Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-23T09:30:47.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. Administration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

The primary goals of the imperial administration were the maintenance of law and order and the collection of taxes to meet military costs and to provide public buildings, entertainments, and handouts in the city of Rome. To achieve these ends the emperors of the early empire took the Republican system of senatorial administration and expanded it, employing slaves and freedmen of their own familia, as well as increasing numbers of equestrians. Growth of bureaucracy appears as a dominant theme in historical studies of the early empire, one author representing the development from the beginning to the end of our period as a change from a ‘monarchie personelle’ to a ‘monarchie bureaucratique’. A description of the administrative organization of the state followed by a discussion of the main lines of development will enable us to test the accuracy of this characterization. We will want in particular to ask: how complex did the organization become by the early second century, and how was the personnel for administrative posts chosen?

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 15: The Early Principate: Augustus to Trajan , 1982 , pp. 15 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Petit, P., ‘Le IIe siècle après J.-C: État des questions et problèmes’, ANRW II. 2 (1975), 361 Google Scholar. Millar (1967) gives a good introduction.

2. Burton, G. P., ‘Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration of Justice under the Empire’, JRS 65 (1975), 92–106 Google Scholar.

3. Jones, C. P., The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (London, 1978), chh. 10–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burton, G. P., ‘The curator rei publicae’, Chiron 9 (1979), 465-88Google Scholar.

4. See Pflaum (1950), (1960), and (1974) (a useful schematic presentation).

5. See Brunt, P. A., ‘The Administrators of Roman Egypt’, JRS 65 (1975), 124-47Google Scholar.

6. Millar (1966); Burton, G. P., ‘The issuing of mandata to proconsuls and a new inscription from Cos’, ZPE 21(1976), 63-8Google Scholar (mandata to proconsuls as early as Augustus). It might be argued on the other side that the cases of intervention by the Princeps in provinciae p. R. or publicae (the senatorial/imperial dichotomy is incorrect) are marginal, at least to begin with; and that the antiqua munta senatus in the provincial sphere, to which emperors sometimes pay lip-service, involved more than the mere control over appointments (cf. Tac. Ann. 13.4: embassies).

7. Brunt (1961).

8. Eck, W., Die staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Munich, 1979)Google Scholar.

9. Vitucci, G., Ricerche sulla Praefectura Urbi in Età Imperiale (Rome, 1956)Google Scholar; reviewed by Cadoux, , JRS 49 (1959), 152-60Google Scholar; Baillie-Reynolds, P. K., The Vigiles of Imperial Rome (Oxford, 1926)Google Scholar; D’Escurac, H. Pavis, La préfecture de l’annone, service administratif impérial d’Auguste à Constantin (Rome, 1977)Google Scholar; Durry, M., Les Cohortes prétoriennes (Paris, 1938)Google Scholar.

10. Boulvert, G., Esclaves et affranchis impériaux sous le Haut-Empire romain: rôle politique et administratif (Naples, 1970)Google Scholar; Weaver (1972), pt. III.

11. For example, emperors made ordinary private wills; they were not, in those, bequeathing public funds. For the debate, see Jones (1960), pp. 99-114; Millar, F., ‘The Fiscus in the First Two Centuries’, JRS 53 (1963), 29–12 Google Scholar; Brunt, P. A., ‘The “Fiscus” and its Development’, JRS 56 (1966), 75–91 Google Scholar.

12. Millar (1977), ch. 3.

13. Crook (1955); Millar (1977), pp. 110 ff., 507 ff.

14. Morris, J., ‘Leges Annales under the Principate’, LF 87 (1964), 316-37Google Scholar; 88 (1965), 22-31.

15. For early developments see Sherwin-White, A. N., ‘Procurator Augusti’, PBSR 15 (1940), 11–26 Google Scholar; Jones (1960), pp. 115-25.

16. This is reflected in Claudius’ grant of jurisdiction. See Brunt, P. A., ‘Procuratorial Jurisdiction’, Latomus 25 (1966), 161-89Google Scholar.

17. See however Millar’s review of Pflaum’s work in JRS 53 (1963), 194–203 Google Scholar.

18. Weaver (1972), pp. 224 ff.; Boulvert, G., Domestique et fonctionnaire sous le Haut-Empire romain: la condition de l’affranchi et de l’esclave du prince (Paris, 1974), pp. 111-98CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But see the reviews of Weaver, P. R. C., Antichthon 13 (1979), 70–102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Burton, G. P., JRS 67 (1977), 163 Google Scholar ff.

19. See e.g. Birley, E., ‘Senators in the emperor’s service’, PBA 39 (1953), 197–214 Google Scholar; Pflaben. (1950); Eck, W. in ANRW II.1 (1974), 158–228 Google Scholar.

20. de Ste. Croix (1954), 38 ff.; Saller (1981), ch. 3.

21. Campbell, B., ‘Who were the “Viri Militares”?’, JRS 65 (1975), 11–31 Google Scholar; Saller, R. P., ‘Patronage and Promotion in Equestrian Careers’, JRS 70 (1980) 44–63 Google Scholar.