hòu qī dì guó cóng sān shì jì wēi jī qǐ， jīng yī lì lǐ yà zhū dì、 dài kè lǐ xiān de sì dì gòng zhì、 jūn shì tǎn dīng dà dì de dì guó， zhì dí 'ào duō xī yī shì sǐ hòu jiāng dì guó zhèng shì fēn wéi liǎng bù fēn（ 395 nián）。
bāo kuò：
sì dì gòng zhì
jūn shì tǎn dīng wáng cháo
bù liè diān dì guó
wǎ lún dīng ní 'ān wáng cháo
TheDominatewasthe'despotic'latterphaseofgovernmentintheancientRomanEmpirefromtheconclusionoftheThirdCenturyCrisisof235 – 284untiltheformaldateofthecollapseoftheWesternEmpireinAD476.ItfollowedtheperiodknownasthePrincipate.IntheEasternhalfoftheEmpire,andespeciallyfromthetimeofJustinianI,thesystemoftheDominateevolvedintoByzantineabsolutism.
ThewordisderivedfromtheLatindominus,meaninglordormaster,asanownerversushisslave héng thishadbeenusedsycophanticallytoaddressemperorsfromtheJulio-Claudian(first)dynastyon,butnotusedbythemasastyle héng Tiberiusinparticularissaidtohaverevileditopenly.ItbecamecommonunderDiocletian,whoisthereforealogicalchoiceasthefirstrulerofthe'early'dominate.HistorianDavidPotterdescribesthetransformationofGovernmentunderDiocletianwhendescribingtheshiftsinimagerytheEmperorusedtodisplayhispower(inthiscasethebuildingofahugenewpalaceatSirmium):
ThestyleofGovernmentsomemorablydescribedbyMarcus,wherebytheemperorsoughttoshowhimselfasamodelofcorrectaristocraticdeportment,hadgivenwaytoastyleinwhichtheemperorwasseentobedistinctfromallothermortals.Hishousecouldnolongerbeagranderversionofhousesthatotherpeoplemightlivein:it,likehim,hadtobedifferent.
DuringthePrincipate,whentheformalitiesoftheconstitutionally-never-abolishedrepublicwerestillverymuchthe'politicallycorrect'imageofgovernment,ithasalsooftenbeensaidtohaveendedaftertheThirdCenturyCrisisof235– 284,whichconcludedwhenDiocletianestablishedhimselfasEmperor.MovingthenotionoftheEmperorawayfromtherepublicanformsoftheEmpire'sfirstthreecenturies,Diocletianintroducedanovelsystemofjointrulebyfour,thetetrarchy,andheandhiscolleaguesandhissuccessors(intwoimperialterritories,eastandwest,notfour)chosetostopusingthetitleprinceps,insteadopenlydisplayingthenakedfaceofImperialpowerandadoptingaHellenisticstyleofgovernmentmoreinfluencedbythevenerationoftheEasternpotentatesofancientEgyptandPersiathanbytheheritageofciviccollegialityamongstthegoverningclasspasseddownfromthedaysofthe'uncrowned'RomanRepublic.
*Arguably,morecrucialthanthechosentitlewastheearlieradoptionofadivinestatusasdivus,originallyaposthumousexceptionalhonourawardedbythesenate,latergrantedtothelivingemperor(andsomemembersofhisdynasty),becominganunwrittenprerogativeofthecrown.
*Anotherclearsymptomoftheupgradingoftheimperialstatuswasthathecametoincarnatethenotion(abstractundertheuncrownedrepublic)ofthemajestyofRome,sothatlesemajestebecamehightreason.
*ContemporaryhistoriansrejecttheinterpretationofthetransitionfromPrincipatetoDominateasaclear,easilydefinablebreak(cf.LateAntiquity).Rather,theynowcharacteriseitasamuchmoresubtle,gradualtransformation,inwhichDiocletian'sreformsoftheImperialoffice,whilesignificant,arebutonepointonaslidingscale.Nevertheless,thedistinctionbetweentwoprimaryphasesofImperialgovernmentinRomeremainsanimportantandusefulone.
|