398. The Administrative System. The system of Diocletian, as elaborated by Constantine, was based upon a complete separation of the civil and military administrations and a carefully graded hierarchy of officials in each. At the head of the civil administration were the four praefecti praetorio, one of whom resided at Constantinople, the second at Sirmium, the third at Milan, and the fourth at Treves. They were styled, respectively, praefectus praetorio Orientis, Illyrici, Italiae, and Galliarum. The civil governors of Rome and Constantinople were outside the general scheme, inasmuch as they were directly responsible to the emperor and not to the praefecti within whose jurisdiction the cities in question lay. The powers of the praefectus praetorio were varied and far-reaching. It was his privilege to nominate the provincial governors to the emperor, to supervise their conduct, and to suspend them from office, if he thought it best to do so. He had the right to interpret the law and to hear cases of appeal, and after 331 his judgment was accepted as final. In particular he had complete control of imperial finances within the territory assigned to him. Up to the reign of Constantine he exercised certain military functions, but from that time on these functions were lost altogether. The prefects had such extensive powers that, as a rule, they were allowed to hold office for a short time only. The prefectures were divided into dioceses, and these again into provinces. In the fifth century there were twelve dioceses, and some of them were made up of as many as seventeen provinces, so that the unit of government became a very small one. The governor of a diocese, who bore the title of vicarius, and was named directly by the emperor, exercised with the prefect a general supervision over the governors of the provinces and the financial officers of his district. The governor of a province (praeses, consularis, or corrector), like his superiors, the vicarius and the praefectus praetorio, had charge of civil administration only. At the head of the military administration there were from five to ten officials who bore such titles as magistri militum per Orientem and per Illyricum, and under them came the territorial commanders, who were styled duces or comites. The ducatus, or unit of military administration, did not in all cases correspond exactly with the provincia. 399. The Relation between the Old and the New. In discussing the history of the empire the gradual drift toward monarchy has been mentioned (cf. pp. 310 f., 327). In the first 150 years of our era the movement is especially noticeable under Domitian and Hadrian. Perhaps the most important changes which prepared the way for the reforms of Diocletian were the exercise of the censorial power by Domitian (cf. p. 310), the establishment of a bureaucratic system of government by Hadrian (cf. p. 318), and the gradual separation of the civil and military administrations. These are not, however, the only distinctive features of the new system which are to be found in the old one. In fact, almost all the important institutions of Diocletian's government existed in an undeveloped or in a fully developed form in the empire of the third century. The principle of collegiality, carrying along with it the practical division of the empire between two rulers, was tried during the reign of M. Aurelius (cf. pp. 319 f.). The practice of conferring the title of Caesar on the intended successor to the throne goes back to the reign of Hadrian, although it is true that under the empire a Caesar needed the confirmation of the senate. The process of reducing Italy to a level with the provinces, which became an accomplished fact under the new régime and was an essential part of Diocletian's system, had been going on for centuries. The division of the larger provinces into smaller units of government, which is a noticeable feature of Diocletian's system, was carried out in many cases as early as the time of Domitian, and many of the honorary titles and insignia of office which Diocletian and his successors took go back to the reigns of Domitian or Aurelian. It is clear, therefore, that many of the features of his system are to be found in the empire, so that, aside from reorganizing the administration, the most important changes which Diocletian effected consisted in breaking away from the theory of the dyarchy, in securing formal recognition thereby of the fact that the emperor was the sole source of authority, and in putting the succession on a new basis. SELECTIONS FROM THE SOURCES All freemen become citizens (212): Dio, LXXVII. 9. – Diocletian: Eutr. IX. 19-28; Aur. Vict. Caes. 39; Lactant. de Mort. Pers. 7 ff.; Zonaras, XII. 31-2; Orosius, VII. 25. A. W. Hunzinger, Die diocletianische Staats-Reform. 1900. Rostock, Karlowa, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, Vol. I. Leipzig, 1885. 1 See also pp. 288 and 304. SECTION II - DESCRIPTIVE CHAPTER XVII THE EMPEROR (a) The Succession; conferring Imperial Powers, Titles, Insignia; Term of Office 400. Eligibility and the Succession. In the case of the emperor there were no specified general conditions governing eligibility, as there were for the higher republican magistracies, but the principle was tacitly recognized that an emperor must be a patrician and a senator, and the successful candidates for the imperial purple, who did not satisfy these two traditional requirements, were made patricians or senators, as the case might be, at the time of their election. The senate was theoretically the ultimate source of authority in the state, so that, on the death of an emperor, the selection of his successor rested with it. However, most of the emperors indicated their choice for the succession by making certain persons heirs to their private fortunes, and by conferring on the chosen candidates the proconsular imperium and the tribunician power, and the nomination thus indirectly made by the emperor was invariably ratified by the senate. From the time of Hadrian the title of Caesar was given to the person designated by an emperor as his successor. 401. Method of granting Imperial Powers. The essential acts in conferring the imperial power were the passage Spart. Did. Capit. Ver. Append. I. no. Io; Tac. Hist. I. 47; Henz. pp. 65 ff. of the lex de imperio and of the lex de tribunicia potestate. These measures were the joint action of the senate and the Act. Fr. Arv. popular assembly. The coöperation of the popular assembly, however, was from the outset a mere matter of form. 402. Imperial Titles. At the election of an emperor, or shortly after his accession, various titles were conferred upon him, some of which were purely honorary, while others implied the grant of new powers. An inscription from the early part of the reign of Augustus (C. I. L. III. 6070), and another from the reign of Hadrian (C. I. L. VI. 967), may illustrate the names and titles of the emperors during the two periods in question. The first one reads Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus Consul XII Tribunicia Potestate XVIII Pontifex Maximus. In the other Hadrian is styled Imperator Caesar Divi Traiani Parthici Filius Divi Nervae Nepos Traianus Hadrianus Augustus Pontifex Maximus Tribunicia Potestate II Consul II. With few exceptions, the emperors, at the time of their election, substituted the title Imperator for their former praenomina. The same word also appears again, in many cases as an honorary title, in the latter part of the name. Caesar was the cognomen of the Julian house, and was transferred to the members of the Claudian family. From the time of Hadrian its use was restricted to the emperor and his candidate for the succession. In the first century it stood after the praenomen or the nomen; but later it was usually placed between Imperator and the praenomen or nomen. After the indication of descent from the emperor's predecessor or predecessors, and the nomina or cognomina, came the title Augustus. This title was granted to Octavius in 27 B.C. (cf. p. 269), and was conferred by the senate on all his successors when they ascended the throne. The position of pontifex maximus was held by all the emperors, Tac. Hist. I. 47; Suet. |