It is well known that the emperor Julian plays a central role in the life and writings of the Antiochene sophist Libanius. As a commentator on the life and reign of the emperor Constantine, he is seldom taken into account, and if he is, he usually gets short shrift as being verbose and unreliable. This neglect is, I believe, hardly justified. Even if it were true that Libanius could not teach us anything about the historical Constantine, his testimony still deserves (...) attention as an example of the attitude of eastern pagans to Constantine. Moreover, although much of what Libanius has to say about Constantine was written down half a century after the events, Libanius himself, born in 314, was a contemporary of the latter part of Constantine's reign. Unlike Julian, born in 331/2,2 and Eunapius, born in 347/8,3 he was able to form a judgement on Constantine based on first-hand knowledge. (shrink)

It is well known that the emperor Julian plays a central role in the life and writings of the Antiochene sophist Libanius. As a commentator on the life and reign of the emperor Constantine, he is seldom taken into account, and if he is, he usually gets short shrift as being verbose and unreliable. This neglect is, I believe, hardly justified. Even if it were true that Libanius could not teach us anything about the historical Constantine, his testimony still deserves (...) attention as an example of the attitude of eastern pagans to Constantine. Moreover, although much of what Libanius has to say about Constantine was written down half a century after the events, Libanius himself, born in 314, was a contemporary of the latter part of Constantine's reign. Unlike Julian, born in 331/2,2and Eunapius, born in 347/8,3he was able to form a judgement on Constantine based on first-hand knowledge. (shrink)

Die Existenz einer zentralisierten, funktional differenzierten, professionalisierten und hierarchisch gegliederten Bürokratie gilt seit jeher als ein charakteristisches Merkmal spätrömischer Staatlichkeit. Tatsächlich stellte dieser Apparat in seinen Dimensionen und in seiner Komplexität alles in den Schatten, was das griechisch-römische Altertum vorher aufzuweisen hatte, auch wenn seine Ausbildung bereits in der frühen Kaiserzeit begann und sich im Laufe des 3. Jahrhunderts rapide beschleunigte, wie jüngst Peter EICH (Zur Metamorphose des politischen Systems in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Die Entstehung einer „personalen Bürokratie“ im langen (...) dritten Jahrhundert. Berlin 2005) mit guten Argumenten wahrscheinlich gemacht hat. Auch ist unbestreitbar, daß diese Bürokratie als Instrument der Zentralisierung staatlicher Funktionen diente und daher den Handlungsspielraum lokaler Autoritäten, der in der frühen Kaiserzeit nach modernen Kriterien sehr groß gewesen war, zunehmend einengte. Der in Cambridge lehrende Althistoriker Christopher KELLY geht der Frage nach, wie diese auf ein monarchisches Zentrum ausgerichtete Bürokratie funktionierte und welche Auswirkungen ihre Existenz für Regierende und Regierte hatte. (shrink)