Principate

Politics of ancient Rome
Periods
Roman Kingdom 753–509 BC Roman Republic 509–27 BC Roman Empire 27 BC – AD 395 Principate 27 BC – AD 284 Dominate AD 284–641 Western AD 395–476 Eastern AD 395–1453 Timeline
Constitution
Kingdom Republic Sullan republic Empire Augustan reforms Late Empire
Political institutions
Imperium Collegiality Auctoritas Roman citizenship Cursus honorum
Assemblies
Centuriate Curiate Plebeian Tribal
Ordinary magistrates
Consul Praetor Quaestor Promagistrate Aedile Tribune Censor Governor
Extraordinary magistrates
Corrector Dictator Magister equitum Consular tribune Rex Triumviri Decemviri Interrex
Public law
Mos maiorum Ius Senatus consultum Quaestio perpetua Senatus consultum ultimum
Titles and honours
Emperor Legatus Dux Officium Praeses Praefectus Vicarius Vigintisexviri Triumvir monetalis Lictor Magister militum Imperator Princeps senatus Pontifex maximus Augustus Caesar Tetrarch
Other countries
v t e

The Principate was the form of imperial government of the Roman Empire from the beginning of the reign of Augustus in 27 BC to the end of the Crisis of the Third Century in AD 284, after which it evolved into the Dominate.^[1][2] The principate was characterized by the reign of a single emperor (princeps) and an effort on the part of the early emperors, at least, to preserve the illusion of the formal continuance, in some aspects, of the Roman Republic.^[3][4][5]

'Principate' is etymologically derived from the Latin word princeps, meaning chief or first, and therefore represents the political regime dominated by such a political leader, whether or not he is formally head of state or head of government. This reflects the principate emperors' assertion that they were merely "first among equals" among the citizens of Rome.

Under the Republic, the princeps senatus, traditionally the oldest or most honored member of the Senate, had the right to be heard first on any debate.^[6] Scipio Aemilianus and his circle had fostered the (quasi-Platonic) idea that authority should be invested in the worthiest citizen (princeps), who would beneficently guide his peers, an ideal of the patriot statesman later taken up by Cicero.^[7]

In a more limited and precise chronological sense, the term Principate is applied either to the entire Empire (in the sense of the post-Republican Roman state), or specifically to the earlier of the two phases of Imperial government in the ancient Roman Empire before Rome's military collapse in the West (fall of Rome) in 476 left the Byzantine Empire as sole heir. This early Principate phase began when Augustus claimed auctoritas for himself as princeps, and continued (depending on the source) up to the rule of Commodus, of Maximinus Thrax, or of Diocletian.^[8]

The title, in full, of princeps senatus / princeps civitatis ("first amongst the senators" / "first amongst the citizens") was first adopted by Octavian Caesar Augustus (27 BC–AD 14), the first Roman "emperor" who chose not to reintroduce a legal monarchy. Augustus likely intended to establish political stability desperately needed after the exhausting civil wars by a de facto dictatorial regime within the constitutional framework of the Roman Republic – what Gibbon called "an absolute monarchy disguised by the forms of a commonwealth"^[9] – as a more acceptable alternative to, for example, the early Roman Kingdom.

Although dynastic pretenses crept in from the start, formalizing this in a monarchic style remained politically perilous;^[10] and Octavian was undoubtedly correct to work through established Republican forms to consolidate his power.^[11] He began with the powers of a Roman consul, combined with those of a Tribune of the plebs; later added the role of the censor and finally became pontifex maximus as well.^{[12] [13]}

In addition to these legal powers, the principate was also characterized by the emperor being the "ultimate source of patronage".^[14] This was due in part to their immense wealth, being named Pater Patriae or "father of the country"^[15], and by having a monopoly on political power. To this, emperors would satisfy the senatorial class with appointments to the high offices and to the provinces, effectively removing threats to their power in Rome. As such, emperors went to great lengths to control and satisfy the needs of the army (their ultimate source of power) by proving gracious donatives to the troops upon their ascension and for special events; limiting senatorial control over the legions by way of controlling military provinces through "extraordinary military commands"; and using oaths to bind the military to the emperor personally.^[16][17]

Tiberius, like Augustus, also acquired his powers piecemeal, and was proud to emphasize his place as first citizen: "a good and healthful princeps, whom you have invested with such great discretionary power, ought to be the servant of the Senate, and often of the whole citizen body".^[18] Thereafter, however, the role of princeps became more institutionalized: as Dio Cassius puts it, Caligula "took in one day all the honours which Augustus had with difficulty been induced to accept".^[19]

Nevertheless, under this "Principate stricto sensu", the political reality of autocratic rule by the Emperor was still scrupulously masked by forms and conventions of oligarchic self-rule inherited from the political period of the 'uncrowned' Roman Republic (509 BC–27 BC) under the motto Senatus Populusque Romanus ("The Senate and people of Rome") or SPQR. 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 of auctoritas.

Imperial propaganda developed a paternalistic ideology, presenting the princeps as the very incarnation of all virtues attributed to the ideal ruler (much like a Greek tyrannos earlier), such as clemency and justice, and military leadership,^[21] obliging the princeps to play this designated role within Roman society, as his political insurance as well as a moral duty. What specifically was expected of the princeps seems to have varied according to the times, and the observers:^[22] Tiberius, who amassed a huge surplus for the city of Rome, was criticized as a miser,^[23] while his successor Caligula was criticized for his lavish spending on games and spectacles.^[24]

Generally speaking, it was expected of the Emperor to be generous but not frivolous, not just as a good ruler but also with his personal 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 the Julio-Claudian dynasty in AD 68, the principate became more formalized under the Emperor Vespasian from AD 69 onwards.^[25] The position of princeps 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 the princeps gradually gave way to the military role of the imperator.^[26] Rule was no longer a position (even notionally) extended on the basis of merit, or auctoritas, 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 the Antonine dynasty, it was standard for the Emperor to appoint a successful and politically promising individual as his successor. In modern historical analysis, this is treated by many authors as an "ideal" situation: the individual who was most capable was promoted to the position of princeps. Of the Antonine dynasty, Edward Gibbon famously wrote that this was the happiest and most productive period in human history, and credited the system of succession as the key factor.

The autocratic elements in the Principate tended to increase over time.^[27]

It was after the Crisis of the Third Century, which almost resulted in the Roman Empire's political collapse, that Diocletian firmly consolidated the trend to autocracy.^[28] He replaced the one-headed principate with the Tetrarchy (c. AD 300, two Augusti ranking above two Caesares),^[29] in which the vestigial pretense of the old republican forms was largely abandoned. The title of princeps disappeared, together with the concept of only one emperor. New forms of pomp and awe were deliberately used in an attempt to insulate the emperor(s) and the civil authority from the unbridled and mutinous soldiery of the mid-century.^[30]

The political role of the Senate went into final eclipse,^[31] no more being heard of the division by the Augustan Principate of the provinces between imperial provinces and senatorial provinces.^[32] Lawyers developed a theory of the total delegation of authority into the hands of the emperor.^[33]

• Constitution of the late Roman Empire
• Constitutional reforms of Augustus
• Roman emperor

• Alston, Richard. 1998. Aspects of Roman History. AD 14–117. London: Routledge.
• Aparicio Pérez, Antonio. 2009. “Taxation in Times of the Principate.” Gerión 27:1: 207–217.
• Bleicken, J. (2015). Augustus (A. Bell, Trans.; pp. 496–503). Penguin UK.
• Cassius Dio, Cary, E., & Herbert Baldwin Foster. (1924). Dio’s Roman History. Harvard University Press; London.
• Flaig, Egon. 2011. “The Transition from Republic to Principate: Loss of Legitimacy, Revolution, and Acceptance.” In The Roman Empire in Context: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Edited by Jóhann Páll Arnason and Kurt A. Raaflaub. Ancient World, 67–84. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Gallia, Andrew B. 2012. Remembering the Roman Republic: Culture, Politics and History under the Principate. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Gibson, A. G. G., ed. 2013. The Julio-Claudian Succession: Reality and Perception of the Augustan model. Mnemosyne. Supplements; 349. Leiden: Brill.
• Goldsworthy, A. (2014). Augustus : first emperor of Rome. Yale University Press.
• Goldsworthy, A. (2010). How Rome Fell Death of a Superpower. Yale Univ Pr.
• Harlow, Mary and Laurence, Ray. 2017. “Augustus Senex: Old Age and the Remaking of the Principate.” Greece and Rome 64.2: 115–131.
• Kousser, Rachel Meredith. 2005. “From Conquest to Civilization: The Rhetoric of Imperialism in the Early Principate.” In A Tall Order: Writing the Social History of the Ancient World: Essays in Honor of William V. Harris, Edited by Jean-Jacques Aubert and Zsuzsanna Várhelyi. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde; 216, 185–202. München: Saur.
• Melounová, Markéta. 2012. “Trials with Religious and Political Charges from the Principate to the Dominate.” Series archaeologica et classica 17.2: 117–130.
• Raaflaub, Kurt A, Mark Toher, and G. W Bowersock. 1990. Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Gaius Tranquillus Suetonius, Graves, R., & Grant, M. (2006). The Twelve Caesars. Penguin.
• Williams, Kathryn Frances. 2009. “Tacitus' Germanicus and the Principate.” Latomus 68.1: 117–130.