Omnia in melius reformantur: Handelten römische Kaiser zukunftsorientiert?

Abstract The paper seeks to examine whether Roman emperors legitimized their political actions with a view towards the future achievement of social and political order. The heuristic point of departure is Koselleck’s concept of ‚futures past‘ (vergangene Zukunft) which has been widely discussed in early modern and medieval research while its applicability to prechristian antiquity is still unexplored. The example of the so-called reforms of Augustus and Diocletian reveals that even in response to severe crises in the Roman Empire the emperors did not command any ideas of order in alternative to prevailing conditions. Neither did they have any ‚master plan‘ of coordinated reforms, but reacted in a situational manner with improvements of administrative practice which were mainly aimed at consolidating their power and authority. All ‚reforms‘ were pronounced retrotopically as a return to better days (restitutio) or as a preservation (conservatio) of ‚happier times‘ (felicitas temporum). Looking at the monarchical discourse of power and the messages exchanged in various media between the emperor and his subjects, it is evident that the dominant time regime of imperial chronopolitics lay in a ‚presentism‘ which extended the present, as ‚eutopia‘, into eternity and glorified it as a golden age, whereas the future was only envisaged in dynastic terms. The horizon of expectations of both the emperor and his subjects was restricted to present-day provision. Only Christians were able to imagine a worldly and transcendent horizon of the future. The political success and duration of the Roman Empire left no room for alternative horizons of possibilities, which also explains why the Roman Empire – in contrast to the Greek world – had no notion of utopia.