Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2026, Greek and Latin
This
dissertation investigates the role of merit as a public ideology in the
late Roman bureaucracy and imperial apparatus. I argue that the later
empire discursively legitimized itself as a functioning meritocracy in
which its high officials and emperors had earned their positions through
tangible accomplishments and personal virtues. By analyzing the works
of Libanius and Synesius of Cyrene, I first observe from an individual
perspective how merit justified power and advancement in the public
imagination amidst a reality riddled with nepotism, corruption, and
failure. The second half of this project examines merit on a systemic
level through the broader genre of panegyric and the discourse on
bureaucratic venality. By situating the relevant sources within modern
ideological theory, I consider how the late Roman culture of merit
ultimately legitimized the system of imperial rule and dampened internal
criticisms against it. In conjunction with the positive ideal of
supposed meritocrats at the head of the imperial apparatus, the
normative values embedded within the numerous critiques of poor
rulership in our sources inadvertently reinforced the unconscious
assumption that late antique society was ideally meritocratic. In this
regard, the late Roman ideology of merit's first and foremost function
was the continual reproduction of imperial domination.
Less
Committee: Alan Ross (Advisor); Megan Nutzman (Committee Member); Gaia Gianni (Committee Member); Anthony Kaldellis (Other)
No comments:
Post a Comment