The Source:
Olivier Hekster, Caesar rules: the Emperor in the changing Roman world (c. 50 BC–AD 565), Cambridge University Press 2022
Excerpts: Chapter 3, Being around the Emperor
Closeness to Rule: The Emperor’s Men at Court
Throughout Roman imperial history, emperors were expected to collaborate with institutional elites. Individual members of that elite might have been dependent on the emperor, but their status derived at least as much from a shared corporate identity as from imperial support.
For a substantial number of people directly surrounding the Roman emperor, the situation was different. Their position and status was wholly dependent on imperial favour.
The Roman empire is fairly exceptional in comparison to other monarchical societies in that no court aristocracy, whose positions (and wealth) relied on court offices ever developed. There were no clearly defined ‘official’ roles for higher echelons of society at the court, which indicated and raised someone’s hierarchical position within the elite [Kelly/ Hug].
Possibly, the continuous expectation that senators and later bishops were to be institutionally involved by the emperor blocked the development of such formal court roles. Alternatively, a formalised court structure would have come too close to Hellenistic court life, and be interpreted as a sign of open monarchy.
Although certain elements of the Hellenistic court were taken over, its formal organisation was not. Consequently, rather than a visible ‘court aristocracy’ with a defined internal hierarchy, the direct favour of the emperor defined an individual’s position.
This meant that a whole range of persons who might never have risen through the ranks of hierarchical offices could gain enormous influence over the emperor – and fall from grace spectacularly when the emperor dismissed them. … [examples given] …
All of them gained power above their normal station, publicly recognised by the erection of bronze and marble statues, monumental reliefs, and painted portraits, sometimes explicitly linked to images of the emperor. These were erected in various towns of the empire, by a range of different groups, from local elites to senators. When their closeness to the emperor ended, their images were publicly destroyed. …
There was clear tension between, on the one hand, senators and bishops as institutionalised groups expected to hold power and, on the other, men (and women) wielding enormous influence simply by being close to the emperor. That tension increased when, as was often the case, individuals of low civic status held sway.
Many imperial domestic servants did hold clearly delineated roles. How otherwise could logistics for the enormous number of people at court be properly organised? Staff were needed to provide what was expected of the emperor: dinners, the salutatio, and a well-run court.
A papyrus from 129 provides a sense of scale. It lists the supplies that were necessary to provide for Hadrian and his entourage while he travelled in Egypt, indicating that the travelling court consisted of about 5,000 people. How logistics were organised becomes clear from more than 4,000 surviving epitaphs of imperial slaves and freedmen. These allow for a taxonomy of posts, showing well-known important positions for freedmen, such as the a rationibus (in charge of the imperial finances), the a libellis (processing petitions to the emperor) and ab epistulis (imperial correspondence), but also positions which inevitably meant closeness to the emperor, such as the a cubiculo (chamberlain) or the ab admissionibus, who controlled access to the emperor [Kelly/ Hug].
These must have been coveted positions, and from the later second century onwards the positions of a rationibus, a libellius and ab epistulis were taken up by equestrians rather than freedmen [Kelly/ Hug]. This somewhat diminished the status gap, but it remained the case that access to the emperor through a privileged position was more systematically available to people of lower social status. Possibly, this changed under the Tetrarchy and Constantine, when the main imperial secretaries became addressed as magister. They seem now to have been drawn from the richer echelons of society, though mainly from provincial cities. That, at least, is indicated by passages from the Codex Theodosianus and Codex Justinianus which state that after these secretaries retired, they (and their children and grandchildren) were to be exempt from city offices or obligations – tasks that rich men in the provincial cities would normally have to take up [Sirks].
The increased presence of members of provincial cities near the emperor in the period in which Rome’s status as imperial capital became disputed suggests that moving away from Rome loosened some constraints on the emperor. He was apparently no longer expected to (only) give important secretarial positions to men who had risen through equestrian careers. The provincial elite whom the emperor met outside of Rome increased their influence – once again showing the importance of imperial proximity. This was, however, more a change in personnel than a fundamental shift in imperial entourage.
No senators, let alone bishops, are known to have filled these imperial offices. There remained a clear divide between different types of imperial closeness.
The ‘lesser’ domestic posts, moreover, remained firmly tied to lower-status individuals throughout Roman history.
No one other than slaves and freedmen was expected to dress the emperor, serve and taste his food, or carry his wine. They were unavoidably close to the emperor, regularly leading to a more intimate relationship. Trajan’s manumitted slave Phaedimus, for example, rose from being the emperor’s ‘cup-bearer’ to having responsibility for the wine cellar. His next post was steward of the dining room, and he ultimately became ‘secretary of the grants of imperial favours’ (a commentariis beneficiorum). He was explicitly named as closest attendant when Trajan was moving around in public (lictor proximus). His influence was entirely dependent on the emperor’s trust. Perhaps to keep a close eye on whom the emperor was close with, he seems to have ensured that his own former slave Valens was ‘in charge of the emperor’s private wardrobe’.
There is more attention in ancient (and modern) literature for so- called bad emperors who became infatuated with freedmen and allowed them to wield influence, but the case of Phaedimus is illustrative for the importance that those close to the emperor held in any reign. Literary sources, mostly written by elite men, are extremely dismissive of emperors who followed the advice of the ‘wrong’ sort of people over the ideas of the traditional elite.
This is a narrative that recurs throughout Roman imperial history, showing continuing unease by the institutional elite with the power that intimacy with the emperor granted those of much lower status. How unsuitable these low-status friends of the emperor were in elite eyes is often expressed through extreme stories, regularly emphasising sexual perversities.
Other evidence, much of it epigraphic, shows that many in the empire simply accepted the influence of such men, and approached them with requests for the emperor [Mouritsen, Kelly/ Hug]. Apparently, elevating people in his direct vicinity to positions of power was perfectly normal behaviour for an emperor, even if senators did not agree.
One advantage for the ruler of low-status people who were wholly dependent on him was that they could not be a threat to his position in their own right. Alienating them could still be dangerous, as the stories of imperial assassinations involving former favourites make clear. But they could not claim the throne themselves.
This dependence on the emperor applied even more strongly to eunuchs. These were far more prominent in the early Roman empire than is often assumed, with the notion of castrated men already part of Roman society by at least the second century BC. They were visible at the imperial court from the early empire onwards, as they were in the households of elite Roman society [Tougher].
… eunuchs could rise through the ranks [examples given] … Whether these stories are true is less important than that they were deemed possible. Eunuchs were part of the emperor’s surroundings and so close to him that they were useful allies in conspiracies. They were thought of as young and beautiful beings, the ownership of whom showed wealth and status. The imperial household rose above all others in status and power, and should therefore include these exotic beings. … [many more examples given]
By the time that the Historia Augusta was written, the structural position of eunuchs as a relevant factor in palace politics was beyond doubt. This position of eunuchs as an established group holding power is often taken as a key distinction between the courts of the so-called high empire and late antiquity. Both classical and modern historians describe this as an innovation by Diocletian. Frequently, it is linked to the Diocletian’s elaboration of court ritual and the imperial costume … Eastern monarchies, moreover, had been known for their employment of eunuchs in important positions for a long time. … Roman authors regularly blamed ‘the east’ for anything that was not to their liking, and privileged positions for eunuchs did not fit elite expectations of good emperorship. Yet even if the eastern connection was only perceived by these Roman authors rather than the real explanation for the practice, the fact that the emperors persisted despite it is interesting. Ultimately, eunuchs can be placed in a long-established pattern in which Roman emperors limited the power of the institutional elite by placing low-status individuals in positions of power. …
Two points stand out. First, eunuchs are increasingly recognised as an influential group in brokering imperial power. Second, the most powerful eunuch came to hold the office of Grand Chamberlain, literally the ‘provost of the sacred bedchamber’ (praepositus sacri cubiculi). He controlled the imperial household and was directly subordinated to the emperor.
The chamberlain wielded real political influence and the position was coveted. Already in the late-fourth century it was among the most important offices in the empire. Being chamberlain not only brought power but also gave elevated status. It brought the rank of illustris with it, which was reserved for the highest echelons of society – outranking many senators. The high rank of the Grand Chamberlain was set down in law, and other documents make clear that in the late fourth and early fifth centuries the office was fourth in hierarchy of imperial posts in the east and fifth in the west, only outranked by the Praetorian and City prefects, and by the highest military positions.
Like previous prominent eunuchs, the incumbents of the position of Grand Chamberlain were close to the emperor, and their tenure continued only as long as the emperor wanted. Yet, unlike their predecessors, they derived prestige from a defined office, the status of which no longer wholly depended on imperial favouritism, nor on the character of the individual holding the post. [examples given] …
… The establishment of the Grand Chamberlain, supported in his tasks by eunuch officials such as the ‘superintendent of the sacred bedchamber’ (primicerius sacri cubiculi) or the ‘steward of the sacred palace’ (castrensis sacri palatii) showed how eunuchs as a group had taken over some of the roles that freedmen and equites had held before. It also shows a systemisation of court positions, which were emphatically kept out of the hands of members of the traditional elite. The emperor elevated the rank of an office which was only held by people who would be considered social outcasts by most. This undermined the position of the institutional elite. …
… It certainly fitted the more monarchical and ornate image and ceremony of the later Roman empire. Still, the tension between an institutional elite and imperial dependents had been a continuous factor in Roman emperorship from the very beginning. Chamberlains and domestic servants who used and abused their power to control access to the emperor feature in almost all stories surrounding ‘bad’ emperors. Underlying structures of Roman emperorship seem to have changed remarkably little over the centuries …
… Imperial secretaries and domestic servants, and increasingly various eunuchs, all held a defined role at the court. These roles, their titles and the social standing that people could derive from them may have shifted over time, but closeness to the emperor started from a specific task that placed them in imperial vicinity.
Another group of people who was expected to form part of the emperor’s surrounding often held no defined position at all. Emperors needed to relate to intellectuals such as philosophers, orators, seers and later different kinds of ‘holy men’, some of them (temporarily) linked to the court, some of them meeting the emperor during his travels. These various individuals could become part of the imperial entourage because of their relationship with the emperor, but also because they had become so well-known in their own right that they inevitably entered into the imperial orbit. Imperial tutors held influence over the emperor through their relationship with the monarch before he had come to power. Emperors were expected to take their opinion into consideration. This was visible from the very beginning of the principate. …
… Other ‘intellectuals’ came to the court to become part of the emperor’s circle through their reputation. Exemplary are some second- and early- third century men who became prominent in the intellectual circles of the Greek provinces and were called to the emperor because of their local status … [examples]
… in the fourth and fifth centuries, there were many men of letters from the provinces, often occupying a local oratorical chair, who spoke before the emperor, or corresponded intensely with him, and so gained his appreciation, confident in the expectation that the emperor would appreciate their intellectual skill.
Not all those who surrounded the emperor only praised him. There are many stories about intellectuals criticising emperors. In particular individuals who came to the court through an established reputation of their own could be expected to occasionally contradict the emperor. This was never without risks. … [examples]
… How an emperor reacted to criticism was a powerful narrative about his suitability to rule. Not killing the culprit was a relatively positive reaction. Laughing criticism away was even better. Having people around who dared contradict the ruler gave emperors the possibility to show their benevolence. Sometimes individuals went too far and were exiled or even killed. But throughout Roman history there are stories about individuals disputing with the emperor – almost always people who had become close to the emperor as a result of personal intellectual or religious status. …
… After the advent of Christianity, the role of the second- and third- century sophists was taken up by holy men. Although they, like bishops, derived their status from religiosity, it was through a non-institutionalised variant. The hagiographic stories surrounding these men form a new and very specific genre of literature, filled with feats of endurance, miracles and demons. But they still included interactions between holy men and the emperor as a matter of course. … [examples] …
… Roman emperors were expected to interact with individuals wielding non-worldly power. How they reacted to these people was a telling indicator of how they used their imperial might. …
An emperor’s might was clearly expressed through the soldiers and bodyguards who systematically surrounded him. The Roman notion of potestas (power) was closely linked with the capacity to unleash violence, which is why in the Republic magistrates and priests, and often also senators and ambassadors, were accompanied by lictors carrying fasces which held axes. Emperors inevitably obtained similar rights. More lictors meant more power. … The emperors’ military escort, much like the rest of their entourage, included both ‘institutional’ members and ‘outsiders’ appointed directly by the ruler. On the one hand there were Roman soldiers, especially the Praetorian Guard, who for a long time were led by members of the institutional elite. Up to the end of the third century, praetorian prefects tended to be equites, and from the middle of the fourth century senators. Praetorians escorted the emperor and members of his family. Having them assigned to your person was a clear indication of imperial power. …
… On the other hand there were privately owned or recruited ‘barbarian’ bodyguards. Their role in protecting the emperor went back to the very beginning of the principate. Caesar had already employed German cavalry in Gaul and Spanish guards in Rome. The German bodyguards were inherited by Augustus. Famously, they reacted aggressively to the assassination of the emperor Caligula, slaying some of the conspirators on the spot. This may have been because of devotion to the emperor, but was also a fitting response from people who had been wholly dependent on the man that was just slain. …
…Most of the fourth-century palace guards, the so-called Scholae Palatinae, were represented in typically Germanic dress and recruited from ‘barbarian’ tribes, most prominently Germans from the Rhine area. …
… A successor to the German bodyguard, more institutionalised than the likes of the Varangian Guard, were the so-called equites singulares Augusti. These cavalry men were individually selected from non-Roman soldiers along the Rhine and Danube, and were often nicknamed the Batavi as they were so similar to the earlier German bodyguard, functioning as the emperor’s bodyguard in the city as well as soldiers in the field. …
… Emperors were expected to be surrounded by military men who were directly loyal to him. Marcus Aurelius’ statement that Antoninus had taught him that it was ‘possible to live in a palace and yet not need a bodyguard’ shows that this was the exception, not the rule. …
Throughout Roman history, the emperor was surrounded by men whose status depended on him, either because he had given them official posts or assigned them to duties linked to his personal comfort or safety. Yet the court was also filled with men whose intellectual or religious renown had made them unavoidable, and with senators (and later bishops) whose social status was such that they at least needed to be included as representatives of their group.
Both the ‘emperor’s men’ and members of the ‘status group’ held important military and administrative positions. When the great command and governorships were taken away from senators in the course of the third century, other positions, such as that of praetorian prefectures, came in their place.
And throughout Roman imperial history, the emperor had the practical power to appoint whomever he chose in whatever position he felt necessary. …
… The combination of people at the court who had access to the emperor, from palace staff to generals, continuously influenced the emperor. An important analysis of the reign of Nero has recently drawn attention to the way in which these various individuals could band together and function as an ‘establishment team’, dampening the impact of individual imperial wishes. In this way, the excesses of malfunctioning emperors could be avoided.
… much of the daily affairs of court life, and (minor) requests coming the emperor’s way, would have been dealt with by the emperor’s entourage without direct imperial involvement – although the Roman emperor was expected to react to requests in person more than was the case in other monarchical systems [Millar].
Whether the influence of such ‘establishment teams’ changed over time is difficult to say. On the one hand, monarchical power was more openly expressed from the fourth century onwards (although alternatives continued to circulate). On the other, there is the assumption that the imperial system of the later period – the more formalised administrative and court structures especially of the eastern part of the empire and the court at Constantinople – could more robustly resist imperial interventions. There are fewer stories about ‘mad’ emperors from the early fourth century onwards …
… Whether that rapid replacement is taken as sign of a more robust imperial system, or the lack of intervention in foreign affairs as a sign that individual imperial decisions remained difficult to curb is a matter of perspective. Throughout the centuries of Roman imperial rule, there are stories of servants ruling as powers behind the throne and of emperors on the loose whose erratic behaviour cannot be contained by their advisors. There was not only tension within the imperial entourage between members of the institutionalised elite and those whose influence depended on their closeness to the emperor, but often also between the emperor himself and the people who surrounded him. [END SECTION]
Please send comments or corrections to me directly at mgs.heller@gmail.com
Tell your friends and colleagues about Social Science Files
Social Science Files displays multidisciplinary writings on a great variety of topics relating to evolutions of social order from the earliest humans to the present day and future machine age