conclusion of peace (they required the so-called tribute). Thus, besides
their reputation of oath-breakers, the Pechenegs also gained the reputation
of greedy people longing for material wealth.39
Different Pecheneg and Byzantine goals
Different cultural approaches of the Byzantines and the nomads also resulted
in their different political or power objectives. As any similar state, the Byzantine Empire sought to ensure the protection of its territory and vested interests.
In the case of the Pechenegs, the Byzantines tried to ensure stability in the
northern Black Sea area, which thus became a kind of a buffer zone between
the Byzantine territories on the lower Danube and the strip of steppes east
of the Volga. The control of this zone through befriended nomads was significant for several reasons. Peace with the Pechenegs concluded at the end
of the 9th century ensured primarily direct security of the Byzantine border
on the lower Danube. Another benefit of the alliance with these nomads was
the fact that this pact had a deterrent effect on the neighboring countries
and nations (Hungary, Bulgaria, Kievan Rus), for whom the attack on the
Byzantine territories in the Balkans became a dangerous and risky act.40 In
addition, the trade routes passing through this area became safer, which helped
the Byzantine trade with the neighboring nations and states to thrive. And,
last but not least, the strong hegemon represented by the Pechenegs on the
western end of the Euro-Asian steppe created a barrier for other nomadic
peoples settled further to the east when moving in the western direction.
It is very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to formulate the Pecheneg
goals, since, as mentioned above, their fragmented and decentralized state
37
38
39
40
Golden (1987–1991: 71).
Gautier (1962: 113); Golden (1987–1991: 54); Ahrweiler (1998: 13).
De adm. imp. (1967: 54); Malamut (1995: 114).
It is clearly documented in relevant passages of De administrando imperio. See:
De adm. imp. (1967: 48–52, 57); Malamut (1995: 113).
187
organization more or less excluded any joint pursuit of a uniform policy.
Nevertheless, it is evident that it was in the interest of the nomads to have
control over the long-distance trade routes which passed through their area
as well as over the trade centers which were located thereon. The Pechenegs
did not represent an exception.41 Peace relations in the steppe enabled them
to benefit from the long-distance trade in the form of collected charges and
duties,42 and they also gained access to goods which would not be accessible in the steppe under different circumstances (corn, precious metals,
and various other types of luxury goods).43
However, if there was a situation when it was easier for the Pechenegs to
satisfy their need for unusual or inaccessible types of goods by war means,
their support of peace would immediately end. All previous agreements
ceased to apply and the Pechenegs attacked either by themselves or in connection with other attackers. This was the main reasons why the objectives of
the Byzantines and the Pechenegs in the 10th and the 11th centuries ceased
to coincide in some cases, leading to abrupt military clashes between the
allies.44 Combined with threat of Byzantine weapons, Byzantine diplomacy
always could prevent the worst to some extent, although during the 11th
century the effectiveness of the Byzantine countermeasures gradually decreased. However, it was a result of the altered situation in the Euro-Asian
steppe where mass movements of steppe peoples in the western direction
started at the beginning of the 11th century.45 As a result, the Pechenegs
were pushed to the Byzantine Balkans in 1046/47 and the Byzantines were
forced to look for a new ally in this area. They found this ally at the end of
the 11th century in the Cuman tribal union.46
41 Golden (1987–1991: 57); Spinei (2003: 115).
42 Muslim sources from the 10th century (Gardízí) mention great personal wealth
of the Pecheneg chieftains, which was apperantly from the mentioned levying
of charges. Golden (1987–1991: 54).
43 De adm. imp. (1967: 52); Golden (1987–1991: 71).
44 For example, in 917 and 934 they joined the Bulgars against the Byzantines,
or in 944 and 970–972 they cooperated with the Russians. Malamut (1995:
112–113, 116–117); Spinei (2003: 117–118, 122–123). During the 11th century, the mutual Byzantine-Pecheneg relations further escalated and since 1027
the Pechenegs almost annually invaded the Byzantine territories in the Balkans.
Malamut (1995: 117–118); Spinei (2003: 131); Meško (2012: 50–51).
45 Pritsak (1981b: 162–163).
46 Spinei (2003: 132–145); Meško (2012: 50–56, 184, 212).
188
Byzantine countermeasures – strategy in dealing
with the nomads
Byzantine diplomacy tried to address the above-mentioned troubles by a set
of strategies and practices examined over centuries. The first measure was
a regular (annual) sending of diplomatic delegations to the Pechenegs.47
Within these delegations, the Byzantine ambassadors could repeatedly gain
information about the current situation in the northern Black Sea area; they
also had opportunity to reward the “loyalty” of their clients among the nomads by luxurious material gifts.48 Another traditional measure included the
organization of pompous receptions for nomadic chieftains connected with
giving expensive gifts.49 Similar receptions also provided good opportunity
for secret negotiations with particular Pecheneg chieftain(s).50 Considering
the decentralized character of the Pecheneg society, the Byzantines mostly
managed to crown their attempts with success.51 Upon completion of negotiations, the Byzantines secured themselves by taking hostages from circles
related to the Pecheneg elites, who were to guarantee the just concluded
peace agreement.52 In some cases, also the Byzantines had to provide their
own hostages.53 When the arsenal of these above-mentioned “purely” diplomatic measures did not provide any guarantee of successful achievement
of their goal, the Byzantines liked to apply military intimidation of Pecheneg ambassadors by a thoroughly directed exhibition of military force.54
47 De adm. imp. (1967: 49).
48 De adm. imp. (1967: 54); Alexias (2001: 243); Chon. (1975: 14); Malamut
(1995: 112).
49 Chon. (1975: 14).
50 Before the decisive battle against the Pechenegs during the winter of 1121/1122,
John II Komnenos held a series of receptions for the Pecheneg leaders where
he secretly tried to win some over. Cin. (1836: 7); Chon. (1975: 14). Several
chieftains actually accepted his offers. Chon. (1975: 14).
51 An example of the failure may be secret messages to the Pecheneg chieftains in
the summer of 1087, which did not reach this goal despite the intense efforts of
Alexius I Komnenos. Alexias (2001: 205).
52 De adm. imp. (1967: 54).
53 In 1087, the Byzantine envoy Synesios, who led peace negotiations with the
Pechenegs, became their hostage. After concluding a contract, he had to stay in
Paristrion and live with the nomads. Alexias (2001: 218–219).
54 In the summer of 1087, Emperor Alexios I Komnenos started to gather his troops
in the city of Lardea where they camped, and provided them with additional
189
Negotiations with nomads were conducted along with the knowledge of
the opponent’s weak points, which were gained by the Byzantine informers
and spies. Only scarce direct evidence of their employment has survived,
but it is clear that the Byzantines excelled in this technique.55 And finally,
healthy skepticism and caution of Byzantine ambassadors and negotiators
worked as a preventer at the negotiations with the Pechenegs, constantly
requesting convincing assurance and evidence from the nomads of their
amicable intentions in order to minimize the risk of breaching agreements
on their part as much as possible.56
Abbreviations
AEMAe — Archivum Eurasiæ Medii Aevi
Alexias — Annæ Comnenæ Alexias. Ed. D. Reinsch – A. Kambylis (2001),
CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Byz. Zeitschr. — Byzantinische Zeitschrift
CFHB — Corpus Fontium Historiæ Byzantinæ
Chon. — Nicetæ Choniatæ Historia. Ed. I. A. van Dieten (1975), CFHB.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Cin. — Ioannis Cinnami Epitome. Ed. A. Meineke (1836), CSHB. Bonn: Weber.
CSFB — Corpus Scriptorum Historiæ Byzantinæ
De adm. imp. — Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De administrando imperio. Ed.
Gy. Moravcsik, transl. R. J. H. Jenkins (1967). Washington: Dumbarton
Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies.
ODB — The Oxford Dictionnary of Byzantium
REB — Révue des Etudes Byzantines
Scyl. — Ioannis Scylitzæ Synopsis historiarum. Ed. I. Thurn (1973), CFHB.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
training, while he demonstratively sent a Byzantine fleet squadron to the lower
Danube to intimidate the Pechenegs in Paristrion. Alexias (2001: 205–206).
55 This fact is evidenced in a written report (apparently from spies) about the upcoming alliance of the Pechenegs and Bulgarian Krakras, which was received by
a Byzantine strategos of Dristra Tzotzikos. On the basis of this report, he could
act and prevent the alliance before it was formed. Scyl. (1979: 355–356).
56 Alexios Komnenos was cautious before the battle of Lebounion when he negotiated the alliance with the Cumans led by their supreme khans Togortag and
Boniak. Alexias (2001: 243–244); Baсильевскій (1872: 280); Meško (2012:
212–214, 216).
190
Scyl. con. — He synecheia tes chronographias tou Ioannou Skylitse. Ed. E. Th.
Tsolakes (1968). Thessaloniké: Hetaireia Makedonikon Spoudon.
МИА СССР — Материали и исследования по археологии СССР
ЖМНП — Журналь Министерства народного просвђщенія
Bibliography
Primary texts
Anna Comnena, Annæ Comnenæ Alexias. Ed. D. Reinsch – A. Kambylis
(2001), CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio. Ed. Gy. Moravcsik,
transl. R. J. H. Jenkins (1967). Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center
for Byzantine Studies.
Kinnamos, Ioannes, Ioannis Cinnami Epitome. Ed. A. Meineke (1836),
CSHB. Bonn: Weber.
Nicetas Choniates, Nicetæ Choniatæ Historia. Ed. I. A. van Dieten (1975),
CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Scylitzes, Ioannes, Ioannis Scylitzæ Synopsis historiarum. Ed. I. Thurn (1973),
CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Scylitzes, Ioannes continuatus, He synecheia tes chronographias tou Ioannou
Skylitse. Ed. E. Th. Tsolakes (1968). Thessaloniké: Hetaireia Makedonikon Spoudon.
Theophylact of Ohrid, Le discours de Théophylacte de Bulgarie à l’autocrator Alexis Ier Comnène (6 janvier 1088). Ed. P. Gautier (1962). REB, 20, 93–130.
Secondary texts
Ahrweiler, H. (1998). Byzantine Concept of the Foreigner: The Case of
the Nomads. In H. Ahrweiler – A. Laiou, (Eds.), Studies on the Internal
Diaspora of the Byzantine Empire. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1–15.
Golden, P. (1982). Imperial Ideology and the Sources of Political Unity
amongst the Pre-Činggisid Nomads of Western Eurasia. AEMAe, 2,
37–76.
Golden, P. (1987–1991). Nomads and their Sedentary Neighbors in Pre-Činggisid Eurasia. AEMAe, 7, 41–54.
Golden, P. (1990). The people of the south Russian steppes. In D. Sinor
(Ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 229–284.
191
Golden, P. (2001). Nomads in the Sedentary World: The Case of Pre-Chinggisid Rus’ and Georgia. In A. Khazanov – A. Wink, (Eds.), Nomads in the Sedentary World. Richmond: Curzon, 24–75.
Grousset, R. (1965). L’empire des steppes. Paris: Payot.
Kazhdan, A. & Talbot, A.-M. (Eds.) (1991). The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. (3 vols.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lindner, R. (1985). What was a nomadic tribe? Comparative Studies in Society and History, 24/4, 689–711. DOI: 10.1017/S0010417500010240
Malamut, E. (1995). L’image Byzantine des Petschénègues. Byz. Zeitschr.,
88, 105–147.
Meško, M. (2012). Obnova byzantskej moci na Balkáne za vlády Alexia I.
Komnéna. Druhá byzantsko-pečenežská vojna (1083–1091). Nitra: Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre.
Moravcsik, Gy. (1976). Einführung in die Byzantinologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Pritsak, O. (1981a). The Pečenegs. A Case of Social and Economic Transformation. In O. Pritsak, Studies in Medieval Eurasian History. London:
Variorum Reprints, 4–29.
Pritsak, O. (1981b). Two Migratory Movements in Eurasian Steppe in the
9th–11th Centuries. In O. Pritsak, Studies in Medieval Eurasian History.
London: Variorum Reprints, 157–163.
Sagan, E. (1985). At the Dawn of Tyranny. The Origins of Individualism, Political Oppression and the State. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Shepard, J. (1992). Byzantine Diplomacy, 800–1204. In S. Franklin – J. Shepard, (Eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers of the Twenty-fourth Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990. Aldershot:
Variorum, 41–71.
Sinor, D. (1977). Horse and Pasture in Inner Asian History. In D. Sinor,
Inner Asia and its Contacts with Medieval Europe. London: Variorum
Reprints, 171–183.
Sinor, D. (Ed.) (1990). The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smythe, D. (1992). Why do barbarians stand round the emperor at diplomatic receptions? In S. Franklin – J. Shepard, (Eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers of the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies,
Cambridge, March 1990. Aldershot: Variorum, 305–312.
Spinei, V. (2003). The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century. Cluj-Napoca: Romanian
Cultural Institute.
192
Stephenson, P. (1999). The Byzantine Frontier at the Lower Danube in the
Late Tenth and Eleventh Centuries. In D. Power – N. Standen, (Eds.),
Frontiers in Question. Eurasian Borderlands, 700–1700. Houndmills:
Macmillan, 80–104.
Stouraitis, I. (2009). Krieg und Frieden in der politischen und ideologischen
Wahrnehmung in Byzanz (7.–11. Jahrhundert). Wien: Fassbaender.
Baсильевскій, B. (1872). Византія и Печенеги. ЖМНП, 164, 116–165,
243–332.
Плетнева, С. (1958). Печенеги, Торки и Половцы в южнорусских степях.
Миа СССР, 62, 152–226.
Tолочко, П. (2003). Кочевые народы степей и Киевская Русь. St. Peterburg: Aleteija.
193
On Research Methodology in Ancient and Byzantine History
Edited by
Jarmila Bednaříková,
Marek Meško &
Anna Žáková
Designed and typeset
by Vít Boček
Printed by Tribun EU, s. r. o.,
Cejl 892/32, 602 00 Brno
Published by Masaryk University
Brno 2015
1st edition
ISBN 978-80-210-7947-2 (online : pdf)
*4#/CSPßPWBOÃWB[CB
DOI: 10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-7947-2015
On Research Methodology in Ancient and Byzantine History
On Research
Methodology
in Ancient
and Byzantine
History
obalka.indd 1
Edited by
Jarmila Bednaříková,
Marek Meško &
Anna Žáková
Masaryk University
22. 9. 2015 9:52:19