anyone know the solution to this problem i been having: see below
Perceptions of Corruption/Law/Violence in the Later Roman Empire – forming local identities
1. State of the Discipline
2. Interpretations
a. MacMullen
i. R.Gov Response to Crisis:
I.) “a decline in ius, the day of lex”
II.) (85) Trajan cannot find past emperor’s edicts
III.) reviewer: we cannot trust Christian soruces, they are apopcalpytpic
IV.) MM: coloni become serfs
V.) Failure of roman patriotism
VI.) Reviewer: problematic- MM uses “government” and “the rest” – Constantine fucs the senatorial class, so they protect their own
VII.) Honestiores/humiliores
ii. Corruption and the decline of rome
I.) review1 – decline is actually a decline of acceptance of previous code of obligations/obedience – implies that they are unruly – ALSO: this really sounds like it’s the cause of the fall of the Empire –
II.) soldiers becomes “greedy”
III.) “power of local magnates exerted by central government”
IV.) imperial legislation becomes “irrevelant”, as does the inconsistency of application/interpretation of law – justice for sale
V.) “illustrates the defects of a patronage system” – and leads to a disrespect for the rule of law-
VI.) WHY ARE PATRONAGE SYSTEMS DEFECTIVE? – WHAT IS THAT SAYING?
VII.) REVIEW2- change in 3rd century – money replaces obligations, assessment of “price” measured in security
VIII.) What’s behind his work: similar to roztovzeff’s idea – the poor fuck it up, that is the poor get in the military – RISE – fuck it up
IX.) MY NOTES
X.) he quantifies decline
XI.) corruption = loss of state power, obedience
XII.) differing codes of obligation
XIII.) the curiae “flee” – not defended
XIV.) “mores did not change”
XV.) corruption – military weakness, barbians become soldiers – weaken the civic pride
XVI.) earlier – more socially stratified, becomes weaker
XVII.) VIOLENCE: harsher, more prevalent, legislation against extortion
XVIII.) “potentores” – above the law – they do not exist like this in trajan’s time
XIX.) an extragov’t network of dependencies
XX.) PUBLIC OPINION = they hate potentiores
XXI.) Bureaucracy – increases
XXII.) Corruption as “systemic”
XXIII.) On PETTY CORRUPTION: it is accepted, calls Nero as aberrant, un-normal, more violence
XXIV.) Ambiguous law (incl. rhetoric)
XXV.) “destruction of client-patron relationship”
XXVI.) laws misrepresent norms – FORBIDDEN DOES NOT EQUAL COMMON
XXVII.) extortion becomes accepted
XXVIII.) law as “behind the times”
XXIX.) privatization – decline of curiae – taxes decrease – not enforced – CT – tries to fix it – corruption increase
XXX.) changes becomes “apparent” – more courts
XXXI.) uses 10 law in CT – that say decurions are trying to escape – are they realy? But why? QUESTIONS ABOUND
XXXII.) see page 51 for Constantine’s building program – decurions pay for it?
XXXIII.) (71) – more violence in late antiquity
XXXIV.) on Roman law – judge was bribed, not accountable – think about ACCOUNTABILITY,
XXXV.) (91) – the increase in authority = increase in ability to hurt – but does not mean you are going to use it – think NORSE
XXXVI.) on INEFFECTIVENESS of CT – Gaius Dig.4.7.3.1.f & Dig. 8.5.1.8.
XXXVII.) “these officials are above the law, and do not exist in Trajan’s day” – perhaps do one is reporting it
XXXVIII.) “kin and clients provided what the gov’t could not”
XXXIX.) “gov’t is a server, not a master”
XL.) says on (114) – on public opinion – either degrade or impartial to emperor, not true Libanius and other orators are highly praise
XLI.) page – 119 – good emperors had small bureaucracy
XLII.) Romans ritualized and moralized dependence
XLIII.) Poor have no loyalty to their own class
XLIV.) SEE ANTHRO – “government becomes localized, no separation b/t public/private”
XLV.) Court system becomes a mockery
XLVI.) MY IDEA: he does not recognize the plural ethical systems which he purport to
XLVII.) (136)
XLVIII.) on violence, KTM: martyrs, Romans, sending a message – do not do this!
XLIX.) Calls emperor in “isolation” – perhaps this is an ascetic influence – focused on the city of God
L.) laws misrepresent norms WTF
LI.) says that Libanius is OK with petty corruption, instead it is the destruction of the patron-dependent relationship that had so long maintained a village under his control
LII.)
b. Baynes
i. decline due to lack of $, which cripples Rome
c. Jones
d. Harries – Law and Empire in L.A.
I.) 153-156: Christian rhetoric – is an attack, not on corruption, but of the malfunction of the judicial system due to dereliction of duty of governor which coincided with an apparent shift in the attitude of the state towards IUDICES in 380/90’s…the states right to punish corrupt judges increase to include negligent rule
II.) the increase in violence is due to an increase to get the facts
III.) consider: Christian rhetoric of violence and absence of violence from law
IV.) law could not control the politics of blame
V.) emperors maintain the “language of “power” – traditionally taken to mean wrong-doing of judges, RATHER it is a “culture of criticism” – advocates/patrons – their clients are now victims of powerful “ “ opponents
VI.) the real need is an increased need in accountability
VII.) “difference in late antiquity is not that judges were corrupt but that the Christian church was more prepared to say so?
VIII.) 92-93 – Augustine as patron
IX.) 122 – complaints of ineffectiveness of law do not necessarily indicate failure of legislation
X.) 215 – an increase in state in judicial process – may have led to new forms of dispute resolution – but there isn’t any evidence for this – KTM: violence as dispute resolution?
XI.) Emperor has trouble controlling patronage relationships because he is a prime offender
XII.) Conflict b/t law and patronage is due to confident self-assertiveness of the centre in regulations outside its remit
XIII.) On the ideal versus malfunction of law – Priscus – problem is those who administer the law
XIV.) Emperors are not altruistic/charitable – the are evil themselves, basically that is what is implied – SEE MATTHEWS 1993
XV.) BUCK PASSING – SEE JONES 409
XVI.) On the idea of “ignoring” the law – means they are taking the situation into their own hands
XVII.) Symmachus (114-115) – IUDEX: clementia, laudable in an emperor became, when indulged by his deputies a corrupt and venial gratia”
e. Monks, Privy Purse – Byzantium had officials who watched the privy purse – JONES SAW THAT THE BUREAUCRACY WAS NOT ALWAYS A BAD THING – HELPED IT TO MOBILIZE FORCES
f. IDEA: same system, just less $
g. TC reflects the endeavour to secure HONESTY and JUSTICE in the admin. Of the res privata
h. Conclusion: “corruption” caused a decrease in morale, enth. For empire, and makes it difficult to collect revenues – PERHAPS NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE EMPIRE CHRISTIAN TAKES OVER – no because it works in the east
i. Barnes – 3rd century crises produces a roman sultanate (213) – reviewer says it is really a military junta
j. Napthali, Lews – Corrution in Egyot – the appearance of power “titles”, dress, privileges, digntias,
i. governtor becomes “subverted” – and is exploitded for private ends
ii. “the crooked privatization of government”
iii. idea: rome is always corrupt, but now it is SYSTEMATIC
iv. “ we imagine their moral code”
v. IDEA: not milking the people, but BILKING The fisc – I.E – lying about your travel expenses to curtis in IDAHO – so MY IDEA-this is why the TC talks so much – more need for money – are we sure that the military was taking all the money? What about new patronage relationship? Ecclesiastic building?
k. Harries (theo. Code?)
i. literary sources – have elite bias, are educated, have their own agenda
ii. people make reference, but with no respect to TIME of CT
iii. judges – competent or corrupt?
iv.
3. Sources Used
1. THEODOSIAN CODE
a. Matthews
i. REVIEW OF LDTL:
ii. IDEA: the lawyers who composed the CT were NOT supposed to book the rescripts – contast this to MM
iii. A compilation of narrowly defined principles – most laws from local areas
iv. A change in style – form impersonal to ad plus accusative
v. Many imp. Enactments came thru intermed. Sources – may have changed them – through a glass, darkly
vi. Things cut – et cetera, post alia
vii. MATTHEWS: “people who want to use the TC as a historical work must admit that the laws were changed/shortened, and that the CODE did NOT EXIST before 439
viii. We must doubt the validity of the imperial enactments
ix. He proves that the laws of the eastern emperors were not known by the western ones
x. Idea: trying to promote unity = TC
b. MM
i. Social Mobility and the TC
ii. Lack of skilled men in building trades
iii. But has a massive building program, lack of supply / or increase in demand? –
iv. No penalties for marrying outside of your class, just wouldn’t be valid –
v. He says “the code reveals what the emperors intended, a warning for the realities of the time
vi. “people were not respecting their rank”
vii. says at the end that 4th century sermons – talk about beggars, poverty, charity, which indicates a social problem – NOPE – SEE OTHERS – BISHOPS FLAUNTING
viii.
4. White’s Argument/Anthro.
i. tendency to see an increase in violence as opposed ot legitimate rule
ii. there are complex political and legal problems behind simple statements – “brigands” are stereotyped
iii. violence is stereotyped in religious texts, a rhetorical strategy of monks/priests, and is a way of legitimizing their own rule – that is why they are focusing on the violence, to wow……..
iv. we must consider what was considered corrupt , as well as what was not considered corrupt – ultimately this involves a comparison with regimes – we must then locate….
v. Modern conceptions of public/private do not work
vi. Idea: corruption can “work” – prject syndicate
vii. Privatization works! – but pop. Dissatisfaction is high – they perceive it differently
viii. Dissatisfaction with privatization is linked to education
ix. Point: changes in ownership structure do not explain a high level of discontent – middle class is angrier because they have to deal with it more
x. Riley – petty corruption – sierra leone, nurses require bribes for service
xi. Jos – wants to restore the normative richness of corruption., normative relates to standards, esp. behavior
xii. Idea: it is “safer” to use empirical evidence, but that is just as value laden
xiii. Corruption – rumpere – ruptus,
xiv. Empirical researchers rely upon the law to defend corrupt activity
xv. Nye – corruption is bad for commenweal – this is a western standard
xvi. Fundamentalist approach – corruption is just a type of influence
xvii. Jos – legal norms used because in a patrimonial culture, there is not difference between public/private – the office and the role are being formed
xviii. An emphasis on the tension between the law/behavior allows us to understand SYSTEMIC corruption
xix. Fundamentalists use gap between law/behavior as barometer for level of transition : corruption
xx. IDEA: not a deviance from norms, but a deviance from the norms themselves from est. behavior.
xxi. On legal – official has legal obligation to public
xxii. Watergate – less about the legal infraction then deception
xxiii. Need to “morally neuter” corruption
xxiv. Public opinion is used to gauge the moral implications of corruption – (normative approach)
xxv. The important question to ask is – what violates the standard? – but public opinion isn’t accurate either
xxvi. – new idea “processes of exchange” measured in – official duties, favor type, attn to public, nature of payoff
xxvii. but other forms of “Corruption” – favoritism – would this hold true in Rome? Withholding information, ex. White collar crime, little public opinion, no one knows about it
xxviii. transparency – helps to evaluate adequacy of legal and political systems and relative health of public
xxix. “the illusion of objectivity”
xxx. something can be “corrupt” and be permitted by law – what are THESE IN THE CT?
xxxi. need to look at the violation of the standard, which may not come from the LAW
xxxii. public opinion, if we can take it seriously, is useful, but also shows what their expectations/attitudes towards politics
xxxiii. Martinola – corruption is a lack of competition/size of government does not affect corruption
xxxiv. Two schools of thought – corruption as a gift-giving culture, no rule of law
xxxv. Second school, corruption corresponds to development
xxxvi. KTM = the idea that a higher economic development leads to less corruption – perhaps it just leads to a decreased perception in corruption???
xxxvii. Caiden and caiden – need to consider corruption as systemic – corruption is by definition not exceptional
xxxviii. Corruption has same function as violence
xxxix. The French Rev. – severed public/private spheres – now away from the private monarchy to the representative government – offices become the public trust, the servants of the community
xl. Corruption as call form reform
xli. Problem is not in bureaucracy, it’s the qualities which support it
xlii. THESIS: it is not individual misconduct, but institutional subversion of the public interest through systemic corruption
5. State of Anthropology
1.)on the “language of power” – the idea that the edict of a law pre-supposes
the wrong-doing of the thing/person it is directed at
2.)”cultures” of criticism developed towards the law – what do these indicate? –
targeting the idea of the law, or a malfunction in practice, administration?
3.) the idea that a law is made, at least with regards to corruption, that the
corrupt thing, wasn't going on beforehand – but rather that it is a “new
perception” which allows one to consider the thing corrupt
4.) complaints of ineffectiveness about a law DOES NOT necessarily indicate in a
failure of legislation – perhaps just an increased need in ACCOUNTABILITY, or
perhaps an increase in enforcement?
5.) idea of law as non-functional – perhaps it is really a product of an impasse
b/t current LAW, RELIGION, AND SOCIAL ORDER ; these are three different things
6.) for “corruption” to be identified, we need contemporary observers
condemning the practice – so e.g. why does piers plowman realize that the
monks are corrupt? what allows him to realize this?
7.) consider the current local set of customs in cases where law is applied
8.) consider the nature of the sources – biases, in rhetoric – im sure youve
already considered all of that though
9.) relationship between competence and corruption – are they interchangable?
– corruption implies a violation of standard of office – but what if those
standards are misinterpreted through the law? what about customs?
10.) what is considered corrupt, in something such as violence, is really just a
“changing form of legitimating disputes” – consider weber's. politiks als beruf –
the state is an entity which claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force
(gewaltmonopol des staates) – so we tend to think of an increase in violence,
corruption as a direct and inverse to “legitimate rule” – but this is erroneous –
what people call violent, corrupt, or in your case, SACRILEGE – conceals as much
as it reveals! – so – what is un-violent, un-corrupt, etc? it inevitably involves a
comparison of regimes – WE MUST LOCATE WHAT IS IMMORAL/CORRUPT/ETC
in their specific political processes
11.) understanding the tension between LAW and BEHAVIOR helps us to
understand the causes of corruption – the violation of the formal legal
standards – we look at public opinion (piers plowman) as a function of
EXPECTATIONS, or even a call for REFORM
12.) it is with the French Rev that. an “office” becomes a “public trust”, or the
servant of the community – have ppl been considering friars in this way, is this
correct?
WEBER – POLITICAN CANNOT BE A CHRISTIAN – ETHIC OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT – WORD IS THIS IT?
6. Solutions/Avenues of Inquiry
1. Use Cochrane – huge shift in cultures, antiquity is dead, Christianity fills the gap
2. Brown – new patronage systems –
3. Andrea sterk – leading the church
4.
7. Thoughts I Thunk whilst reading
1. more edicts because there is MORE communication with the Emperor and the periphery
2. YEP
8. MISC
1.) MM – guilds rise in 3rd thru 5th centuries
2.) BMCR – religion and law in classical/Christian Rome – public NOT private, and FOREIGN = not public
3.) With Christianity, a changing of roles
4.) BMCR – F. Millar review –CT = “collection of letters sent from imperial court to individiaul officials in the provinces as answers to demands that reached the court”
5.) Millar uses indiv. Letters on exchange between emp. And court
6.) IDEA: severe changes in “style” – religious beliefs – are dialectically related to the imperial government and its regional culture – church as inst. Of power/authority, which also coerces
7.) Kelly (2004) – our use of corruption is wrong, gift-giving = corruption
8.) BMCR – alms-giving in rome – Christian alms giving as patronage system – independent administrative systems, alms as giving – material for spritual
9.) On the idea of more “poor” people – perhaps the bishops just want to spotlight on those who they have helped
10.) Entrance to church – means mobility
11.) Laws against strikes in CT
12.)
While potestas derives from social function, auctoritas “immediately derives from the patres personal condition”. As such, it is akin to Max Weber's concept of charisma. This is why the tradition ordered, at the king's death, the creation of the sovereign’s wax-double in the funus imaginarium, as did Ernst Kantorowicz demonstrate in The King's Two Bodies (1957). Hence, it is necessary to distinguish two bodies of the sovereign in order to assure the continuity of dignitas (term used by Kantorowicz, here a synonym of auctoritas). Moreover, in the person detaining auctoritas — the sovereign — public life and private life have become inseparable. Augustus, the first Roman emperor who claimed auctoritas as the basis of princeps status in a famous passage of Res Gestae, had opened up his house to public eyes. Giorgio_Agamben
The correspondence between justitutium and mourning here shows its true signification. If the sovereign is a living nomos, if then anomie and nomos coïncide in his person without any left-over, then anarchy (which, at his death, when the link attaching him to law his broken, threatens to unleash itself in the city) must be ritualized and controlled, by the transformation of the state of exception into public mourning and of mourning into justitium (…) Before acquiring the modern form of a decision on emergency {Schmitt's definition}, the relationship between sovereignty and state of exception presents itself under the form of an identity between the sovereign and anomie. As living law, the sovereign is deeply anomos. Here also the state of exception is the life — more secret and true — of the law.
Politically, auctoritas was connected to the Roman Senate's authority (auctoritas patrum), as opposed to potestas or imperium (power) , which were held by the magistrates or the people. In this context, Auctoritas could be defined as the juridical power to authorize some other act.
The 19th-century classicist Theodor Mommsen describes the “force” of auctoritas as “more than advice and less than command, an advice which one may not safely ignore.” Cicero says of power and authority, “Cum potestas in populo auctoritas in senatu sit.” (“While power resides in the people, authority rests with the Senate.”)
A popular translation is 'the ability to make people do what you want, just by being who you are.'
Hannah Arendt considers auctoritas a reference to founding acts as the source of political authority in Ancient Rome. She takes foundation to include (as augeō suggests), the continuous conservation and increase of principles handed down from “the beginning” (see also pietas). According to Arendt, this source of authority was rediscovered in the course of the 18th-century American Revolution (see “United States of America” under Founding Fathers), as an alternative to an intervening Western tradition of absolutism, claiming absolute authority, as from God (see Divine Right of Kings), and later from Nature, Reason, History, and even, as in the French Revolution, Revolution itself (see La Terreur). Arendt views a crisis of authority as common to both the American and French Revolutions, and the response to that crisis a key factor in the relative success of the former and failure of the latter.
Arendt further considers the sense of auctor and auctoritas in various Latin idioms, and the fact that auctor was used in contradistinction to – and (at least by Pliny) held in higher esteem than – artifices, the artisans to whom it might fall to “merely” build up or implement the author-founder's vision and design.
See also: Giorgio Agamben#State of Exception .282005.29
Philosopher Giorgio Agamben suggests a relationship between the Roman auctoritas, Max Weber's “charismatic power”, and Carl Schmitt's theoretical/ideological basis for the Nazi Führertum doctrine. Agamben compares auctoritas to the Führer (who embodies nomos empsuchon or “living law”) in their relationship to the observance of gramma (written law
While potestas derives from social function, auctoritas “immediately derives from the patres personal condition”. As such, it is akin to Max Weber's concept of charisma. This is why the tradition ordered, at the king's death, the creation of the sovereign’s wax-double in the funus imaginarium, as did Ernst Kantorowicz demonstrate in The King's Two Bodies (1957). Hence, it is necessary to distinguish two bodies of the sovereign in order to assure the continuity of dignitas (term used by Kantorowicz, here a synonym of auctoritas). Moreover, in the person detaining auctoritas — the sovereign — public life and private life have become inseparable. Augustus, the first Roman emperor who claimed auctoritas as the basis of princeps status in a famous passage of Res Gestae, had opened up his house to public eyes.
As a final figure of illustration, Agamben follows the Roman relation of auctoritas
(first of the Senate in ratifying the will of the people, later of the emperor) to the potes-
tas of the magistrate. Auctoritas, which is ‘the power to suspend or reactivate the law,
but is not formally in force as law’ is located in the figure of authority, and is an
attribute not of law but of life itself, deriving originally from the people of the republic,
later from the person of the emperor.35 It exists in a binary relationship ‘at once of
exclusion and supplementation’ to potestas, the magistrate’s power to execute the
law.36 Through Augustus’ auctoritas, he ‘legitimates and guarantees the whole of
Roman political life’.37 Bringing the parallel forward to contemporary experience,
Agamben writes:
As long as the two elements [i.e. auctoritas and potestas or life and law] remain correlated yet
conceptually, temporally and subjectively distinct . . . their dialectic . . . can nevertheless
function in some way. But when they tend to coincide in a single person, when the state of
exception, in which they are bound and blurred together, becomes the rule, then the juridico-
political system transforms itself into a killing machine.38
If one says 'the future of socialism' or 'international peace,' instead of native city or 'fatherland' (which at present may be a dubious value to some), then you face the problem as it stands now. Everything that is striven for through political action operating with violent means and following an ethic of responsibility endangers the 'salvation of the soul.' If, however, one chases after the ultimate good in a war of beliefs, following a pure ethic of absolute ends, then the goals may be damaged and discredited for generations, because responsibility for consequences is lacking, and two diabolic forces which enter the play remain unknown to the actor. These are inexorable and produce consequences for his action and even for his inner self, to which he must helplessly submit, unless he perceives them. The sentence: 'The devil is old; grow old to understand him!' does not refer to age in terms of chronological years. I have never permitted myself to lose out in a discussion through a reference to a date registered on a birth certificate; but the mere fact that someone is twenty years of age and that I am over fifty is no cause for me to think that this alone is an achievement before which I am overawed. Age is not decisive; what is decisive is the trained relentlessness in viewing the realities of life, and the ability to face such realities and to measure up to them inwardly
Late For Antiquity! 