Augustus and the Singular Reestablishment of the Republican Regime
3.5.1 The First Citizen
Augustus did not dare to impose a regime excessively based on his personage, given the fate of his adoptive father, Julius Caesar, assassinated in 43 bc.
Rather, he formally preserved a republican regime and portrayed himself as its protector[82] to prevent the resumption of civil strife.[83] In this way, he did not officially hold power, acting instead as “first citizen” (princeps), though this did not keep him from progressively shoring up his personal power, over the course of the 45 years he headed the state, which was willingly accepted by the People of Rome because his reign marked a long period of peace and stability. It is no coincidence that a month was named after him (August), and that the idea of an imperial cult was born, precisely, during this period.[84]From the point of view of constitutional history, the regime established by Augustus, which historians have termed a “Principate”, led to not so much a change in the republican constitutional scheme,[85] as a radical concentration of political power—something that Augustus achieved through his clever exploitation of the possibilities offered by Roman public law.[86] Thus, although in 23 bc, he relinquished the post as Consul he had held permanently since 27 bc, he retained
his imperium,3'7 or scope of power, as a proconsul, which a law in this year granted him for a period of 10 years. Thanks to successive renewals, he ended up retaining the position for life (Ferrary 2009). Moreover, shortly before his death, Augustus granted this imperium, by way of adoption, to Tiberius (14-37 ad). This proconsular imperium not only implied command of the army and, consequently, control of the imperial provinces, but in so far as it was eventually declared imperium maius, it also gave the princeps authority over the pro-magistrates (proconsuls, propretores), who governed the senatorial provinces, whose titles became increasingly nominal.
In Rome itself, Augustus assured his permanent supremacy in a more indirect but no less, effective way. After giving up a position as consul, he received tribunicia potestas for life (Wirszubski 2004, 50-51), which granted him the rights and powers of the plebeian tribunes, namely: inviolability, the right to veto, to convene the Senate, and to present bills to said tribunes. As this power was also transferred to Tiberius, it became one of the prerogatives which Roman emperors came to hold permanently.
There was, thus, no ostensible alteration of the traditional constitution. The magistracies were formally maintained, and the only new development was the concentration in the hands of Augustus of powers that no single man had ever held in Rome, and which, for the most part, Augustus exercised until the end of his days. Formally, Augustus was nothing more than the princeps (first citizen) but, in practice, his authority extended over every area of government. The popular assemblies were not abolished, but their decisions became mere ratifications of the Emperor’s wishes. In fact, they began to meet less and less frequently before disappearing late in the first century ad.
The counterweight, supported by Augustus himself, was the swelling influence of the Senate, which came to share power with the princeps, especially in the area of legislation, traditionally the purview of the assemblies—leading some legal historians to describe his regime as a “diarchy”.[87] [88] At the beginning of the second century ad, the Roman jurist Gaius mentioned in his “Institutions” that, in his era, no one doubted that the Senate’s resolutions (senatus consulta) had the force of law.[89]
Over time, however, the Senate too ended up merely doing the emperor’s bidding.[90]
3.5.2 From Diarchy to Monarchy: The Birth of the Roman Empire
Augustus had managed to maintain his personal power over the Roman state, but, upon his death, the problem of his succession arose (Boatwright et al. 2004, 295).
As the hereditary principle had never taken hold, successors were theoretically designated through the principle of “adoption”,[91] though in reality, the keys were the army and Roman people’s fears of a return to the chaos caused by the civil wars, during the last years of the Republic. The growing power of the army was evident in the year 69 ad, when, after the death of Nero, four different generals were proclaimed emperors by their troops in various parts of the Empire. This situation, nevertheless, was resolved by one of them, Vespasian, who managed to restore order and good governance by fostering a climate of peace, which was to last more than a century.In the long term, the constitutional position of the princeps resulted in the transformation of the Roman state into a monarchy. The comitia were not abolished, but their functions vanished. Popular legislation was supplanted by Senatorial legislation.[92] During the Republican period the Senate was, technically, never more than an advisory body consulted by magistrates, as since Sulla its acceptance and action were required for the execution of its resolutions. The advice of the Senate, initially lacked the legal authority which could be bestowed by a popular assembly, but as Rome expanded, assemblies faded and the senatus consulta gained legislative force almost by default. However, no measure was ever promulgated formally investing the senatus consulta with legal authority (Talbert 1984, 432). The Senate’s influence would ultimately dwindle, as supreme control passed to the emperor, even in the city of Rome itself. During the second century the Senate’s approval of the legislation which the emperor brought before it would become a mere formality. In fact, during the last stage of the Principate, the senatus consulta were foregone conclusions, and their importance was limited to the speeches the Emperor gave to the Senate to formally request them.[93] The consuls and the praetors, although in theory retaining the prerogatives of their offices and their imperium, eventually became mere administrative implementers of the emperor’s will, as well.[94]
In fact, all these important political changes led to the emergence of the huge administrative apparatus necessary to govern the Empire.
It is interesting that most of the emperors of the second century, the apex of the Roman Empire, were themselves of provincial birth (Rostovtzeff 1998, 118).[95] Thus, alongside the traditional magistracies new imperial officials appeared during the time of Hadrian (117-138 ad), most of them from the equestrian class, responsible only to the emperor, and whose function was to administer the Empire based on bureaucratic criteria and according to imperial instructions.[96] These new officers not only increasingly eclipsed the traditional magistracies, but gave rise to the emergence of a new financial administration, which depended upon the imperial treasury (fiscus Caesaris). This “set of assets” constituted, in principle, the Emperor’s private fortune, making him and his administration effectively unaccountable to the Senate. Over time, however, the fiscus ended up being considered the authentic “patrimony of the Empire” because, although the government continued to turn to the old republican Treasury (aerarium), this came to be of secondary importance (Jones 1950).3.6