ThePrincipate was the early period of theRoman Empire, beginning with the reign ofAugustus as the firstRoman emperor in 27 BC and conventionally lasting until the late third century, often linked to theCrisis of the Third Century.
The Principate as a term is inspired by the position ofprinceps senatus that had existed during the previousRoman Republic. Augustus refashioned the concept of aprinceps ('leading citizen' or 'first citizen') that had previously applied toRoman nobility, but now became a title for the sole ruler of Rome. Later Roman emperors also contributed in defining the role of theprinceps inRoman society.
Proposed in the 19th-century by the German scholarTheodor Mommsen, he viewed the Principate as a constitutional system in which imperial authority was formally embedded withinRepublican institutions before its rupture into theDominate. Since the early 20th century, scholars have increasingly rejected this view, calling the Principate a variant of monarchy and putting more emphasis on the Augustan Principate over the Dominate. Principate continues to be used as a periodisation scheme of Roman rule.
During theRepublican era, theprinceps senatus was the most influential member of theRoman Senate.[1] It was abolished bySulla and revived by Augustus in 28 BC.[1] Over time, Augustus evolved the position, asprinceps ('leading citizen' or 'first citizen'),[2] so that this "first or chief man in the state"[3] had hierarchy over other republican positions.[4]
The historianJochen Bleicken creditsTheodor Mommsen with introducing the constitutional concepts of "Principate" and "Dominate" as a framework for periodising Roman imperial history.[5] Mommsen regarded the "Principate" as a distinctive feature of Roman political history and introduced the additional concept ofdiarchy to describe the early imperial system, in which power was formally shared between Augustus, as princeps, and the Senate from 27 BC.[6] Mommsen considered the "Principate" to be an extension of the republic until its rupture in the 3rd century, when it became theDominate.[7]
Mommsen’s interpretation was later criticised for over-emphasising the role of law.[8] Historians followingRonald Syme now view the "Principate" as a variant of monarchy.[9] There has been a greater emphasis on an "Augustan Principate" that evolved over time,[10] than on the "Dominate" as a new constitution.[11] Scholars also no longer consider diarchy a useful concept in the study of Roman history.[12] The move away from the legal and constitutional framework of Mommsen[13] first occurred in the 1910-1930s by placing more value on the networks of people,[14] the 1960s to mid-1980s with a view of how rulers interact with communities, and now with broader views shaped by the social and political sciences.[15] In 21st-century scholarship, “Augustan Age” is widely used to frame the period associated with the development of the "Augustan Principate".[16]
The "Principate" continues to be used as a periodisation scheme for the first phase of the Roman Empire, from Augustus until the conclusion of theCrisis of the Third Century.[17] However, Bleicken considers it unsuitable for this purpose, due to the flawed legal basis and the misunderstanding it creates, such as viewing the earlier imperial period as having more freedom.[18]
After theBattle of Actium and the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra, Octavian was in a position to rule the entireRoman Republic and he achieved this through incremental power gains.[19] He courted the Senate and the people while upholding the republican traditions of Rome, maintaining the carefully curated appearance that he was not aspiring to dictatorship or monarchy.[20] The termprinceps was previously applied to members of theRoman nobility who distinguished themselves in service to the Republic, and Octavian would embrace this title as part of his cultivated image as a restorer of the Republic.[21]
HistoriansWerner Eck and Sarolta Takács explain the authority Augustus created based on three factors:[22]
"The sum of his power derived first of all from various powers of office delegated to him by the Senate and people, secondly from his immense private fortune, and thirdly from numerous patron-client relationships he established with individuals and groups throughout the Empire. All of them taken together formed the basis of hisauctoritas, which he himself emphasized as the foundation of his political actions."
Augustus began his reign holding the office and authority of aconsul, but in a later settlement with the Senate he acquired the powers of thetribune of the plebs, thecensor, and finally becamepontifex maximus as well.[23][24]
In August 29 BC Octavian was awarded with three triumphs in Rome for his respective victories in Illyria, Greece, and Egypt.[25] Octavian and Agrippa were elected as the consuls for 28 BC, granted certain powers of the censor but not with the office itself, namely for the duty of conducting Rome’s census.[26]
On 13 January 27 BC, Octavian made a show of returning full power to the Senate and relinquishing his control of the Roman provinces and their armies.[27] Octavian was no longer in direct control of the provinces and their armies, but he retained the loyalty of active duty soldiers and veterans alike.[28] The Senate proposed to Octavian, the victor of Rome’s civil wars, that he once again assume command of the provinces. The Senate’s proposal was a ratification of Octavian’s extra-constitutional power.[28] Feigning reluctance, on 16 January 27 BC he accepted a ten-year responsibility of overseeing provinces that were considered chaotic.[29] Moreover, command of these provinces provided Octavian with control over the majority of Rome’s legions.[30] The Senate’s control over some of the Roman provinces helped maintain a republican facade for the autocratic principate.[31]
While Octavian acted as consul in Rome, he dispatched senators to the provinces under his command as his representatives to manage provincial affairs and ensure that his orders were carried out. The provinces not under Octavian’s control were overseen by governors chosen by the Senate.[32] However, by virtue of hisimperium maius, the later reigning Augustus issued instructions and edicts not only to his own legates but also to independent proconsuls governing public provinces that were nominally under senatorial control.[33]
On 16 January 27 BC the Senate gave Octavian the new title ofaugustus.[34] It was a title of religious authority rather than a political one, and it indicated that Octavian now approached divinity.[35] The Senate also confirmed his position asprinceps senatus, the member of the Senate with the highest precedence.[36]
By 23 BC, some of the un-republican implications were becoming apparent concerning the settlement of 27 BC.[37] Around this time and after dealing with a severe illness, the emperor improved and soon afterwards on 1 July 23 BC Augustus gave up his consulship.[38] Cleverly, even though Augustus had resigned as consul, he desired to retain his consular imperium not just in his provinces but throughout the empire.[39] This and related matters led to a second compromise between him and the Senate.[40]
The related matter is what became known as the "Marcus Primus affair".[41] It was scandalous, as it was considered a breach of the Senate’s prerogative under the settlement of 27 BC.[42] The second settlement was completed in part to allay confusion and formalise Augustus’s legal authority to intervene in senatorial provinces. The Senate granted Augustus a form of generalimperium proconsulare that applied throughout the empire, not solely to his provinces. Moreover, the Senate augmented Augustus’s proconsular imperium intoimperium proconsulare maius. This form of proconsular imperium was applicable throughout the empire and in effect gaveAugustus constitutional power superior to all other proconsuls.[43] During the second settlement, Augustus was also granted the power of atribune (tribunicia potestas) for life, though not the official title of tribune.[44] This power allowed him to convene the Senate and people at will and lay business before them, to veto the actions of either the Assembly or the Senate, to preside over elections, and to speak first at any meeting.[45]
The Senate would eventually vote on Augustus’simperium proconsulare maius as not lapsing when he was inside the city walls. All armed forces in the city had formerly been under the control of the urban praetors and consuls, but this situation now placed them under the sole authority of Augustus.[46]
On 6 March 12 BC, after the death ofLepidus who held the position ofpontifex maximus, Augustus acquired this position of high priesthood in theCollege of Pontiffs, the most eminent role in theRoman religion.[47] Beginning with Augustus, the title ofpontifex maximus was retained solely byRoman emperors untilthe fall of theWestern Roman Empire in AD 476, after which it was adopted by thepapacy in Rome.[48]
Patronage, an exchange relationship between two people of "unequal status and resources", is a notable institution in ancient Rome's history.[a][50] During the Principate, scholars focus on its relationship to an orderly society and its role between the government and people.[51] Civic patronage in particular may have played an important role in the Romanisation of the West.[52] Augustus, described as the "ultimate source of patronage",[53] pursued this because it strengthened the empire with loyalty and a common identity.[54]
Augustus' financial power was unrivaled and that underpinned his patronage.[28] Theconquest of Ptolemaic Egypt relieved his financial debts during the civil wars,[55] and then he controlled Roman Egypt directly, forbidding Roman senators to travel there, and kept tight control over its highly lucrative taxation.[56] Augustus was given the titlepater patriae ('father of the country'), which was then inscribed in various places in Rome such as theSenate chambers in theForum Romanum.[57] In Roman culture, the father as head of the household, was highly regarded[58] and it appears Augustus preferred the titlepater thanpatronus.[59]
Augustus' rise to power and the security of his reign was built on the loyalty of the military, which was achieved in several deliberate ways.[60] Augustus split management of the provinces with the Senate, and it was explained that he was to handle the more troublesome provinces.[61] Even though the Senate initially controlled some legions, Augustus ended up with complete control over the army.[61] Augustus would ultimately institutionalise command of the military into the Principate.[62]
Tiberius, likeAugustus, also acquired his powers piecemeal, and was proud to emphasize his place as first citizen: "a good and healthfulprinceps, whom you have invested with such great discretionary power, ought to be the servant of the Senate, and often of the whole citizen body".[63] Thereafter, however, the role of princeps became more institutionalized: asDio Cassius puts it,Caligula "took in one day all the honours which Augustus had with difficulty been induced to accept".[64]
Nevertheless, under this "Principatestricto sensu", the political reality ofautocratic rule by theEmperor was still scrupulously masked by forms and conventions ofoligarchic self-rule inherited from the political period of the 'uncrowned'Roman Republic (509 BC–27 BC) under the mottoSenatus Populusque Romanus ("The Senate and people of Rome") orSPQR. Initially, the theory implied the 'first citizen' had to earn his extraordinary position (de facto evolving to nearly absolute monarchy) by merit in the style that Augustus himself had gained the position ofauctoritas.
Imperialpropaganda developed a paternalisticideology, presenting theprinceps as the very incarnation of all virtues attributed to the ideal ruler (much like a Greektyrannos earlier), such as clemency and justice, and military leadership,[66] obliging theprinceps to play this designated role withinRoman society, as his political insurance as well as a moral duty. What specifically was expected of theprinceps seems to have varied according to the times, and the observers:[67]Tiberius, who amassed a huge surplus for the city ofRome, was criticized as a miser,[68] while his successorCaligula was criticized for his lavish spending on games and spectacles.[69]
Generally speaking, it was expected of the Emperor to be generous but not frivolous, not just as a good ruler but also with hispersonal fortune (as in the proverbial "bread and circuses" –panem et circenses) providing occasional public games, gladiators, chariot races and artistic shows. Large distributions of food for the public and charitable institutions also served as popularity boosters, while the construction of public works provided paid employment for the poor.
With the fall of theJulio-Claudian dynasty in AD 68, theprincipate became more formalized under the EmperorVespasian from AD 69 onwards.[70] The position ofprinceps became a distinct entity within the broader – formally still republican –Roman constitution. While many of the same cultural and political expectations remained, the civilian aspect of the Augustan ideal of theprinceps gradually gave way to the military role of the imperator.[71] That there was no explicit outline inRoman law for the succession of Roman emperors or who could becomeprinceps became starkly clear withthe fall of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Afterwards, Vespasian established a legal basis for his succession by listing the offices and powers he inherited from Augustus, Tiberius, andClaudius in thelex quae dicitur de imperio Vespasiani.[72] Rule was no longer a position (even notionally) extended on the basis of merit, orauctoritas, but on a firmer basis, allowing Vespasian and future emperors to designate their own heir without those heirs having to earn the position through years of success and public favor.
Under theAntonine dynasty, it was standard for the Emperor to appoint a successful and politically promising individual as his successor. Though later scholars would often cite this as an ideal system in which succession to the position of princeps was determined on the basis of ability rather than heredity, that this was the intention of the emperors themselves has generally been rejected by modern scholarship.[73][74]
This period saw several firsts for the imperial office, including the first recognised period of rule by two emperors during the co-rule ofMarcus Aurelius andLucius Verus from their accession in 161 AD until the latter's death in 169 AD, and the succession ofCommodus marking the first transfer of power to a son born to a sitting emperor. Often ranked amongst the worst Roman emperors, Commodus's 12-year reign was followed bya civil war between rival generals and the final dynasty of the Principate, theSeveran dynasty.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)