| To What extent did cities govern themselves independently under the Roman Empire? In the Roman Empire, ultimate power lay in the hands of the Emperor. Though the emperors were worshipped by some and greatly honoured by all, they were not omnipotent. The amount of work that they could undertake was limited. This meant that much of the authority was delegated to other persons and bodies of people. These ranged from the Senate down to town officials. Thus the cities had some authority to govern themselves via appointed officials. The powers that each had varied as you descended the ladder. The scale was not necessarily the main variant, the area of powers was perhaps more significant. There were a series of statutes that governed these. One of the best examples remaining of these statutes is the Law of Irni (Lex Irnitana). The Law of Irni contains detailed instructions about the precise roles and authorities of each individual. There is a clear distinction about the role that each one has to play. The aedile is described in ch. 19 as having the responsibility over the running of the city. This is limited to specifics including managing the corn supply, the sacred and holy places and the roads. The aedile was in charge of the practical matters. The duties and authority of an aedile was limited and was not allowed to overstep the mark and contradict superior regulatory documents as ch. 19 states: And as long as none of all those duties which are listed above is carried out contrary to statues, plebiscites, decrees of the Senate, edicts, judgements or constitutions of the Divine Augustus or
(previous emperors listed)
or the Emperor Caesar Domitian Augustus, chief priest, father of his country, those aediles are to have rights and powers. This is a standard formula repeated throughout the Law of Irni. It explains that the aedile is to have powers as long as he doesnt go beyond his limits. This is important, as the ultimate power still lay in the central regimes, but the city had officials who could operate without direct reference to Rome or other authorities to a certain degree. The situation of quaestors is related using the same formula as that for aediles. The difference is the area of government for which they have authority. Quaestors are financial officials. This is described in ch. 20 in detail: And they are to have the right and power of collecting, spending, keeping, administering and looking after the common funds of the municipes of the municipium at the discretion of the duumviri. The Lex Irnitana clearly defines the limits of each local magistrate. The central regime wanted as little direct intervention with local matters as possible. Delegation was important, but independence was limited. The roles are clearly defined and formulaic, which indicates that the Lex Irnitana followed a model used throughout the Empire. The implication of this is that the roles were common and of common definition throughout the provinces. There may have been some exceptions in large cities with a history of independence such as Athens and Alexandria, but the rule would have been very similar in the vast majority of Roman cities. Finances were vital to all the citizens in the Empire. Embassies were used to achieve benefits from the Emperor and the city of Rome. Due to logistical problems, embassies were very expensive. Id. Ch. I details how an ambassador is to behave and what his penalties will be if he fails to perform his duties satisfactorily: No ambassador is to act or speak contrary to the instructions of the decurions or conscripti, nor is ho to apply wrongful intent so that anything happens contrary to the instructions of the decurions or conscripti or that the embassy is completed or makes its report late. Anyone who knowingly and with wrongful intent contrary to these rules is to be condemned to pay the value of the case in which he did anything contrary to these rules. This was harsh, as the value of an embassy was inordinately high. Ch. 24 of the Law of Irni brings out an interesting case of local magistracy. It details the situation when a municipium (type of Roman City) conferred the duumvirate (highest-ranking position in local government, normally occupied by propraetors or others of equivalent rank) on the Emperor. The Emperor would then appoint someone as Prefect with wide powers: If the Emperor
accepts that duumvirate and orders anyone to be prefect in his place, that prefect is to have the same rights as he would have if it had been appropriate for him to be appointed sole duumvir under this statute and he had been appointed sole duumvir for the administration of justice. That is to say, the prefect would have the power over the city, answerable only to the Emperor himself. This would have normally happened if the city had been troublesome or some dispute had caused the local governing bodies to cease to function effectively. The central bodies had the right to step in and take direct control should the situation arise. This is an example of the limits of local magistracies. The duumvirate had the right to appoint a prefect to take his role temporarily should he be unable to perform his roles that day. This is described in ch. 25. The powers of the cities to regulate themselves ranged from quite major powers to those that seem relatively irrelevant, such as seating arrangements as detailed in ch. 81: Whatever games are given in that municipium, in whatever seats each group of men was accustomed to watch the games before this statute, they are to watch them in the same seats. The choice of who was to sit where was not down to local magistracies, just the enforcing of the regulation as detailed in the Lex Irnitana. This particular law, though innocuous in sound, would have important social implications. Matters such as positioning in public events had a great deal of effect in other peoples perception of your honour and prestige. It is likely that such prestige had been the cause of many serious arguments and disagreements so this standard law incorporated regulations to control it. Civil law was in the hands of the cities as long as the case wasnt too large or serious. The limit was set at 1000 sesterces along with many other restrictions. This is from ch. 84: Whichever municipes or incolae of that municipium wish privately within the boundaries of that municipium to bring an action against or sue or claim against each other on any matter
provided that the matter is worth 1000 sesterces or less, provided.
The duumvir who is in charge of the administration of justice there is to have jurisdiction and the right of granting or assigning a iudex or recupatores from those whose names are published there, and a trial. For the wealthy of the city, this was not too significant a sum for concern. This had the effect that the wealthy were in charge of the civil law of the poorer members of a city and the wealthy were judged by central authority. This was important, as the balance of power was kept constant. A common formula found throughout the Law of Irni, is that any disputes that are not covered in sufficient detail in this copy of the law is to be decided by reference to the example of Romes actions. This is a catchall designed to ensure conflicts are resolved quickly and efficiently. It is repeated to force home the authority of Rome over all the provincial cities. Ch. 93 is a good example of this: On whatever matters there is no explicit provision or rule in this statute
they (the municipes) are to deal with each other in all these matters under the civil law under which Roman citizens deal or will deal with each other. This is further enforcing the idea that Rome is superior and is a reminder that provincials are ultimately under the power of Rome. The Lex Irnitana provides an intricate framework for the jurisdiction of a city, but any problems arent to be resolved internally, they are to be referred to central authority. To have to do this would have been a matter of dishonour to a city, as it would have shown incompetence and unruliness. This was not to be encouraged in the Roman Empire. It was a veiled threat to ensure that the provincials didnt become too independent. They enforced the laws themselves, but they had little to do with law creation, though interpretation and importance of laws was in their hands. There were different classes of city in the Roman Empire. Irni was a municipium and so was a relatively low-class city. Free cities such as Aphrodisias had certain privileges. Inscriptions from this city remain that show the privileges granted by the emperor and the Senate. These range from exemption from compulsory liturgy, tax and civic affairs. These privileges were normally continued through reigns of emperors except in exceptional circumstances (this is taken from Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (1982) no.15): Your freedom, autonomy and other (privileges) which were given you by the Senate and the emperors who preceded me, I confirmed earlier. This shows the benefits of certain status for a city over those who were of lower status. They governed themselves with greater independence than a municipium could. The problem of liturgy is returned to in the Papyri from Egypt. The Fayum Papyrus details a physician who has been forced to undertake the office of superintendent of confiscated property. He then proceeds to ask for pity and includes precedents. Precedents were crucial in the Roman legal system and many examples of using them to further personal cases exist. They were used as attempts to assert their rights when they felt their independent rule was threatened. In conclusion, these sources indicate that the cities had certain autonomy in self-rule. This was restricted to the level of enforcement of regulations that they wished to use. The central authorities set the laws and these were passed out to the regions. The interpretation left room for manoeuvre but the intention was that disputes were to be settled by the example of Rome. The Emperor and Rome wanted little direct involvement with provincial cities, but they also wanted to restrict independence of these towns. This was why central laws existed; though local modifications did exist for the more fortuitous cities. Important matters such as conflicts between the Alexandrians and the Jews mentioned in the letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians were to be taken out of the hands of the provinces and referred to Rome or even the Emperor. | |
|
