INTRODUCING THE PRINCIPATE 13senate through discussion and voting, atrophied under the Principate. It did
not help if an emperor actively encouraged senators to express their views
and made a show of deferring to the authority of the senior magistrates. In
fact it became a regular practice for a new emperor to recall the senate to its
traditional functions, while criticizing his predecessor for having encroached
on them. Again, electioneering characterized by the open competition for
power among members of the elite was all but eliminated by the emperor’s
control of elections and his redefi nition of the goals of political life. In sum,
there was no prospect of the senate recovering its old dominance in the
sphere of legislation, while the ambition of individual members of the upper
classes had to be channelled into service of the emperor, if it was not to be
branded a threat to the existing order.
The gulf between the theory and the practice of the Principate, and the
tensions and confl ict that this engendered between the emperor and the senate
and infl uential senators, were a source of fascination to the ancient historical
writers, especially Tacitus, himself a senator in the late fi rst and early second
centuries. Their obsession with these themes is such that we have been left in
almost total ignorance about the way in which policy was actually made at
court, where the emperor sat with his immediate circle of advisers.
One emperor did make an attempt to govern in partnership with the
senate. This was Tiberius. According to Suetonius ( Tib. 30), his senate
considered public fi nance, public works, the recruitment and discharge of
soldiers, provincial commands, and correspondence with client kings. No
emperor after Tiberius made a genuine attempt to stimulate the senate’s
initiative in government. Tacitus says Nero kept his promise that the senate
would ‘preserve its ancient functions’ and reports that ‘many matters were
decided by the senate’ ( Ann. 13.5). But the examples he gives merely show
the senate moving against abuses of the previous reign, in particular, the
prosecution of senators by accusers who had enjoyed the confi dence of
Claudius. Campaigns of revenge against accusers were tolerated also by
Galba and Nerva, and were always popular in senatorial circles. Tacitus’
detailed narrative for Nero’s reign picks out no accompanying display of
senatorial independence in the sphere of legislation. There were some men
of independent spirit in Nero’s senate, but they appear to have lowered their
sights. It was suffi cient for them that Nero was offering them as much of a
public role and as much dignity as was compatible with the Principate. In
any case, after a promising fi ve years or ‘quinquennium’ Nero’s reign took a
downhill turn and relations with the senate deteriorated.
Senators proved no harder to satisfy in later reigns. For the younger Pliny
the reigns of Domitian and Trajan were a contrast between dominatio and
principatus ( Pan. 45). However, the essential difference between the two
rulers was that Domitian was, or became, openly autocratic in his dealings
with the senate, whereas Trajan was delicately paternalistic. Trajan’s senate
had no more authority or infl uence than Domitian’s, and was given no
weightier matters to discuss (e.g. Pl. Ep. 8.14.8; Pan. 54).