Dominate

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The Dominate is a term that once shaped how historians understood the later Roman Empire, and today it has nearly vanished from serious scholarship. In the 19th century, a German scholar named Theodor Mommsen looked at the reign of Emperor Diocletian, which began around AD 284, and saw a fundamental rupture. He believed Roman governance had crossed a threshold it could never uncross. What had been an empire legitimised by a republican senate and people had become, he argued, something else entirely: a state where the emperor simply was the state. The word at the centre of his argument was dominus. It meant "lord," and it had earlier denoted slave-owners. By the time it began appearing on Roman coins in the reign of Aurelian, combined with the word deus, it carried a very different weight. The inscription read domino et deo nato: born to be lord and god. How did a term once used for slaveholders become the title of a Roman emperor? And why do modern scholars now regard the entire framework built around it as, in the words of the Oxford Classical Dictionary, a near-obsolete analytical term?

• 2. Mommsen's Framework

  ›

  Theodor Mommsen laid out his thinking in lecture notes that were later published posthumously as part of his History of Rome, recorded by Sebastian and Paul Hensen between 1882 and 1886. His words were direct: the era of Diocletian bore the mark of decline. He saw the contrast between the Principate and the Dominate as stark. Under the Principate, the empire had been Latin-Greek in orientation; under the Dominate, it had become Greek-Latin. Italy lost its privileged status. A different capital city emerged. The military transformed from frontier troops into a mobile, effective machine staffed increasingly by foreigners, above all Germans. Constantine reintroduced the gold coin known as the Solidus as a universally current currency. A new religion emerged that, in Mommsen's careful phrasing, was not exactly Christian but still differed fundamentally from what had come before. These were not minor administrative adjustments; Mommsen framed them as a civilisational shift.

  The constitutional core of his argument rested on the concept of nomos empsychos, a Greek phrase meaning "living law." For Mommsen, imperial authority in the later period was no longer embedded within the old republican institutions. The emperor had become the law itself. Historians drawing on his framework described the Dominate as the foundation of a pan-European model of bureaucratic absolute monarchy, in contrast to the more decentralised arrangements of the Republic and the Principate.

• 3. Titles and Ceremony

  ›

  Mommsen traced the linguistic evidence for the shift in careful detail. During the Principate, the title Augustus had carried magisterial associations rooted in Roman Republican tradition. By the later period, that title acquired new companions. Pius felix made an early appearance and carried supernatural overtones. The phrases perpetuus Augustus and semper Augustus, meaning "forever Augustus," followed. The title dominus moved from competitive use to official adoption, though Mommsen noted that even the earlier emperors had struggled to resist adulation of that kind throughout the Principate, and Domitian had been a key figure in the process. In the third century, the practice of addressing the emperor as dominus began gaining real ground. Aurelian was the first emperor on whose coins the title appeared, joined to deus.

  Ceremony reinforced what titles expressed. Earlier emperors had greeted people with handshakes or kisses, like other distinguished persons. Diocletian introduced genuflection. Mommsen read this as another move toward what he called the oriental idea, a shift he saw paralleled by the influence of eastern monarchies. This practice reportedly aroused opposition in Rome. The idea of the emperor as a deity on earth eventually met a limit: Christianity, once established, could not accommodate a god on earth. The divine claim was abandoned. The title of lord remained.

• 4. Scholars Push Back

  ›

  Ronald Syme's work in the 1910s-1930s significantly challenged the explanatory power of the Mommsenian model by shifting attention from legal and constitutional frameworks toward the networks of people who actually ran the empire. That move away from constitutional law marked the first of three major phases in the development of Roman imperial scholarship since Mommsen. The second phase, spanning the 1960s to the mid-1980s, focused on how rulers interacted with communities. The third phase, the current one, draws more broadly on the social and political sciences.

  Jochen Bleicken, a German historian, put the challenge most directly in 1978. He argued that the division of imperial rule into Principate and Dominate rested on no genuine constitutional transformation, and that both terms were ill-suited for strict periodisation. More pointedly, Bleicken believed that Mommsen's perspective reflected the socio-political context of the 18th and 19th centuries more than Roman political realities. The interpretive contrast between Roman and un-Roman forms of rule had been shaped in part by comparisons with oriental Persian and other eastern courts, and by contemporary reactions to absolutist rule in post-Napoleonic Europe. Mommsen was, in other words, reading his own era back into antiquity.

• 5. Evidence from the Courtroom

  ›

  Marketa Melounova brought a different kind of evidence to bear on the question by analysing judicial trials, focusing particularly on cases involving religious and political offences. Her analysis found little substantive difference between the periods conventionally labelled Principate and Dominate. The courts, where the emperor's authority over life, property, and religious practice would be most visible in practice, did not show the sharp break that Mommsen's constitutional model predicted. Where the theory said there should be a rupture, the legal records showed continuity.

  The broader scholarly consensus that grew from these reassessments is reflected in where the terminology now stands. Although significant changes did occur in the period around Diocletian's reign, modern scholars generally do not view those changes as having fundamentally altered the emperor's legal position within the Roman state or the basic structure of Roman governance. The Oxford Classical Dictionary, the standard reference in the field, now treats the word dominate as a near-obsolete analytical term. Jochen Bleicken, credited alongside Mommsen as the historian who clarified how both the Principate and Dominate entered the literature, was among those who helped bring that reclassification about.