Historical and Constitutional Background

We observed earlier that the third century ad featured political, social and economic decay with mounting external pressures that brought the Roman Empire to the verge of collapse.

The Empire in the third century had been plagued by three interconnected problems: the weakness of imperial power, the inadequacy of the Empire’s admin­istrative organization and widespread economic decline.

In ad 305, Diocletian and Maximian abdicated at the initiative of the former.

Following Constantine’s death in ad 337, the Empire was divided among his three surviving sons: Constantine II, Constans and Constantius II. After a period of civil war, the latter became sole emperor in ad 353. He was in turn succeeded by Julian (ad 361-363), known for his failed attempt to revive Roman state paganism. In ad 364, Valentinian I recommenced the division of the Empire’s administration and granted the rule of the eastern half to his brother Valens. In ad 378, Valens was killed in battle trying to repel an invasion by the Visigoths and was succeeded by Theodosius I (ad 379) who became sole ruler of the Empire in ad 394. Theodosius, a staunch supporter of Christianity, was the last emperor who ruled over the Roman Empire in its entire extent. After his death, the Empire was divided anew between his two sons: Arcadius (ad 395-408) governed Constantinople and the East; and Honorius (ad 395-423), though only 11 years old, was the nominal ruler of the West. Although a fiction of imperial unity was preserved, the two parts of the Empire increasingly diverged in both the legislative and administration spheres. The division of the Empire appears to have been unavoidable in face of the mounting difficulties confronting the Roman state. In particular, the external pressures on the imperial frontiers increased. By the end of the fourth century, the Rhine-Danube frontier yielded and this accelerated the process of Germanic tribes infiltrating the Empire’s provinces so that whole nations migrated into Roman territory.

The social and economic development of the Roman world in the later imperial era is directly linked with the profound changes prompted by the crisis of the third century. The pressure of military, fiscal and administrative demands engendered a hitherto unknown degree of state planning and managerial intervention in every aspect of socio-economic life. The emperors extended the reach of the state: for instance, they compelled citizens to perform various tasks for the state's benefit by rendering these tasks hereditary and creating a vast bureaucratic network in an effort to maintain control. Ultimately, however, this policy failed to accomplish its desired goals and socio-economic conditions steadily deteriorated (especially in the more backward Western provinces). Clear indications of the altered structure and direction of the Roman society embrace: the sharp decline of the free peasantry and the extension of the colonate system over large areas; the decay of the urban aristocracy (decuriones, curiales) owing to the onerous burden of taxation and the incessant excessive demands imposed upon its members by the state; the power consolidation of the senatorial land barons and the growing inability of the central government to control them; and the further polarization between the impoverished masses (humiliores or tenuiores) and the concentrated wealth and power of privileged dignitaries (honestiores or potentiores). The transformation of the Roman state into a machinery of power supported by relatively small groups and the consequent absolutization of state demands provoked the refusal of large sections of the population to identify themselves with the state. With mounting indifference to the state's fate and few individuals prepared to sustain the regime, the forces of dissolution acquired momentum and the demise of the political system of the late Empire appeared unavoidable.

The fifth century witnessed the total disintegration of the Western Roman Empire, in the face of successive large-scale invasions by Germanic tribes.

While the Roman Empire in the West succumbed to the Germanic invaders, the Eastern Empire survived the crisis with its institutions and frontiers largely intact. The emperors at Constantinople successfully guarded their territory in Asia Minor against the restored power of Persia, and resisted the infiltration of the Germanic barbarians and the decentralizing influence of the great land barons. Factors that contributed to the survival of the Empire in the East included its greater material resources, the strength of its more developed urban society, and the greater homo­geneity and loyalty of its population. From this base, the gifted ruler Justinian worked for the restoration of the old Empire to its former greatness.

1.5.1.1     The Late Roman State

With the transformation of the imperial power into an absolute monarchy, the emperor was clearly recognised as divine monarch (dominus et deus) and as the sole authority in all spheres of government (administrative, military, legislative and judicial). Moreover, after the elevation of Christianity to state religion he occupied a quasi-ecclesiastical position vis-a-vis the official Church. In this position, the emperor exercised control over Church matters with a responsibility for the formu­lation and implementation of religious policy. Although in principle the emperor was virtually omnipotent, established norms guided his exercise of functions and powers in the administrative, legislative and judicial spheres.^[74] He had the power to change these norms as he saw fit, but as long as they remained in force he was bound to observe them to transform his decisions into practical results. Even though the emperor was held to exist above the laws in the sense that he could not be held responsible for his legislative and administrative acts, he was bound to respect the laws and abide by his own edicts as his authority ultimately rested on obedience to them.

When carrying out the various tasks of government, the emperor relied upon a machinery of official and non-official confidants who proffered him advice and assisted him in the formulation of policy decisions. He also depended upon an apparatus of execution that translated his decisions into the realities of the political process.^[75] Among the most important civil functionaries of this period was the magister officiorum (master of the offices): he was chief of the imperial secretariats (scrinia), supervised the division of the various imperial offices and regulated imperial audiences. Another key official was the quaestor sacri palatii (magistrate of the sacred palace) who was the emperor's Minister of Justice. This official prepared the drafts of laws and answers to petitions, and presided over the imperial Council of State when the latter met in the absence of the emperor. The Council of State (sacrum consistorium) consisted of the highest officials of the imperial civil service that acted as the emperor's advisory council in legislative, administrative and judicial matters. It also operated as an imperial court of justice, usually dealing with appeals from decisions of the lower courts.^[76] Besides the officials resident at the central imperial court, an important branch of the administrative apparatus consisted of officials engaged in provincial rather than central government. The latter formed a separate administrative hierarchy whose structure was linked with the territorial division of the Empire into prefectures, dioceses and provinces. The highest-ranking civil official of the provincial administration was the praetorian prefect (praefectus praetorio), the officer heading the administration of each of the four prefectures (Gaul, Italy, Illyricum and the Orient) into which the Empire was divided. Subordinate to the prefects were the chiefs of dioceses, called vicars (vicarii), and the provincial governors. The cities of Rome and Constantinople were exempt from diocesan government and each was administered by a city prefect (praefectus urbi). The intricate administrative machinery of the Late Empire was designed to secure efficient administration, and maintain order and regularity for revenue collection and judicial proceedings. Despite the tight controls that theoretically existed, the system was rife with corruption as office holders sought career advancement and self-enrichment at the expense of civilians. The increased burden imposed on taxpayers by the enlarged civil and military establishments was thus aggravated by the officials’ extortion practices. In ad 368, the newly created office of defensor civitatis or defensor plebis was entrusted with the protection of the lower classes within the population against abuses committed by state officials and great landowners. However, the institution of the defensor civitatis ultimately failed to achieve its declared goal as many of those individuals who held the office often committed abuses themselves or were prone to manipulation through bribery or intimidation.

During the late imperial age, the institutions of the ancient republican system no longer had the least political importance. The assemblies of the Roman people had long disappeared. Some of the old republican magistracies continued to exist, but they were divested of all their former powers. The consulship was still regarded as a high honour and was frequently held by the emperor himself. However, it was now a purely honorary office without political importance. The praetors and quaestors also continued to exist but only in an honorary capacity. The senate was retained and, in fact, a second senate was established in Constantinople (c. ad 340). This body retained a certain prestige and dignity, and its members formed the highest rank of imperial subjects from which the heads of the imperial civil service and army were chosen. However, the actual administration of Rome and Constantinople was in the hands of the urban prefects and their subordinates, and the only political role the senate played was in the inauguration of a new emperor. Occasionally, the senate was requested to offer its advice to the emperor on current affairs; it conferred with imperial officials on matters concerning the senatorial class and presented legislative proposals that were then submitted to the emperor by the city prefect. However, it no longer operated as a court of justice with jurisdiction over its own members (trials involving senators now proceeded before the city prefect or a provincial governor).^[77]

1.5.2       lang=EN-US>