The reforms of Diocletian

As was noted in chapter 7, the empire in the third century had been dogged by three interconnected problems: the weakness of the imperial authority, the inadequacy of the empire's administrative structure and the decline of the economy.

Politically, the emperor was in the hands of the army, which had become the real master of the empire. Administratively, the government was incapable of ruling the empire efficiently and of defending its frontiers against foreign enemies. Economically, the continuous increases in taxation had led to the devaluation of the currency with disastrous consequences. The character of Diocletian's regime is reflected in the solutions which he devised for these problems.

The remedy for the first weakness was the strengthening of the authority of the emperor, by giving the imperial ideology a new form and content. The emperor was now elevated to the position of an absolute monarch and had himself portrayed as being closer to the divine realm than any Roman princeps in the past. He assumed the dignity and attributes of the oriental god-kings and was set apart by a framework of complicated ceremonial and court etiquette accompanied by tremendous pomp. As the system assumed the characteristics of an Eastern despotism, the remaining republican institutions became mere shadows of their former selves or were entirely abandoned. This orientalisation of the imperial office had been going on throughout the third century and Diocletian's arrangements simply completed the transformation.

Diocletinan's answer to the empire's administrative problem was the introduction of the system of the 'tetrarchy'. Recognising that the empire could not be governed efficiently by a single ruler, or from a single administrative centre, he devised a system by which imperial rule was divided whilst, at the same time, the principle of imperial unity remained unaffected.

In 285 AD he appointed Maximian, one of his ablest generals, as Caesar and co-ruler. In 286 AD Maximian was promoted to Augustus and was made ruler of the West, while Diocletian himself took over the rule of the East. In 293 AD each Augustus appointed as his assistant and successor a Caesar and the four ruled jointly, each having control over one quarter of the empire. From Nicomedia, his capital city, Diocletian ruled over Asia, Egypt and Thrace, while his Caesar, Galerius, governed the Balkan peninsula. Maximian, whose seat of government was at Mediolanum (Milan), had control over Italy, Africa and Spain, while his Caesar, Constantius Chlorus, ruled over Britain and Gaul.^{^[1075]} This proliferation of the imperial summit was designed not only to facilitate the administration of the empire but also to discourage attempts at usurpation by establishing a stable succession mechanism.^{^[1076]} Under the new system the provinces were made much smaller in size and their number was increased, mainly to ensure closer supervision of administration. The provinces were grouped into new districts, the dioceses, while neighbouring dioceses were joined into larger units called prefectures. There were four prefectures altogether (Gaul, Italy, Illyricum and the Orient) divided into twelve dioceses^{^[1077]} and over a hundred provinces. Each prefecture was ruled by a praetorian prefect, the highest civil official of the empire. Subordinate to the prefects were the chiefs of dioceses, or vicars, and the provincial governors, while the whole organisation centred in the persons of the Augusti and Caesars. As has been noted, the system of tetrarchy was not seen as introducing a division of the empire but, rather, as introducing a division of the rule over an undivided empire. Thus legislation was always promulgated in the names of all four rulers, coins were minted by all in common and sacrifices and other ceremonies of homage were carried out before the busts of all four.

The Tetrarchs sought to remedy the economic ills besetting the empire by introducing measures calculated to strengthen the role of the state in economic life.

State control over the productive resources of the empire was extended until, by the fourth century, nearly all forms of economic activity important to the state came to be regulated by the government.^{^[1078]} To raise the revenues needed for the maintenance of the military establishment, the enlarged bureaucracy and imperial court the state intervened more and more in economic matters, taking a direct share in the production of food, textiles and military supplies. State factories were set up and the internal and external commerce of the empire was regulated by the state. Realising that economic instability was due in part to the depreciation of the coinage, Diocletian attempted to introduce a new, stable gold and silver currency, but his devaluation of the copper coins then in circulation caused more inflation which was further accentuated by production shortages. The Tetrarchs' response, the famous Edict of Prices (edictum de pretiis) of 301 AD, was a systematic attempt at a price regulation by the state, and thus also at state planning in the economic sector, but its effects were short-lived. Diocletian's reorganisation of the tax system, on the other hand, was to prove of lasting importance. In order to protect the state against future inflation a new type of land tax was introduced (annona) which was levied in kind. Besides this, various monetary taxes were imposed in accordance with fairly specified criteria and the system of compulsory public labour and extraordinary contributions that had been introduced during the late Principate period was developed further. To provide sufficient labour for the state factories and farms, and to prevent men from escaping from the various taxes and extraordinary requisitions a rigid hereditary caste system was developed: every man was now bound to the trade to which he was bom and membership in the associations of tradesmen, businessmen and craftsmen (corpora) became hereditary. During this period the wealth and power of the great land-owners continued to increase as more and more land was concentrated in their hands and individuals and village communities, anxious to avoid the heavy burden of taxation and exactions by the state, continued to place themselves under their patronage becoming their tenants. These changes did not affect all the provinces of the empire equally, however. In the Greek-speaking eastern provinces the system of centrally controlled economy achieved a measure of success and the conditions of internal peace which now prevailed facilitated economic development. In the West, on the other hand, the system largely failed and the feudalistic tendencies continued to grow stronger as a result of the inability of the central government to exercise control over the great landowners.^{^[1079]}

<< | >>

↑

Source: Mousourakis George. The Historical and Institutional Context of Roman Law. Routledge,2003. — 480 p.. 2003

The reforms of Diocletian

More on the topic The reforms of Diocletian: