Search

Having defeated all his political enemies and expanded the rule of Rome enormously, Octavian, from 27 BC known as Augustus, ended the civil wars which had plagued the Late Republic and founded the system known as the Roman Principate. The Res Gestae purports to be a retrospective survey by Augustus of his own public achievements in restoring the res publica and conquering the world. It was published in Rome but the only surviving copies were found in the new and distant province of Galatia. In this paper I will try to explain how Augustus, as the founder of the new era known today as ‘the Roman Empire’, envisages and presents Roman rule under his leadership by analysing the content of the Res Gestae. From it we can see that there indeed emerges a concept similar to our ‘empire’. The narrative structure of the Res Gestae shows that Roman imperial rule is conceived of by Augustus in a scheme of core-periphery, in which the core is composed of the provinces under direct Roman control, while the periphery is an area of more vaguely subject people or places maintained by threats and intervention, or more weakly by ‘friendship’ (amicitia), which vary according to the historical specifics of contact between these areas or peoples and Rome. In both cases, whether subjection is in the name of the ‘rule’ or the ‘friendship’ of Roman people, it is Augustus’ personal authority that appears to matter the most, which indicates that Augustus’ institution of a monarchic system was a decisive element in the development of this new holistic concept of Roman imperial rule.

Our purpose in this study – which stands at the crossroads of contemporary philosophy, anthropology, and religious studies – is to assess critically the plea for radical contingency in contemporary thought, with special attention to the work of Meillassoux, in light, among other things, of the symptomatic presence of Pauline motifs in the late twentieth to early twenty first-century philosophical arena, from Vattimo to Agamben and especially Badiou. Drawing on Aristotle’s treatment of τύχη and Hilan Bensusan’s neo-monadology (as well as on the network biology of David George Haskell, Scott Gilbert’s holobiont hypothesis, and Terrence Deacon’s teleo-dynamics), we ask what is missing in such plea, from a theoretical standpoint. Next, we examine the relation between radical contingency and worldlessness in dialogue with Leroi-Gourhan’s theory of biocultural evolution, Lévi-Strauss’s structural anthropology, Pierre Clastres’s ethnography, Heidegger’s philosophy of language, and contemporary authors like Eduardo Viveiros de Castro and Patrice Maniglier. These two parallel lines of inquiry help us explore what radical contingency, in turn, prevents us from thinking: the intersection of ontology, cosmopolitics, and modality.

In order to consider the question of whether empire is a subject for philosophy, I do three things. I sketch an original typology of three types of state, which I call polis, imperium and cosmopolis, in order to show that the second is an important philosophical conception which lies behind the terminology of empire and imperialism. I also consider modern theories of empire and imperialism in order to indicate some of their limitations as theories. And finally I indicate that it is important even for philosophers to recognise that all imperial terminology emerges out of a very complicated history in which the concept of imperium has been extended and distorted in meaning, so that, at best, any good theory of empire or imperialism can only be some sort of recapitulation of that history. Neither the second nor the third of these claims undermines the claim of imperium to be a concept of the state which is of great political and philosophical significance.

EnglishSextus Pompeius, an (il)legitimate imperator. New interpretation of the title praef. clas. et orae marit. ex s. c. This paper aims to study the legend praef. class. et orae marit. ex s. c. on Sextus Pompeius’ coinage, which did not allude to a specific public charge, but reminded the conditions for attribution of his imperium and prouincia in 43 B.C., ex senatus consulto. It should be read as praef(ectus) clas(si) et orae marit(imae) ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) and underlines the definition of the prouincia of Sextus Pompeius, who was then a priuatus cum imperio. While asserting his political legitimacy, the title he fabricated demonstrates the weakness of his institutional position, which determined his command practice, particularly the prominence of liberti in his entourage. francaisCet article revient sur la legende praef. class. et orae marit. ex s. c. figurant sur les emissions monetaires de Sextus Pompee, qui ne faisait pas reference a une quelconque magistrature, mais rappelait les conditions d’attribution de son imperium et de sa prouincia, ex senatus consulto, en 43 av. J.-C. Elle doit donc etre lue en praef(ectus) clas(si) et orae marit(imae) ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) et met en avant la definition de la prouincia de Sextus Pompee, alors simple priuatus cum imperio. Tout en lui permettant d’affirmer la legitimite de son action politique, cette titulature forgee de toutes pieces manifeste sa position institutionnellement friable, determinant sa pratique du commandement, en particulier la preeminence des affranchis dans son entourage.

This paper argues that the three original and prototypical concepts that denote the supreme powers which form the core of the Roman constitution— the imperium, the tribunicia potestas and the patria potestas— are based on physical violence. Moreover, these forms of, L’article entend montrer que les trois institutions archétypiques et originales dénotant les pouvoirs suprêmes qui forment le noyau de la constitution romaine – l’imperium, la tribunicia potestas et la patria potestas – s’appuient sur la violence physique. De plus, ces formes de violence légitime se fondent sur le droit de vie et de mort sur leurs sujets. On examine par la suite les mécanismes par lesquels le droit romain a incorporé et institutionnalisé des actes de violence dans ces notions essentielles du pouvoir, ainsi que les formes sous lesquelles la décision de vie ou de mort est exprimée., Youni Maria. Violence et pouvoir sous la Rome républicaine : imperium, tribunicia potestas, patria potestas. In: Dialogues d'histoire ancienne, vol. 45, n°1, 2019. pp. 37-64.

Resumen: El presente trabajo intenta profundizar en las nociones de ley de dos de los mas importantes teologos escolasticos: Tomas de Aquino y Francisco Suarez. Sabemos que el Eximio pretende dar sentido e inteligencia a las palabras del Aquinatense. Usualmente se ha marcado el voluntarismo y distancia que toma Suarez con respecto a la teologia del Maestro Angelico, motivo por el cual hemos querido bosquejar una posible continuidad entre ambos doctores de la teologia escolastica: todo a partir del analisis del concepto de imperium. Palabras clave: Ratio legis, ley en general, imperium, determinacion. Abstract: This paper tries deeper into the notions of law of two of the most important scholastics: Aquinas and Suarez. We know that Suarez tries give sense and intelligence at the Aquinas´ words. Usually we mark the voluntarism and the distance that Suarez takes over the Aquinas’ theology; for this we wanted outline a possible continuity between the two doctors of scholastic theology: everything from the analysis of the concept of imperium. Keywords: Ratio legis, law in general, imperium, determination.

W wywiadzie przeprowadzonym w 2010 r. przez Davida Muhlmanna Antoni Negri opowiada o wpływie, jaki myśl Róży Luksemburg wywarła na niego i cały nurt włoskiego operaismo. Negri zwraca uwagę na wagę opisanych przezLuksemburg doświadczeń z próbami samoorganizacji robotników podczas rewolucji 1905 r., a później w latach 1917-1918. Obecnie, gdy tradycyjne instytucje polityki proletariackiej, jak partie robotnicze i związki zawodowe, znajdują się w rozsypce i nie są zdolne do poważnego działania, przeprowadzony przez Luksemburg opis fenomenologii i fizjologii jest, zdaniem Negriego, szczególnie inspirujący. Innym aspektem jej teoretycznej spuścizny, na który należy zwrócić uwagę jest teoria akumulacji kapitału. Negri podważa aktualność poglądów Luksemburg, wskazując, że przedmiotem analizy marksistów nie powinno być „zewnętrze” systemu kapitalistycznego, lecz jego wnętrze – tubowiem rozstrzygnie się walka o zniesienie wyzysku i alternatywny model gospodarczy.

By analyzing the Byzantine sources, the author presents a thorough picture of the Arsenite faction and the internal schism occurred in the Byzantine society as a result of their actions. Beside their uncompromising position towards emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, always supported with spiritual arguments, the Arsenites also had concrete political-religious interests, making them an authentic political party.

Wywiad z Maurizio Lazzarato przeprowadzony przez Colectivo Situaciones.

Cette chronique présente, de manière orientée et critique, un bilan de la production historiographique consacrée à Auguste durant la dernière décennie (1996-2006) et en propose un classement qui est fonction des perspectives adoptées. Les pouvoirs d’Auguste continuent d’être étudiés d’un point de vue institutionnel et ont fait l’objet de multiples travaux qui sont synthétisés dans la première partie, mais d’autres approches se sont développées en réaction à une analyse juridique qui s’inscrit dans la tradition de Mommsen. Les apports de la sociologie historique ont été tout d’abord exploités pour montrer dans quelle mesure un des fondements du pouvoir d’Auguste était son acceptation par différentes couches de la société romaine (deuxième partie, qui soumet à une analyse critique les travaux de Flaig sur le consensus). Les formes d’expression et de répression de l’opposition au pouvoir impérial ont été également étudiées (troisième partie, qui prend en compte les ouvrages de Dettenhofer, Rohr Vio et Cogitore). Le pouvoir augustéen se manifesta enfin à travers sa représentation ou son auto-représentation dans l’espace public de Rome et des cités de l’Empire (quatrième partie). This chronicle presents in an oriented and critical way an assessment of the historiographic production devoted to Augustus during the last decade (19996-2006) and proposes a classification in keeping with the adopted perspectives. Augustus' powers are still being studied from an institutional point of view and have been the object of a great many works which have been synthetized in the first part, but other approaches have developed in reaction against a juridical analysis in accordance with Mommsen's tradition. The contributions of historical sociology have in the first place been exploited to show the extent to which one of the foundations of Augustus' power was his admittance by different layers of Roman society (second part which submits to a critical analysis Flaid's works on the consensus). The forms of expression and repression of the opposition to imperial power have also been examined (third part which takes into account the works of Dettenhofer, Rohr Vio and Cogitore). Lastly, Augustus' power manifested itself through its representation or self-representation within the public space of Rome and the cities of the Empire (fourth part).

Wbrew pozorom trudno przeprowadzić jednoznaczny rozdział pomiędzy „międzynarodowością” i „imperialnością”. Z jednej strony, z punktu widzenia normatywnej teorii polityki międzynarodowej przekraczanie tej linii wydaje się prowadzić od legitymizacji stosunków międzynarodowych (międzynarodowość) do jej braku (imperialność) i od normalności do wyjątkowości. Z drugiej strony, z historycznego punktu widzenia imperium jest wszechobecną formą uczestnictwa w międzynarodowości świata społecznego. Jedną ze „świętych” zasad w dyskursie o nowożytnym systemie międzynarodowym wydaje się być zakaz imperium. W ostatnich dwudziestu latach pojęcia „imperium” i „imperializm” wróciły do języka analizy stosunków międzynarodowych. Dokonuje się swoista rehabilitacja pojęcia imperium jako jednostki analizy i imperializmu jako praktyki stosunków międzynarodowych. Artykuł przedstawia rozumienie pojęć imperium i imperializm w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych i historii stosunków międzynarodowych. Autor omawia często pomijane w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych idee i praktyki podzielane przez imperia oraz wpływ jaki zamorskie imperia wywarły na Europę i jej kulturę. Istotnym problemem omawianym przez Autora jest wyjaśnienie braku szczególnego zainteresowania imperializmem w głównych nurtach badawczych w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Autor przedstawia zatem istotę rozumienia problemu imperializmu w nurtach teoretyzowania o stosunkach międzynarodowych inspirowanych marksowską krytyką kapitalizmu poczynając od W. Lenina i K. Kautskiego przez E.Wood, A. Gunder Franka, I. Wallersteina na M. Hardt, A. Negri oraz teoretykach nowego imperializmu kończąc. W końcowej części artykułu Autor uzasadnia tezę, że sto lat refleksji teoretycznej nad imperium i imperializmem, w której istotne miejsce zajmują także badania prowadzone w drugiej połowie XX w. w formie teorii zależności i analizy systemów-światów, zatoczyło koło powracając na pocz. XXI w. do problemu przemocy i siły w ramach kapitalistycznych stosunków społecznych. Ostatnie wydarzenia w stosunkach międzynarodowych ukazują kłopotliwe związki między ideałem umów społecznych, szczególnie w sferze ekonomicznej a stosowaniem siły militarnej w stosunkach międzynarodowych. Contrary to appearances, it is difficult to make a straightforward distinction between „internationalism” and „imperiality”. On the one hand, from the point of view of a normative theory of international politics, crossing this line seems to lead from legitimization of international relations (internationalism) to a lack of it (imperiality), and from normality to uniqueness. On the other hand, from a historical point of view, the empire is a ubiquitous form of participation in the internationalism of the social world. One of the „sacred” rules in the discourse on the modern international system seems to be the prohibition of the empire. During the last twenty years the notions „empire” and „imperialism” have returned to the language of analysis of international relations. One can observe a specific rehabilitation of the notion of empire as a unit of analysis and imperialism as an international relation practice. The article presents the understanding of the notions „empire” and „imperialism” in the studies of international relations and the history of international relations. The author discusses often ignored in the international relations studies ideas and practices shared by empires and the influence that the overseas empires exerted on Europe and its culture. A significant problem discussed by the author is the explanation of a lack of particular interest in imperialism in the main research streams in studies of international relations. Therefore, the author presents the essence of understanding of the problem of imperialism in the streams of theorizing in international relations inspired by Marxist critique of capitalism, starting with W. Lenin and K. Kautsky, through E. Wood, A. Gunder Franka, I. Wallerstein, and finishing with M. Hardt, A. Negri and theorists of new imperialism. In the last part of the article the author motivates his thesis that one hundred years of theoretical reflection over the empire and imperialism, in which a significant place is taken by research carried out in the 2nd half of the 20st century in the form of dependency theory and analysis of world-systems, has taken a roundabout way, returning at the beginning of the 21st century to the problem of violence and strength within the capitalist social relations. Recent events in international relations have shown troublesome relations between the ideal of social agreements, especially in the economic sphere, and using military force in international relations.