of ladies of the second and third century. Faustina, wife of Marcus Aurelius, and Julia Domna, wife of Septimius Severus, were both designated "mothers of the camp" (mater castrorum). One important and disastrous result of this elevation of the imperial house was that its members were protected, like its head, against all the attacks of laesa majestas. As even the most indirect reflection on the Princeps was treason, because he represented the state, a similar view was taken of constructive wrongs to members of the imperial family, because they were one with the Princeps. This view was too purely Roman to need time to develop. Even in the reign of the second Princeps we find that a poet has to expiate by death the folly of an obituary poem on the Emperor's living son.1

As the Princeps was not a king he had no court, and Augustus or Trajan would have blushed at employing the meanest of the Romans in those menial offices which, in the household and bedchamber of a limited monarch, are so eagerly solicited by the proudest nobles of Britain."2 Yet, although the entourage of the early Principes was simplicity itself, the stately life of the Republican noble had already furnished precedents for distinguishing the grades and privileges of those who sought the Emperor's presence. The younger Gracchus and Livius Drusus had, at the daily salutatio, drawn distinctions amongst their numerous adherents; at the morning audience some were received singly, others in larger or in smaller groups; 3 and it is not surprising that this distinction should have been revived for the great throng of callers who filled the hall of the imperial palace. The amici of the Princeps were those "received at court," and were divided into friends of the first and second "audience." 4 From this body were selected the judicial and administrative advisers of the Emperor (consilium) as well as the comrades (comites) whom he took with him when he quitted Italy on business of state. From the latter, who

1 Tac. Ann. iii. 49-51.

2 Gibbon ch. iii.

3 Seneca de Ben. vi. 34, 2 "Apud nos primi omnium Gracchus et mox Livius Drusus instituerunt segregare turbam suam et alios in secretum recipere, alios cum pluribus, alios universos. Habuerunt itaque isti amicos primos, habuerunt secundos, numquam veros."

4 Seneca de Clem. i. 10 "cohortem primae admissionis"; Vita Alex. 20 "moderationis tantae fuit . . . ut amicos non solum primi aut secundi loci sed etiam inferioris aegrotantes viseret."

consisted of senators or knights, he selected a group for a special journey,1 and employed them as delegates in matters administrative, judicial, and military.

§ 3. Creation, Transmission, and Abrogation of the Principate

The Principate was, in the theory of the constitution, an elective office, and one based on the principle of occasional delegation. It was necessary for the life of the state that there should be a magistracy,2 but it was not necessary that there should be a Princeps. Hence there was no institution such as the Republican interregnum to fill up the gap left by the vacancy of the throne, and the fact that such gaps did occur in the history of the Principate shows that the possibility of government by magistrates, senate, and people was no mere fiction. The abstract idea of a Principate was indeed perfectly realised at the death of the very first Princeps, in so far as responsible men in the Roman world had a perfectly definite idea of the precise powers that must be vested in an individual in order to save that world from anarchy. Yet Tiberius can pretend to hesitate, not merely about assuming the office, but about the nature of the office which he assumes; 4 and, although on the accession of his successor, Gaius Caesar, the soliti honores were conferred en bloc, yet the idea that the creation of a Princeps was an act of special investiture always clung to the office. It was obvious so far as the choice of the person was concerned, but it even affected the powers conferred, and we have seen that the grants made to Emperors of the second and third centuries were in all probability different, both in form and in matter, from those made to Emperors of the first.5

The electing body was the Roman people, chiefly represented by the Senate but still retaining in its own hands the formal ratification of most of the powers conferred. But the powerlessness of this sovereign is of the very essence of the history of

66

1 Hence such titles as "comes divi Hadriani in oriente," comes Imp. Antonini Aug. et divi Veri bello Germanico" (Wilmanns nn. 1184, 637). p. 147.

2

3 Interregnum might be used metaphorically of the interval between the death

of one Princeps and the accession of another. See Vita Taciti 1.

4 Tac. Ann. i. 12 "dixit forte Tiberius se ut non toti rei publicae parem, ita quaecumque pars sibi mandaretur, ejus tutelam suscepturum."

5

p. 343.

the Principate. As a rule, all that it can do is to recognise an imperium already established by the army, whether this establishment be due to the tacit consent of praetorians or legionaries or to the active use of their swords. The crucial point in the creation of an emperor is his salutation by his army as imperator. Such a salutation did not mean that the general who accepted it was Princeps; it meant only that he was a candidate for the Principate. The act itself was one of revolution; its legality depended upon its success. Did the legions in other provinces accept the candidature, the Senate immediately fulfilled its formal task; did rival aspirants meet in battle, it was always ready to welcome the survivor. To be truly a Princeps was to receive the customary honours and offices from the Senate, and Vitellius was acting in the true spirit of the constitution when he adopted as the formal date of his accession (dies imperii) the day on which his claims had been ratified by the fathers.1 Vespasian was acting contrary to that spirit when he regarded as the beginning of his the moment at which he had been saluted imperator by the legions of Egypt.2

Yet although the history of the Empire furnishes an unparalleled series of successful revolutions, it must not be supposed that the importance of the Senate's formally transmitting the succession was ever questioned or obscured. The Senate's authority was rendered stable by the many peaceful instances of dynastic succession; it was rendered creditable by such a stand as that made against the tyrant Maximin; it was kept alive by the fact that when, in the days of the "thirty tyrants," the Empire was breaking up, Italy was still the only formal centre of a world power; it was bound up with the magic name of Rome, and even in the third century was welcomed with relief by an army sick of its own lawless violence.3

But whether we lay more stress on the de facto or the de jure element in the act of election, we must admit that the elective

1 Henzen Act. Fr. Arv. p. 64. Hadrian, after his salutation by the soldiers, wrote to the Senate that he had been praepropere addressed as imperator (Vita Hadriani 6). Pertinax, after his appointment had been accepted by the praetorian guards, laid down his power in the Senate and was elected again (Dio Cass. lxxiii. 1).

2 Suet. Vesp. 6.

3 Vita Taciti 2 (after the murder of Aurelian) "exercitus, qui creare imperatorem raptim solebat, ad senatum literas misit. . . petens ut ex ordine suo principem legerent. Verum senatus, sciens lectos a se principes militibus non placere, rem ad milites rettulit, dumque id saepius fit, sextus peractus est mensis."

principle was not the sole determinant in the transmission of the Principate. It was crossed by two others, both of which were typically Roman. These were the principles of nomination and of hereditary succession.

Nomination took the form of designation by some significant act. One of the most significant modes in which the Princeps could point to his choice of a successor was to invest an individual with an approximation to those powers which were of the essence of the Principate, and thus to make him in a sense a colleague in the Empire (collega, consors imperii). The powers chosen were the proconsulare imperium, the tribunicia potestas, or both. It was thus that Augustus at different times designated Agrippa and Tiberius for the throne,1 that Tiberius pointed to Germanicus and Drusus as his destined successors, that Nerva nominated Trajan, Trajan Pius, and Pius Marcus Aurelius.2 Although such a position is described as one of colleagueship in the imperial power, yet it did not confer, as regards the imperium, the most characteristic rights of the Principate. The colleague did not possess joint command over the praetorian guard or the fleet, nor joint administration over all the Caesarian provinces,3 unless these rights were conferred by special mandate, as they were on Tiberius during the closing years of Augustus' life; nor had the colleague, although in possession of an independent imperium, any right to triumph, except by the will of the Princeps,5 for his victory had been due to legions which had

1 In 13 B.C. Agrippa received tribunicia potestas for five years (Dio Cass. liv. 12). For Tiberius' claims see Tac. Ann. i. 3 "filius, collega imperii, consors tribuniciae potestatis adsumitur."

2 Tac. Ann. i. 14 (Tiberius on his accession, A.D. 14) "Germanico Caesari proconsulare imperium petivit"; iii. 56 (A.D. 22) "Tiberius mittit literas ad senatum quis potestatem tribuniciam Druso petebat." For Trajan see Plin. Paneg. 8 "ante pulvinar Jovis optimi maximi adoptio peracta est simul filius, simul Caesar, mox imperator et consors tribuniciae potestatis"; Vita Pii 4 "adoptatus est (Pius) . . . factusque est patri et in imperio proconsulari et in tribunicia potestate collega"; Vita Marci 6 (Marcus before he came to the throne) "tribunicia potestate donatus est atque imperio extra urbem proconsulari."

3 Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 1158.

4 Vell. ii. 121 "cum

senatus populusque Romanus postulante patre ejus, ut aequum ei jus in omnibus provinciis exercitibusque esset quam erat ipsi, decreto complexus esset."

5 Agrippa twice declined a triumph offered him by Augustus (Dio Cass. liv. 11 and 24), and the Senate conferred the title of Imperator only on the proposal of the Princeps (Tac. Ann. i. 58, Germanicus in A.D. 15, "exercitum reduxit nomenque imperatoris auctore Tiberio accepit ").

taken the sacramentum to another. The name imperator was not borne by this assistant to the throne unless it was specially conferred, as it was by Vespasian on Titus and by Hadrian on Antoninus Pius.1 It is uncertain whether the possessor of the tribunicia potestas and of the proconsulare imperium in its lower form had to have these powers reconferred on his accession to the throne. In the case of the imperium, since it fell short of that required for the imperial position, reconferment is probable. But yet the possession of such a power seemed to create a continuity in the Principate, and the state seemed never to have lost its head.

A second mode of nomination was effected by the Princeps designating his intended successor as his heir. It was not merely that this was an effective way of showing one's will, but it actually pointed to a transmission of the crown property (patrimonium) which accompanied the Principate. Gaius attempted to employ this mode of designation in favour of his sister Drusilla,2 and Tiberius showed either that he had left the succession open, or that he contemplated a joint Augustate, by making his great-nephew Gaius and his grandson Tiberius Gemellus joint heirs.3

Adoption was as effective a means of emphasising one's in tentions. Such an adoption by the Princeps might be by testament, but it need not follow the legal forms, and required only a public announcement through a contio whether in the Forum, the Senate, or the camp. 4 It was thus that Galba named Piso as his successor, but adoption usually accompanied the gift of quasi-imperial power, as in the cases of Tiberius, Trajan, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius.5

We have already noticed the method by which the Princeps, sometimes with the help of the Senate, could announce his wishes as to the succession by the gift of the name of Caesar. This

1 Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 1154.

2 Suet. Gaius 24 "(Gaius Drusillam) heredem quoque bonorum atque imperii aeger instituit."

66

3 ib. 14. Compare Domitian's contention after the death of Vespasian relictum se participem imperii sed fraudem testamento adhibitam (Suet. Dom. 2).

4 Tac. Hist. i. 15 (see p. 350); i. 17 (of the adoption of Piso by Galba) "consultatum inde pro rostris an in senatu an in castris adoptio nuncuparetur"; Suet. Galba 17 "(Galba Pisonem) perduxit in castra ac pro contione adoptavit." Nerva proclaims on the Capitol his adoption of Trajan (Dio Cass. lxviii. 3).

5 See p. 360, n. 2.

6 p. 354.