CHAPTER X .

THE END OF THE PRINCIPATE

I.

FOUNDATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY

 

CASSIUS DIO tells us of a decree of the Senate, of the year 24 b.c., promulgated in favour of Augustus, by which he was freed from the compulsion of the laws and received full liberty of action; and he sees in this the foundation for a real absolutism. The so-called lex de imperio Vespasiani contains the same clause and points to the same conclusion, although it includes the restrictive provision: ‘uti quaecunque ex usu rei publicae maiestateque divinarum humanarum publicarum privatarumque rerum esse censebit, ei agere facere ius potestasque sit.’ Recent penetrating research has, in the opinion of the present writer, removed the doubt whether this right had in fact been expressly granted at the very beginning of the Principate. We can now look beyond the wholly personal auctoritas of the first princeps and see the constitutional auctoritas upon which Augustus could pride himself as the essential basis of his power. Particularly in the case of Vespasian, this auctoritas was created for a new ruler by the powers conferred through the lex de imperio: at the moment it was in no way merely personal. The emperor received, now and for the future, full freedom of action; and the limitation that he should rule in accordance with the interests of the State, lost importance, inasmuch as he was left to judge whether the condition was fulfilled. This legal formulation and foundation of the emperor’s power had done all that a law could do to make the Principate an autocracy. For, indeed, the provision, that State interests should be regarded, which was still maintained to debar the Principate from becoming an open absolutism, was not a barrier strong enough to prevent self-willed men from setting up an autocratic régime. At all events, it seemed later that the lex de imperio or lex regia marked the transference of full sovereignty to the emperor. Even Ulpian in his day declares that what the princeps has decided has the force of law, because, by the lex (regia) concerning the imperial powers, the People has transferred to him all its own power and competence. And such a champion of unlimited absolutism as Justinian I could still recognize in this law the foundation of the imperial sovereignty, when he declared that by the old law, described as the lex regia, all the rights and powers of the Roman People had been transferred to the emperor. If we turn back to Cassius Dio, even for him the position of the first princeps is already a complete monarchy, just because People and Senate have made over all power to him. The systematic description of the imperial power which he gives in this connection contains in a different form a similar statement of the unlimited power of the monarch. When we take the words which Dio uses to express the significance for his own day of the Senate’s decree in favour of Augustus, we find that for him the emperor is ‘truly absolute’ and ‘not subject even to his own decrees or the laws’. For Dio, the emperor’s supremacy is no longer founded on the outstanding personality of the ruling princeps: the institution of monarchy had long been taken for granted as indispensable, so that any and every occupant of the throne is regarded as representative of this form of government.

The auctoritas of the first princeps was not merely founded on his political supremacy, but was supported by the attribution to him of innate supernatural and superhuman capabilities and characteristics, which made him seem god-sent and his actions divinely inspired. His authority had a religious as well as a political sanction, already apparent in the very name Augustus. It has been called ‘charismatic auctoritas. With the inheritance of the political form created by the authority of the first princeps, with the name of Augustus, borne by his successors to mark their exceptional position, with the imperial cult, the outcome of the ‘charismatic’ auctoritas of the first Augustus, re­mained inseparably bound up the idea of the ruler’s ‘charismatic’ character. But in place of the real charisma attaching to one peculiar supreme personality, an institutional charisma was substituted. Although it could obviously only be spoken of in connection with the individual ruler, the auctoritas granted by law and confirmed by force of religion really attached to the institution of the emperor. Thus Pliny, in his Panegyric on Trajan, could put forward the idea: ‘the gods have given thee supreme power and control over all things, even over thyself’. The consciousness of an imperial power created and blessed by the gods grew continually stronger, and made it possible for good and bad rulers, forceful, ambitious men and weak youths in need of guidance, the well-born and parvenus, all to represent this imperial power, and for all alike to be recognized as the instruments of a divine guidance and providence manifested in their elevation to the throne. Coins with the legend Providentia Deorum are rightly pointed out as the expression of this conception. The picture of the ‘exalted one’ (der Erhabene) endured, of the iure meritorum optimus princeps, the ideal ruler who knew how to combine auctoritas and libertas, and its glory was never wholly lost, even in the period of naked absolutism after Diocletian. But the possibilities of opposition which were latent in the defence of libertas by the Senate, the repository of ancient traditions, must not be overlooked. First we must follow the course of developments in the position of the emperor, which led at last to absolute autocracy in the fullest sense of the words.

The limitation by tradition of the monarchy, which had grown up in the course of two centuries, is apparent in the passage of Dio from which we have already quoted: ‘the names Caesar and Augustus give him no new powers, but the first shows his right to the succession, the second the splendour of his position’. Dio may have been thinking primarily that Septimius Severus, by his fictitious adoption into the family of Marcus Aurelius, hoped to appear as the chosen successor of the imperial line. He did officially so appear when he dedicated a memorial to Nerva, ‘Divo Nervae atavo,’ as the ancestor of his family, and his purpose is clearly reflected in the numerous inscriptions in honour of Severus and his sons that emphasized this relationship. The ruling emperor wished to be able to look back upon a long line of divine forbears, and he did so; he got a share of the glory that radiated from them. But his attempt to build up a legal foundation for his position can also be seen—the conception of a hereditary dynastic title to the throne. We may see in Dio’s words the idea of the unbroken, and for him natural, succession of emperors, and his equally natural acceptance of the institution. ‘The splendour of his authority’ Dio connects with the name Augustus. It is accidental, but significant, that he uses the same word for this auctoritas as that used in the Greek version of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti at the words ‘auctoritate omnibus praestiti.’ Dio finds an addition to auctoritas in the name Augustus, though he does not define in what this addition consisted. It is, however, easy for us to recognize in this the supernatural splendour of the emperor’s position; emperor-worship, which is treated of elsewhere, was the worship of this godlike element. Here we shall adduce only such facts as made a significant contribution towards the changes, or rather the development, in the position of the emperor. It should be said at once that it is often hard, when dealing with the marks of deference and the ceremonial by which the emperor was set apart from all other men, to distinguish be­tween what was still the honour done to a human being and what was already the worship of a divinity. It is true to say, in general, that spontaneous respect for an outstanding personality gave place to an obligation to respect the idea of a ruler, personified in the holder of the office; an obligation that found justification in philosophy and theology. We hardly ever meet with anything entirely without precedent; but the tendencies of earlier times are fixed and potentialities become certainties. Hellenistic influences, rooted in an Oriental past, had already caused much of this development, and closer contact with the East was bound to bring about further progress in the same direction.

 

II.

 THE DIVINITY OF THE IMPERIAL OFFICE: GOD-EMPEROR AND EMPEROR BY THE GRACE OF GOD

 

The curious adoption-decree of Septimius Severus marks, as we saw, a step in the direction of emphasizing the divinity of the ruling emperor. With him and his successors there are ever clearer signs of an increasing prominence given to the divine nimbus. For some time, indeed, adoratio had been paid to the likeness of the emperor (and in law the original and the likeness were identical), for instance in the army; and there not merely the portraits regarded as standards, the imagines, but also the statues in the shrine where the standards were kept were worshipped. It was in keeping with the general policy of the Severi that emperor-worship was made prominent in the camps. This is true, although the imperial portraits did not yet bear the titles of gods. The inscription on an altar from the Raetian limes, which the prefect of the cohors III Britannorum set up in honour of Caracalla, Geta and Julia Domna, ‘mater Augustorum et castrorum,’ as well as to the Capitoline Trinity and the genius cohortis, names the emperors before the gods, thus indicating their full divinity. It is equally noteworthy that, at the erection of a shrine in the camp at Lambaesis, statues and likenesses of members of the imperial house, the domus divina, are mentioned first, before their tutelary deities. We may see in these examples both the desire of Septimius Severus to exalt and assure his own position by divine consecration, and also the influence of his Syrian consort on the development of the imperial cult. Her title ‘mater castrorum’ had indeed been already created by Marcus Aurelius for Faustina. But it had a new emphasis, and its ultimate expansion into ‘mater castrorum et senatus et patriae’ was bound everywhere to connect it closely with emperor-worship; while the more frequent use of the phrase domus divina, with its stress on divine origin, also bears witness to the same tendency. The de­sired deification is unmistakable on a coin showing Geta crowned with rays as the Sun-god and his right hand raised in the act of benediction, which bears the legend: fem invicti Aug. pii fil(ius). This shows him as the offspring of the unconquered Sun­god and Sun-emperor. The intention and thesis is plain, allowance being made for its appearance on a coin officially produced by the State mint. Coins with the image of the empress are less discreet, as is shown by the changes in the form of her diadem under the Severi. For the diadem, which became the attribute of the Augusta in the second century, develops into something like a sickle moon. Together with the emperor’s halo of sun-rays, the sickle moon, used below the bust of the empress, is the unmistakable sign of divinity. Emperor and empress appear as sun and moon, symbols of the Oriental aion idea in reference to the aeternitas imperii, and the third-century emperor is on the way to become ‘partner of the stars, brother of the sun and moon’ like the Sassanian king. Julia Domna, ‘mater Augustorum,’ is undisguisedly portrayed as Cybele, while coins with the image of Cybele and the legend Maier Deum or Matri Magnae may have been intended to hint at the same ideaThe empress is also depicted sitting on the throne of Juno, as mater Augusiorum, mater senatus and mater patriae, while Julia Mamaea is similarly represented. The emperors, indeed, refrained from appearing, as Commodus loved to do, in the dress of the gods and did not emulate his appearance on the coins. Only in the second half of the century, since Gallienus and Postumus, does this tendency become stronger until it reaches its culmination in Jovius Diocletianus and Herculius Maximianus.

Parallel with this development, the world of gods was revalued in honour of the emperor as numen praesens. The gods became, so to say, helpmates of the emperor, as the epithets custos and conservator, sospitator and tutator indicate, until, with the designation of a divinity as comes Augusti, Heaven appears as the copy of the imperial court, and an inscription Herculi Aug. consorti d. n. Aureliani invicti Augusti was possible. In the matter of oaths, too, the State gods lost importance in comparison with the emperor, for to swear by the imperial genius was legally more binding than to swear by them. In addition, the emperor whom the world obeyed received ever new attributes, which connected him with the heavenly lord of the Universe whose divine power was all-embracing. Septimius Severus and Caracalla are compared on coins to Sol, the rector orbis; and fundator pacis was added on an inscription under Diocletian in 290. The latter formula alone appears already on the coins of Septimius Severus. Since Valerian this is matched by pacator orbis, restitutor generis humani and restitutor orbis, since Aurelian by restitutor saeculi, and this latter title points to the emperor as the inaugurator of a new Golden Age. This official acceptance of theocratic claims on the part of the reigning Augustus, as the restorer of the happiness of his age (Commodus had once caused his own reign to be proclaimed as ‘the Golden Age’), is also traceable in the names Pius and Felix commonly given to the emperors from the time of Commodus. There may have been in these still some idea of the piety of the favoured of the gods; but invictus, first assumed by Commodus and invariably used after the second half of the third century, is thereafter to be connected with the Oriental Sun-god. Aeternitas Augusti is regularly used on coins from the reign of Gordian III, together with perpetuitas from that of Severus Alexander; and both imply not only a claim to divinity hereafter but also the recognition of the true divinity of the living emperor, who is ‘deus et dominus natus.’ This appears first on the imperial coins of Aurelian either in the dedicatory form of words deo et domino nato Aurelianoor even more simply in the imperatori deo et domino Aureliano, with restitutor orbis on the reverse, and after him also for Probus and Carus. From the time of Caracalla coins often bore, besides the official titles of the emperor, the lion of the Sun, indicating the theological derivation of the imperial regime from the Sun-god; and finally the divinity of the emperor was made plain by putting busts of the emperor and a god side by side. Thus Hercules appears with Postumu sand on the reverse of some coins Mars or Juppiter with the same ruler; Hercules again with Probus and Maximian; Mars with Victorinus; Sol with the same and also with Probus, sometimes in the form, Sol comes Probi Aug. which ignores the emperor’s titles and only stresses his divine aspect. The preponderance of the emperor is plain at last, when Carus is represented with Sol and the legend is only: Deo et domino Caro invicto Augusto.

It was taken for granted, especially from the reign of Septimius Severus onwards, that in imperial dedications such phrases as devoti numini eius or devotus numini maiestatique eius should appear. That this common formula should have lacked a religious significance seems very unlikely. For even if we are unable to say whether or when the conception that the emperor himself was a numen, a divinity, and not merely the wielder of a godlike power was read into this formula, there must have been a religious significance attached to it. Indeed, one may say that in the phrase numen maiestasque both the charismatic  and the con­stitutional auctoritas were comprehended; and this fact helped the emperor’s maiestas by reinforcing it with the divinity attributed to him, as the divina maiestas of Diocletian shows. In the same way, it became the certainly commanded rule in the third century (though there are earlier examples of its tentative use) to speak of the emperor in inscriptions as dominus noster (D. N.). Here, too, religious motives are at work.

Once the emperor had grown god-like, and emperor-worship, originally provincial, had become universal, so that an African citizen colony could dedicate an inscription to the God Aurelian,’ that other tendency, to acknowledge his position as superhuman, to see in him the medium of divine intervention and to recognize him as divinely favoured, could lead men to admit and to demand an especial position for the sole master of all. How these two tendencies could both lead up to the deification or sanctification of the ruler is shown by two inscriptions dating from Diocletian, the first of which is a dedication to the diis genitis et deorum creatoribus dd. nn. Diocletiano et Maximiano invictis Augustis, the other to the diis auctoribus ad rei publicae amplificandae gloriam procreato Iovio Maximo. Of Aurelian, who let himself be worshipped as a god, the writer who continues Dio tells us that he informed mutinous soldiers that they were mistaken if they believed that the fate of the emperor was in their hands, for God alone could bestow the purple and determine the length of a reign. Cassius Dio puts comparable words into the mouth of Marcus Aurelius. We have spoken above of the meaning of the legend Procidentia Deorum for this conception. Here we can add that even Balbinus and Pupienus, who were nominated by the Senate, and also Tacitus, used this symbol on their coins. And anyhow we may interpret also Providentia Augustorum as another expression of the idea of rule ‘by the grace of God.’

This idea of divine favour is especially noticeable on coins which occur earlier but become ever more common in the third century, on which a divine patron gives the emperor the globe, the symbol of his power over the world. Roma still appears with Gordian III and Florian, as she frequently did earlier. More often, Juppiter performs the investiture, as on the coins of Severus Alexander, Gallienus, Aurelian and Probus, Carus, Carinus and Numerianus. In the case of the last two, the investing figure may also be their father Carus; and it is certainly Diocletian, who receives himself the globe from Juppiter and hands it to Maximian. Sol appears in this role on the coins of Gordian III and Aurelian. Coronation by a god may be explained in the same sense. Thus Sol crowns Probus; Sol and Hercules crown Carus and Carinus; Hercules crowns Postumus. Where Mars appears in this capacity there may also be a reference to those by whom the emperor was chosen.

Whether men believed in the revealed divinity of the emperor or in a divine favour upholding him, there was always something divine about his person and his office. It was just this idea of divine favour which made it possible later for the Christian emperors to express the peculiar sanctity of their position in the traditional ceremonial, to receive the due expressions of reverence and to retain the imperial insignia and dress.

 

III.

THE COURT AND ITS CEREMONIAL. DRESS AND INSIGNIA

 

The character of the sources for the decisive period of transition in the third century rarely enables us to describe with confidence the external setting of the imperial power. For it is just in such matters that the Historia Augusta generally gives only the facts of the time of its composition. Characteristic features due to adulation and the growing pre-eminence of the princess had their tentative beginnings in the first two centuries of our era. But it is almost impossible to say how far and when they reached fixed and obligatory forms. The habit of calling everything to do with the emperor sacrum (so that the word finally came to mean ‘imperial’) is apparent e.g. in the phrase cognoscens ad sacras appellationes,which dates from the middle of the third century; and the holder of the court office a cognitionibus is sometimes called procurator sacrarum cognitionum from which, even before Diocletian, the title magister sacrarum cognitionum is probably derived. But this use of the word may not yet have been strictly official. In the same sense, the description of an imperial rescript of 204 as sacrae litterae may be mentioned; as also the use of theia epistole by the proconsul of Asia; and as early as the reign of Commodus a procurator speaks of the sacra subscriptio domini nostril. In view of this, the passages quoted in the Digest from Ulpian, Paul and others, mentioning the sacrae constitutiones are not to be regarded as interpolations. As so often happens, unofficial and semi-official usage probably preceded the official. As another example of this, we may mention the imperial mint, sacra moneta, so called once in an inscription dating from the reign of Hadrian, but first used on gold coins by Carus and his sons, in Sacri Moneti Antiochensis, and on consecration coins of Carus from the mint of Siscia in the form Sacra Moneta Sisciensis. In view of these developments, it is probably correct to say that the term sacrum palatium was not an innovation of Diocletian, especially since Rome had been called urbs sacra in official documents from the time of the Severi and had thus become the ‘imperial city.’

The emperor, dwelling in the sacrum palatium must be approached by those deemed worthy of the honour in the humble attitude of proskynesis. This attitude was derived from a mixture of the gestures of supplication and prayer with Eastern practices. As the source is untrustworthy, it is impossible to decide whether there was really a greater insistence proskynesis under Elagabalus which Severus Alexander then forbade, or whether we should interpret this alleged prohibition only as a misunderstood report of an alteration in the form of the ceremony. Such a change is attributed to the younger ‘Maximinus,’ who sometimes expected his foot and not his hand to be kissed In any case, proskynesis was taken for granted by Cassius Dio, by Herodian and by the panegyrist of Philip, although we cannot be sure exactly what form the ceremony took at the courts of the Severi and their successors. Adoration of pictures of the emperor may have influenced the development, but again there is no clear evidence. Herodian tells of homage done to the pictures of Balbinus, Pupienus and Gordian on their accession. A gold coin of Postumus shows us for the first time a representative of the People, on his knees before the enthroned emperor, receiving a benefaction. Under Gallienus we hear of those who met the emperor performing proskynesis even in the streets of Rome. When, moreover, Caracalla is reported at a reception to have been merely ‘greeted’ (salutatus), it is perfectly possible that the ceremony of proskynesis is meant; for later sources, in which only proskynesis can be intended, give the name ordo salutationis to the order of precedence in which it was to be carried out. The description of Caracalla’s reception also gives the order in which the various ranks performed the ceremony: Praetorian Prefects, amici (, heads of court offices, members of the Senate and equites. It is uncertain whether precedence was then arranged at the will of the ruling emperor, or whether it was already fixed by rule. The latter seems more probable, and must then have gone beyond the long-standing division of the ‘friends’ into the first and second admissio. With the stricter regulation of the admissio, a department of the court, the officium admissionis, which was known to Suetonius, grew in importance. As early as the third century its president ranked as eques and had the title of magister. Probably the velarii who drew the curtains (vela) of the audience-chamber, belonged to this office. Even if we can believe that Severus Alexander showed consideration to the senators in the rules for their visits to him, we none the less get a general impression that the emperor was becoming increasingly remote and etiquette increasingly stiff, so that in the end not only ordinary visitors but also advisers had to remain standing in the imperial presence. It has been rightly concluded from the types on coins which show the emperor seated and surrounded by standing allegorical figures, and at a later date on his throne in the presence of standing gods, that the custom of standing before the emperor is earlier than the reign of Diocletian, in which it is first certainly attested, though the term consistorium instead of the earlier consilium is possibly not older than this period. Since the above-mentioned coin-types begin with the reign of Severus Alexander, it seems unlikely that he made a rule of allowing every senator the right to sit in his presence after saluting him.

As regards dress and insignia, fixed forms to distinguish the unique position of the emperor had also developed. Although Septimius Severus, at his entry into Rome, exchanged his military dress for the toga, the wearing of uniform in the City, which indicates the progressive militarization of the regime, became increasingly common. Up to the end of the third century the toga praetexta was still worn, it is true; but the emperors tended more and more, on festive occasions, to wear triumphal costume as their gala dress, while for empresses gold-embroidered robes of State were already the fashion. The vestis alba triumphalis, a variation of the triumphal costume, can be seen on a painting of Septimius Severus and his family, in which golden garlands set with gems show a tendency to over-elaborate Oriental pomp; and this style of ornament became commoner, until it finally assumed the form of a diadem set with precious stones, which is only a garland translated into jewelry. From the beginning, however, military dress was always better suited to show rank and superior position. The Imperator alone had the right to wear the paludamentum or the purple mantle, and even in his day the historian Tacitus saw in it the symbol of sovereignty. This idea is yet more marked, when from Pescennius Niger onwards donning the purple becomes more and more prominent at the assumption of imperial power. The purple (purpura) thus became the mystic symbol of power, and men could suppose that the dying Gallienus wished to single out Claudius as his successor by sending him the imperial mantle. Gold embroidery appears in regular use on the imperial purple from the time of Commodus, and the setting of fibulae belts and so on with precious stones, which was still thought by the soldiery to be ‘unroman’ in Macrinus, and must have met with opposition in other cases, was eventually accepted. So too, the elaborate ornamentation of the imperial chariot and harness, had become regular distinctive marks of the emperor by the beginning of the third century.

As the triumphal robe became the gala dress of the emperor and as at the same time he himself became divine, the sceptre with the eagle, generally used with civil costume, became part of the insignia perhaps even before the reign of Diocletian. The long sceptre, symbol of the power of the father of the gods, which already appears in the painting of the Severi and which third-century emperors mostly carried when wearing military costume, indicates the divinity or the divine investiture of the emperor; so that Constantine and his successors, who ruled ‘by the grace of God,’ could retain it. When the globe changed from being the symbol of the universe to being that of sovereignty is not certain; but the fact that Caracalla as 'junior Augustus’, and Philip the younger as Caesar, are both represented with it makes it probable that the change had taken place by their time. It can be shown that from being an emblem in the portrayal of emperors, it had become a real part of the insignia from the fourth century, though coins which show the Augustus giving it to his co-regent may point to an earlier date. Nor was the wearing of the diadem, in which the change to autocracy is most emphatically expressed, a use regular since Constantine, wholly without precedent in the third century. Apart from the coin­types that show the emperor with the headband of the sun-god, there are many others that show the radiate diadem, that is the royal diadem with rays attached, which indicated the sovereign, and the Romans thus  grew accustomed to the sight of the once forbidden royal headgear. The first known official use of the diadem without rays is on a commemorative medal of Gallienus; according to the literary sources Aurelian wore the diadem. Finally, besides the chair of office, the sella curulis, which the emperors as consuls still retained in later times, the throne had become a special mark of distinction. This sign of monarchy, too, had a religious origin; and as the court took on a sacral colouring, it became so integral a part of the imperial splendour that this chair, originally the seat of the gods, was innocently adopted by the Christian emperors as a symbol of their power.

Torchbearers accompanied the emperor on his public appear­ances; and they were an essential part of the honours paid to him. Cheering by the populace as the emperor passed by, which had begun even earlier, was prescribed and ceremonially regulated before the beginning of the third century. By the same period, acclamation in the Senate had also become the rule. The protocols of the Arval Brothers for 213 show how firmly established this mode of addressing the emperor in a kind of litany had become. Of the examples of acclamations by the Senate given in the Historia Augusta, only the single example in the Vita Commodi may be accounted genuine. Dio tells us of the hymn of praise to the emperor which culminated in the description of the emperor as a deity.

The marks of honour which the emperors inherited from the consuls were also maintained. Lictors carrying fasces decorated with laurel-leaves accompanied Gordian I at his entry into Carthage; lictors are depicted at sacrificial ceremonies under Trebonius Gallus. None the less, this train of lictors was not always present, and its appearances were probably confined to the occasions on which the emperor performed certain acts as magistrate or imperator. For long before, besides or often without the civil attendants, the military escort had be­come the most distinctive feature of imperial processions. As early as Caracalla adverse comment was aroused when the Praetorian Guards, fully armed, accompanied him into the Senate, contrary to previous custom. In this action, too, we may note the pro­gressive militarization which went hand in hand with the trans­formation of the first citizen into an autocratic monarch. It is usual to distinguish this new form of the monarchy from the Principate under the name of Dominate. But it may be observed that, just at the period of greatest absolutism, dominus becomes the ordinary form of address, and dominus noster is no longer reserved exclusively for the emperor. It would be better to adopt the words of Dio about the monarch ‘autocrat over his own decrees and the laws’ as giving the essence of this later unveiled and avowed absolutism; and to use this term ‘Autocracy’ to distinguish the later absolutism from the Principate of the early Empire.

 

IV.

THE APPOINTMENT OF THE EMPEROR: ELECTION AND DYNASTIC EXPERIMENTS

 

However far above his subjects the emperor might be, he owed his position to the expression of the popular will. Even though he and the theorists might see in this expression the divine providence and the favour of Heaven at work, constitutional considerations were not forgotten. Through its representatives the People chose the princeps, but the consummation of popular sovereignty was at the same time its destruction. At first, the Senate voiced the People’s will. But after the death of Commodus the secret, which Tacitus at Nero’s fall could still call the arcanum imperii, namely that a princeps could be made elsewhere than in Rome, was a secret no longer. Indeed it was soon almost the rule. It is proper to speak of this period as one of military monarchy, or even military anarchy, in so far as this indicates who were the most prominent agents in deciding who should mount the throne. But so long as the emperors had to reckon with the prestige and resistance of the Senate and while the senators held fast by their admitted claim, the right of the Senate and the Roman People to take part in appointing the emperor remained undisputed. But the populus Romanus found that almost the only right left to it was the modest role of acclaiming the new ruler. Only in the elections of the two emperors created by the Senate and in that of Gordian III as Caesar did the People play a part, and that more by way of riot than in form of law; yet special reference was made to the People, acting with the Senate. But normally, the People’s functions remained purely ornamental. Yet even in the late fifth century, at the election of Anastasius, allusion is made to the consent of the People, as well as of the Senate and the army.

The regular practice in the third century was for the army to proclaim the new emperor, after which the Senate gave its formal agreement either at the request of the emperor himself or else on being merely informed. We cannot say how often the patres bowed to hard necessity in the exercise of this right to which they clung; for only once, at the election of Maximinus, is it reported that they approved the actions of the legions because it was dangerous for the unarmed to oppose the armed forces. It is not surprising that the accumulated hate felt for the Thracian trooper elevated to the throne should have moved the senators at the first opportunity to carry on the struggle begun by their election of the Gordians with men of their own choice, Balbinus and Pupienus. But their real power was small; so small that they then had to accept a boy as Caesar and later to acknowledge as Augustus Aemilianus, whom they had formerly proclaimed a traitor. Indeed, after the murder of Aurelian, when his army turned to the Senate for the appointment of his successor, the patres answered that this was the army’s duty, so that it was only after some interchanges that the Senate decided to elect Tacitus. A remark of the biographer of Aurelian gives the right explanation of their diffidence, namely that the Senate knew very well that the soldiers did not take kindly to an emperor chosen by itself. But though the choice of Tacitus may be fairly cited to show the constitutional position of the Senate, it would be illogical to ignore the evidence that choice provides of the army’s right to have a say in the matter. From the beginning, the military basis of the imperial power was only partly hidden by the civilian forms of the constitution of the Principate. At his accession, Nero could refer both to the auctoritas patrum and to the consensus militum, and on coins of Vitellius and Vespasian mention of the consensus militumalso appears. Perhaps we should not see in this the assertion of a right; but it is clear from the coins of the third century that the emperors then thought of election by the army as a necessary legal preliminary to their assumption of office. Leaving out of consideration the fact that fides or concordia militum or exercitus is referred to over and over again, it is noteworthy that soldiers are depicted as present when Severus Alexander receives the orb from Juppiter or when Gordian is invested by Roma. Finally, it is a soldier who proffers the orb; for though we may see in the soldier the god Mars, the god is only a symbol for the army. It is significant for the election of Tacitus that this type first appears on one of his coins; while another shows his coronation by Mars, although on this the genius of the Senate reappears, after having been absent since the time of Valerian. That man was legally emperor who had been elected either by the Senate or the army and then recognized by the other partner. But the words used by Eutropius to describe the election of Claudius give the best picture of the reality: ‘a militibus electus, a senatu appellatus Augustus’ Decius, like Vespasian, in spite of the deference which he otherwise paid to the Senate, dated his reign from the day of his proclamation by the army, thus admitting its right to share in his elevation. External events, too, decreased the importance of recognition by the Senate. Postumus and other separatist emperors, who, despite all their claims to the whole Empire, never were so recognized in Rome, ruled with no less actual authority for all that. The unsuccessful rival was hostis or, by official usage after Constantine I at the latest, tyrannus; but the history of the so-called thirty tyrants shows with distressing clarity what a misuse of the right of election might bring about. Aurelius Victor associates the end of the Senate’s right of election with the death of Probus and Carus’ election. Carus seems to have contented himself with an announcement of his election without any formal request for confirmation by the Senate. This does not mean that the announcement might not be received with acclamation signifying consent; but any initiative on the part of the Senate was done away for good. A formal right to share in the election, often not unlike that of the People, must have survived. Only on some such hypothesis can we explain the first fifth-century utterance of a newly-elected emperor that has survived in his own words; here the army and the Senate (by now a totally changed body) are named as electors, but the greatest emphasis is laid upon the divine favour. When Marcianus announced his assumption of office to Pope Leo I, he said he had come to it ‘by God’s Providence and the choice of the Senate and the army’.

Although the idea that the ruler was elective survived into the days of the autocracy ‘by the grace of God,’ an idea that the succession might be passed on to the emperor’s heirs was also current from the very first. Septimius Severus, by means of his fictitious adoption, endeavoured to make his sons heirs in a dynastic succession, while he singled out his elder son by creating him Caesar and Princeps Iuventutis and having him named imperator destinatiis. A year later, Caracalla became Augustus and Geta became Caesar. This public settlement of the succession was designed to win support among the populace, by familiarizing them with the idea of a dynasty; and all the propaganda-value of the coinage and of Emperor-worship was exploited to this end. One success of the campaign may be seen in the ever greater frequency of the words domus divina in inscriptions. The effect of legitimacy is shown by the succession of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander and by the influence which the princesses of the imperial house, from Julia Domna to Julia Mamaea, could acquire. Even the ephemeral reign of the first two Gordians was long enough to arouse sentiments favourable to Gordian III as the legitimate heir. It thus became the rule for the sons of the emperor to be created Caesar and finally Augustus. There was in general no real co-regency, although all the imperial honours, almost always including even the pontificate since Philip and his son, were conferred upon the junior, thus creating a kind of fictitious co-regency or rather partnership. This practice seemed to secure the succession; this combination of dynastic successor with partner was intended to ensure that, when the Augustus-father died, the Augustus-son should pass automatically to the throne. Though, indeed, stern reality often refuted this doctrine. The idea that membership of the imperial family gave a man some claim to the throne induced Florian to put himself forward as Augustus after the death of his step-brother Tacitus, and he was recognized even though his predecessor had declined, in accordance with the older usage, to nominate his successor; and this holds good even if we doubt the truth of Tacitus’ solemn renunciation in favour of a free election by the Senate

The idea of a division of the Empire appears once during the joint rule of the hostile brothers Caracalla and Geta and it might appear that a necessary connection between dual rule and such division should be presumed. But the idea of the unity of the Empire was too strong, even in this case of bitter enmity; and there was in fact no division when circumstances necessitated the separate action of the co-rulers in the East and the West, as with Valerian and Gallienus or Carus and Carinus. What this does show is that it might be necessary, both for the safety of the Empire and of the emperors personally, to mark out separate spheres of activity, while maintaining without limitation the Augustus- father’s authority over the whole. This was a precedent that could be used by Diocletian in his re-organization of the Empire, especially in the form devised by Carus, when he left Carinus behind as Caesar in the West with extended powers which approached joint-sovereignty. But there was still a difference between Augustus and Caesar; and there was thus no question of a division of the Empire.

V.

EMPEROR AND SENATE

 

The survival of the Senate’s constitutional share in electing the emperor was matched by the continuance of its right to judge the deeds of the dead Augustus and so decide the consecration of the divus. But Septimius Severus first told the army of his in­tention to deify Commodus and then left the Senate to bring it to pass, while the Senate itself deified Gallienus in deference to the will of Claudius, but against its own convictions. This function of the Senate, which belongs to the original form of the Principate, was thus only exercised, in fact and possibly in law, at the instance of the emperor and its significance was thus seriously diminished. Initiative declined into co-operation whereby the traditional respect still felt for the patres was brought in to add honour to the dead emperor. Thus the principle, that no deification could take place without the Senate’s approval, could remain unchallenged, while the idea of the power of the emperor to command this action could arise side by side with it. Even if we admit that the Senate, in passing judgment on a dead emperor, was using the power of making laws which it had acquired, we must be cautious in our use of this fact when estimating its constitutional position. For, in legislation, the Senate was gradually being reduced to the position of an imperial publicity department.

The jurists ever more frequently quote the imperial oratio instead of the senatus consultum which was founded on it; and this must mean that the former was adopted without discussion or amendment. The force of law which the imperial constitutiones were recognized to have tended further to limit senatorial legislation. But for measures introducing some radical change, later to be known as leges generales, the more solemn form of the senatus consultum was retained, even as late as the fifth century. Moreover, the emperors almost managed to turn the old rule that it was for the Senate, as representing the People, to give dispensation from the laws, into an exception; and the axiom that ‘the princeps is freed from the laws’ is definite proof of this. The emperor could justify himself by appeal to the lex de imperii, a fact which reveals the legal basis from which the emperor could at any time undermine the surviving rights of the Senate. Thus he could him­self grant privileges which had formerly needed to be confirmed by a dispensation from the Senate, though that did not prevent him from declaring himself bound, of his own free will, by the relevant laws in a civil case. We have also seen how the Senate lost importance, from the time of Severus Alexander onwards, in the administration of the laws affecting the collegia. Formally the granting of pardons and quashing of undetermined cases were prerogatives of the Senate; but in fact and even by law the former right was exercised by the emperor. Co-operation of emperor and Senate, whereby the Senate probably acted on the emperor’s suggestion, still existed under Pertinax and was known to Ulpian, although in a later work he speaks of the pyrinceps only; the emperor’s sovereignty in such cases was fully admitted by the reign of Caracalla. The judicial competence of the Senate continually lost importance in face of imperial competition. Even the right of the Senate to be sole judge of its own members in criminal cases, legally secured under Septimius Severus, was precarious, since even Severus did not consider himself bound to respect it. But the emperors continued to send cases to the Senate for trial; and even after Diocletian the Senate still pronounced judgment, when thus invited to do so.

Turning to financial matters, the independent importance of the senatorial aerarium as a separate institution was already so re­duced that according to Dio the emperor’s power over it was as unlimited as over the fiscus. But as late as 204 the Senate voted the funds for the Secular Games; and in spite of the curtailing of its right, the aerarium lasted until it became a municipal instead of a State treasury. It is very uncertain how far, if at all, the continued minting of bronze coins with the Senate’s mark, S.C., denotes a survival of the independent aerarium. On the coins attributed to the interregnum after Aurelian’s death, S.C. may only mean that the Senate remembered its ancient rights in exceptional circumstances. But it is significant that, after the minting of such coins ceased under Claudius II and (in spite of larger striking of money) under Aurelian, there was no resumption of it even under Tacitus and only a partial one under Florian. The bronze coins of Postumus with the Senate’s mark have nothing to do with its rights of minting, and rather express the claim to a legitimate title to the whole Empire, including Rome and its Senate; this is true also of types of coin, over which the Senate never shared control, where the legend appears as a peculiar sign of legitimacy.

The right of the Senate to appoint the Roman magistrates was so whittled away by the princeps’ nomination and commendation that little remained of it; and in the third century the appointment to all offices in the capital was attributed to the emperor. Of these offices, the consulate, the praetorship and the quaestorship survived, and there were always plenty of men ready to undertake the duties, in spite of the demands which they made on their holders’ private fortunes, so long as important posts in the administration of the Empire were filled by ex-consuls and ex­praetors. In many ways the activity of the Senate seems to have been that of a municipal council, as when Aurelian charged it with the rebuilding of the City walls; and the organization of defence against the Alemannic invasion about 260 signifies little more from a constitutional point of view. None the less, the Senate had a prestige founded not only on the splendid traditions of several centuries, but also on its close connection with Rome. In comparison with the idea, noticeable as early as the first days of Commodus, that Rome was where the emperor was, the conception of Rome as the seat of the emperor was not less widespread. However much, in a State which had greatly advanced towards civic equalization, the emperor might become the personification of the Empire, and the political significance of Rome and its Senate fall into decay, Rome’s splendour as the capital of the world could not be dimmed. In spite of political set-backs and of the change in the Senate’s personnel, tradition was not forgotten, and as the scanty historical writings that have survived indicate, the Senate continued to claim its share in this splendour. A coin-type of Tacitus which depicts the emperor offering the orb to Roma may indicate a desire to counteract by propaganda a threatened disappearance of the significance of Rome; politically speaking, the type soon proved to be no more than a pious hope. But the tradition was so strongly rooted that it was vigorous enough to survive the removal of the emperor from Rome and the foundation of a second Senate in the new imperial city in the East. It was, indeed, in making a Senate out of the municipal council of Constantinople that the emperors of the unconcealed autocracy showed their respect for this tradition. Thus the Senate, as an imperial assembly with the remains of its privileges, became part of the State in its final transformation.

The composition of the Senate, which the emperors controlled by admitting the sons of senators to the magistracy and also by means of the adlectio, had altered, since the reign of Septimius Severus, to the disadvantage of the Italian element, which till then had had a small majority. Italians now occupied hardly more than a third of the places and many of them had only recently become members at all. Apart from Africa, the birthplace of Severus, it was mainly the Eastern provinces, especially Asia Minor and Syria, that provided the newcomers; even Egypt contributed its representatives for the first time. They were mostly sprung from the provincial aristocracy first receiving equestrian rank. Only by degrees were men admitted from other classes, and those generally by way of advancement in the army. That there was a change of personnel in favour of Italians under Severus Alexander cannot be proved. But the decline in the number of senators from the Western provinces, Gaul and Spain, is remarkable, and also the fact that so few are known to have come from the Danubian provinces; and this in spite of the increasing importance, and, ultimately, domination, of the Pannonians, though the latter only became really marked at a time when senators were excluded from those military offices that appealed so strongly to the martial nature of the Illyrians. Men from the provinces were seldom allowed to become patricians. On the other hand, although Italian patricians were preferred as consuls, they were mostly excluded from influential posts in the imperial administration. In spite of the many newcomers, the emperors could never completely carry out their intention of suppressing opposition, although they were to some extent successful. The reason for this lies in the traditional influence of the Italian senators, which became all the stronger as the obligation to reside in Rome, which had already been but lightly enforced, was less and less observed, The growing preference shown for the equites was a more effective weapon. A fusion of classes was prepared by the approximation of the rank of many equestrian offices to that of the senators, by the ever increasing inclusion of equites in the Senate, and by the abandonment of the rule that Praetorian Prefects in office might not be senators. The fusion was complete when it was admitted that the administrative service of the Empire could only be staffed by imperial officers. The senators were still distinguished by the title of clarissimus and they ranked first in the Empire after the emperor and his family, while the Caesars from Geta onwards bore the special title of nobilissimus. The equites were never given a special title as such. But they could achieve, in the imperial service, the successive ranks of vir egregious, vir perfectissimus and vir eminentissimus, and the last was finally reserved for Praetorian Prefects.

 

VI.

 CHANGES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EMPIRE AND IN THE ARMY

 

The attempt to find more and more officials and officers in the class of equites becomes marked under Septimius Severus. Following the precedent of Egypt an equestrian prefect is appointed to govern the new province of Mesopotamia and, at the same time, the commanders of the two legions stationed there, I and III Parthica, as well as of II Parthica (then in garrison in Italy), became equestrian prefects. From this time on, equestrian procurators are frequently appointed deputies of the governor not only in imperial but also in senatorial provinces. Such deputy governors in senatorial provinces, apart perhaps from Timesitheus in Asia, were still only made to meet some temporary emergency as when a pro- consul died in office. But the intention by this device to supersede, for political reasons, senators by equites in the imperial provinces is plain; and it was carried out by uniting two functions in the hands of the procurator vice praesidis. (Praeses in this context is a general name for governor.) Under Gallienus, the ‘independent vicariate’ appears, and the agens vices praesidis, who held no other office, could act as governor and finally be spoken of simply as the praeses. But not all senatorial governorships were thus transformed, and not all under Gallienus; the incomplete sources that we have do not allow a precise chronology. The traditional system was probably altered in Numidia only after 268, in Pontus et Bithynia certainly after 269, when a senator was still governor, and at latest in 279. In Pannonia Inferior, the change made by Gallienus was annulled and a senator appointed before 283. In Britain, Hispania Tarraconensis, Moesia Inferior and Syria Coele, the governors never ceased to be senators. Only in Baetica, among the senatorial provinces, do we hear, under Florian or Probus, of a v(ir) p(erfectissimus) a(gens) voices) p(raesidis). We do not know whether the other provinces administered by ex-praetors were treated in the same way; but there is some probability that they were, in so far, that is, as the threatened situation of the province makes the presence of troops likely in troublous times. The provinces administered by consulars, Asia and Africa, still had their senatorial proconsuls; but it is uncertain whether they were appointed by sortition, or by the emperor’s direct nomination.

These developments are connected with the exclusion of senators from military command by Gallienus. Aurelius Victor tells us that this emperor forbade senators to serve in the army or have access to it, in order to prevent the imperium from falling into the hands of the high aristocracy. In fact, since the sole rule of Gallienus the legatus legionis disappears; and in his place is the praefectus legionis, at first with the suffix agens vices legati, though this hardly serves to disguise the definitive change. The title of egregius marks the new commanders as equites. Probably centurions qualified for appointment by twice achieving the rank of primus pilus, thus becoming, so to speak, chief of staff in their legion. At the same time, as a matter of course, the senatorial tribuni laticlavialso disappear. The way to the highest command was now open to the man who could rise from the ranks. Aurelius Victor thought that the senators might have recovered their position under Tacitus, in view of the accommodating disposition of the army. But no known attempt was made, and the situation remained as it had been under Gallienus. This had the further result that in the provinces governed by equites where there was an army, civil and military authority was concentrated in one man’s hands, whereas in the imperial provinces, which were still governed by senators, there was of necessity a division of powers. It seems that a unified command was not necessarily created where more than one legion was stationed. The men who were given a general command in times of crisis were called praepositi or duces; but their title was not officially fixed. Dux does not yet indicate a man in the same position as the later dux limitum, even though that title certainly looks back to earlier precedents.

Another military reform of Gallienus may be connected with his anxiety to strengthen his own position as emperor, namely the institution of the protectores. The title of protector lateris divini was at first only conferred on high officers. It is also doubtful whether under Gallienus centurions and cavalry decurions, who ranked with them, could become protectores as well as legionary praefects and tribunes of the troops centred at Rome. The duties of the protectores lay in the imperial headquarters, for the most part in the immediate neighbourhood of the emperor’s person (they are the protectores domestici of later times). Others served with the Praetorian Prefects though they were later dispatched to special service with the troops in the provinces. Their corps became a kind of staff-college and membership of it opened the way to greater things. Many were Illyrians, as we should expect in view of the composition of the army. Whether or not the comitatus of the Germanic tribes provided the model for the system is disputed. But the attempt was made to attach the protectores to the emperor by a special kind of personal loyalty.

Otherwise, the organization of the army remained unchanged until the middle of the third century. Provincialization advanced. The troops gradually took root, as it were, in the regions where they were stationed, until they were eventually turned into frontier settlers under an hereditary obligation to serve in the army. This might lead to difficulties when they were required to fight on battlefields far from home. Yet, while wars in and outside the Empire were neverending, a multitude of separate detachments had to be moulded together to form a single mobile fighting force. It is possible that sometimes even detachments appeared as full legions, only to be merged in the mother-legion in the frontier provinces if they were not broken up for other reasons. The cavalry was increased to meet the mobility and new tactics of the enemy, especially the Persians, by the new organization of mounted auxilia and the strengthening of the cavalry attached to the legions. In this, as in other things, Gallienus was the innovator. Legionary cavalry were often especially used as vexillationes; this is suggested by the later use of the word to denote a cavalry regiment. From the time of Gallienus onwards, the independent cavalry general like Aureolus and Aurelian stood highest in prestige; and the latter, when he became emperor, seems to have encouraged this development and for tactical purposes to have separated the legionary cavalry as promoti from the legion itself, although even under Diocletian they continued to be united for administrative purposes. Peoples not subject to the Empire, especially the Germanic races, had been received into the army, at first as irregular auxiliaries. But from the reign of Claudius II onwards German prisoners of war were included in the regular auxilia, an anticipation of the recruitment of free Germans which was later extensively practised especially under Constantine.

This increasing tendency to centralize imperial administration in the hands of the emperor led to a development and reorganization of the machinery of the government devised under the Principate. The Praetorian Prefect constantly appeared as the chief agent of the change. His office, generally shared with a col­league, was usually the culmination of an equestrian career; but from the time of Severus Alexander its holders were ex officio senators. These Prefects commanded the Praetorian Guard and the troops garrisoned in Italy; as members of the imperial staff, they controlled recruiting and armament; they were the officers responsible for the commissariat; and they thus had a share in the collection of the special contribution which had become necessary for this purpose. As they stood in a peculiar sense in the emperor’s service, special duties could be laid on them. Their jurisdiction, as representatives of the emperor, often in a sense competed with his, since appeals could be addressed to them, so that in practice they often were an ultimate court. Appeals to the emperor were still possible; but the right was disputed and they were forbidden by Constantine. The Prefects were criminal judges for the whole of Italy with the exception of the area within a hundred miles of Rome, which was subject to the City Prefect, and of persons who were exempted from the jurisdiction of the provincial governors. Their right to condemn prisoners to deportatio proves most clearly that they represented the emperor. To help them carry out their constantly increasing duties, the emperor appointed deputies for them, vice praefectorum praetorio, later vicarii, at first probably with roving commissions, but in particular cases with fixed areas to look after. The Prefects also had, as representing the sovereign, a general oversight over the State post and the political and financial mechanism of government. From the reign of Maximinus Thrax onwards, they had the right to publish ordinances binding on everyone, so long as they did not modify existing laws; and although this was not quite the same as a secondary right to make laws, it yet gave them power to issue general instructions that must be obeyed. Finally, they were the most important members of the permanent imperial consilium, which advised the emperor in his legal decisions. It is not surprising that this diversity of duties, not to mention the danger likely to arise from putting so much power in one man’s hands, caused the office to be divided between colleagues; and that, besides soldiers, we find lawyers and experts in administration being appointed to this post.

In these troublous times, much was demanded of the State finances. But the economic system was breaking down largely under the pressure of taxation, and money could only be raised by the most drastic methods. This process led to a more widespread resort to compulsion and to an increase in unpaid services, munera and liturgiae, which gives the impression that State-socialism was developing; but for the details we must refer to the chapter on economic history. The financial administration was radically altered when the Praetorian Prefect was made responsible for the assessment and collection of the increasingly numerous payments in kind destined for the support of the army (the annona militaris) which circumstances made it necessary to exact more and more often. With this responsibility, an important part of the financial administration had come into the hands of the Prefect; and the change was made at the expense of the chief financial officer of the State, the rationalis, who was responsible for the normal taxes and duties, administered by his procurators and for the enterprises that belonged to the fiscus such as mines, mints and factories. The rationalis also had to meet competition in the shape of the office set up by Septimius Severus to look after the res private. The income from this emperor’s private fortune was mostly spent on public services. The res privata was administered by a procurator, later magister, rei privatae, who had in practice the same privileges as the rationalist As a result of the frequent changes of ruler, no distinction seems to have been made between the emperor’s private lands and his crown lands, although the patrimonium existing before Severus as crown property in a special sense and administered separately was only later merged into the res privata. Procurators of the res privata were active in the different regions of Italy and in the provinces; and in some cases they represented the interests of the patrimonium as well. The Finance Minister and the Minister of imperial domains, both ultimately viri perfectissimi, had perhaps become, next to the emperor, persons to whom appeals could be addressed in trials on matters falling within their sphere of duty. But as a natural consequence of the fact that these duties had been originally entrusted to members of the imperial household, these officers always ranked as court-officials, as is most clearly reflected in the name given to their subordinates, palatini, after Diocletian.

The equestrian chiefs of the different departments of the imperial cabinet had also taken the places of former members of the emperor’s household. Answers to deputations from the Empire and to foreign ambassadors, directions for the civil service, remained under the ab epistulis, in whose department all official correspondence had earlier been concentrated. The numerous private appeals to the emperor were dealt with by the a libellis. The legal decisions to be delivered by the sovereign himself were referred to the a cognitionibus. Research on complicated legal problems and questions of cults was the business of the a studiis. The activities of the a memoria were the most loosely defined, but in general they were concerned with the exercise of clemency and the bestowal of favours by the emperor; and the officials of this department thus became the most influential of all. They ranked with the most highly-placed procurators and were perhaps distinguished by the title of magister even before the reign of Diocletian. In the reforms of Constantine, the a studiis disappeared as did the a cognitionibus, whose duties were taken over by the a libellis. A man always needed high attainments to hold one of these offices; and they were purely civil. Civilians could also rise to other procuratorships, usually starting as advocates fisci, legal representative of the imperial treasuries. But most third-century procurators were ex-soldiers who, from being officers, were singled out for employment in the imperial administration.

The inferior staff of the officia, as the bureaux of the more important departments of State were called, was often composed of soldiers detailed for the purpose. This was the result of the long-standing identification of civil and military powers and of the progressive militarization of the whole State; and the survival of the titles which betray their military origin, even after the separation of the civil and military administration, is significant. Militarization must have been almost complete when the officiales could also be called milites, and their service, as indeed all official service, could be known as militia, so that a new name, militia armata, had to be found for military service in order to distinguish it. It is true that there were also many clerks (exceptores) and account keepers (tabularii) who had never been in the army. But their profession was not yet promoted to be an office. They followed it as a kind of trade; they were members of guilds (scholae) which even before Diocletian were partly State-recognized and attached to the several official, and they were paid direct by those who claimed their services. In this practice we may see the beginnings of that shifting of the cost of government on to the subject which was later to lead to the system of sportulae.