Homework Help for History

Is it enough if the school is afraid there might be disruption? Explain your answer

What do greece and the aster civilization have in common?

How to define "derecho indiano" in colonial north americas

Read claude Mckay poem if we must die” what do you think of the course if action that mckay advocates in reponse to white antiblack violence? How does mckay’s poem serve to inspire african american to stand up for themselve? What do you think are the benefits and challanges to the approach mckay proposes?

Development of Religions 1200 BCE - 500 CE

Who wrote this?

What is the author’s perspective?

When was it written?

Where was it written?

Why was it written?

Is it reliable? Why? Why not?

Can someone please give me detailed summary of this chapter

The Emperors


The Office and  its Setting
The monarchy of Augustus had been created by victory in a civil war; it  was secured and  
perpetuated  by careful management  of both  constitutional forms  and  personal  behaviour  to 
meet  the Republican   traditions   and   the   personal   sensitivities   of   the Senate.  
Therein  lay  the  paradox  of  the  Empire  as  a  political institution.  Power, and  
responsibility, devolved on the Emperor from  the  start.  But  because   the  appearance   of  
monarchy  and its  trappings  had to be  avoided,  the Empire  was slow to evolve any easy  and  
workable  means of  transferring  power  from  one Emperor  to  his  successor,  any  staff  and  
machinery  of  govern- ment (beyond  the slaves and freedmen of the household) centred round  the  
Emperor,  or  much  of  the apparatus  and  ritual  of  a Court.
The succession was the most difficult thing. The constitutional position   devised   for   the  
Emperor  (known   normally   just   as Princeps -  ‘leading citizen’) was built up of powers 
derived from those exercised  by senatorial magistrates:  the tribunicia potestas (the  powers  of  
a tribune),  imperium  protonnilare  (the  right  of command  held  by  a  proconsul  as  governor  
of  a province,  but exercisable everywhere  by the Emperor) — and perhaps (the point is much 
disputed) imperium consulare,  the power of a consul; he had at  least  the formal trappings of a 
consul,  being preceded  by twelve  lictors (attendants  bearing  the Queues)  and sitting  on the 
tribunal   with   the  consuls.'   The  Emperor   was  also  Pontifex Maximus, chief priest for the 
public rites of Rome. The Emperor
33




THE   ROMAN   EJYtP IR E  AN D   ITS   N EIG HBOU RS
might  also,  when  he  wished,  be  consul  ordinaries.   Claudius, in  47—8,  Vespasian  with  
his  son  Titu›   in 73—4  and  Domitian (81—96),  who  held  it  continuously,   all  took  also  
the  office  of ceusar. After Domitian  the Emperors ali exercised  the functions of censor  —  of  
which  the  most  important  was  that  of revising the list  of the Senate — but did  not take the 
title.
Beyond  these  powers  with  their  titles  there  were  honorific appellations — Pater Patriae 
(‘Father of his Country’) or Princeps Senates (‘Leader  of the Senate’) — which  might  
occasionally  be accepted by Emperors; more important  was the term  Imperator (General)  used  
sometimes,   by  the  Emperors  alone,  as  a  part praenomen,or forename) of their actual name; 
and ‘Augustus’, used  as  a  cognomen,  or  last  name.   A   good  example  of  the Imperial  
titulature  might  be  that  of  Titus  in  80—1:  Imperator Titus Caesar divi filius (son of the 
deified Vespasian) Vesyasianus Augustus, pontifex maximw, tribunicia potesiaie  X (for the tenth 
year),  imperator  XKff (hailed  as general,  or conqueror,  by  the troops seventeen  times),  
connil  VIII, paler  patriae.°
These powers and titles, however,  were personal.  To indicate his successor  an Emperor could  
have  some comparable  powers voted to him. In 14, for instance, Tiberius had held the tribunicia 
potextas since An 4 and the imperium proconsularesince  13. The essential step, however, had been 
of a quite different  nature, his adoption by Augustus (who was in fact  his step-father),  also in 
ID   4.  For  reasons  which  still  need  explanation,   the  dynastic principle  was  immediately 
 accepted,  even  within  the  reign  of Augustus,  as an essential element  in  the Principate.  
References to the Imperial ‘house’ (domus) and its members appear in docu- ments  of  Augustus’   
time;  and  when  in  14  the  inhabitants  of Cyprus took  the oath  of loyalty  to Tiberius,  
they did  so to him ‘With all his house’, and swore  to vote divine honours  to An  in, tO 
Tiberiusand to ‘the sons of  his blood and  to none others  at all’.°
Thereafterthe  history  of  the  Imperial  throne  is a  history  of dynasties, some long-lived, 
some abortive. No Emperor who had a son living  was ever  peacefully  succeeded  by anyone else.  
The importance  of the dynastic  principle  is only emphasized  by  the fact that where an Emperor 
did not have a son, he designated  his
34

THE     EMPERORS
successor  precisely  by  adopting  him.  The  first  occasion  of  an adoption  from  outside  the 
 Emperor's  family  was  in 69,  when Galba  adopted  Piso  Licinianus,  shortly  before  they  
were  both kilied.  The second  was  more successful,  when  Nerva  bolstered his  tottering  
regime  in  97  by  adopting   a  respected   senator, Ulpius Traianus,  then governor  of  Upper 
Germany.  Adoption was  the  rule  in  the  second  century,  when  no  Emperor  until Marcus  
Aurelius  (161—80)  had  a  son  to  succeed  him.  When Septimius  Severus  reached  the  throne  
by  a  coup  in  193,  he claimed — or at  least  inserted  as an element  in his titulature — a 
fictitious  descent from all  the Emperors  back  to Nerva.
Family  deseent,  whether  natural  or  adoptive,  thus provided
the basis for continuity.  It still remained for the designated suc- cessor  to  receive  the  
titles  and  powets  of  Emperor.  In  14,  as mentioned in the last chapter, the ineptitude, 
suspiciousness and perhaps  genuine  reluctance   of  Tiberius  delayed  the  process, which  
consisted  simply  of a  vote of the Senate,  for  perhaps  as much as two months (the Cypriots 
meanwhile inscribed a record of  their  oath,  carefully   leaving  a  blank   space  for  the  
word Autokrator  -  the Greek  for Imperalor -  Io  be filled in when  the formalities  were  
completed).   Normally,  however,  when  there was a son or adopted son already marked out by 
special honours
— for instance, Titus during the reign of his father Vespasian (69— 79)  had  held  the  consulship 
 seven  times,  the  censorship  and tribunicia potestas -  the Senate's vote was a simple 
formality.  In less straightforward cases  another  element  entered  the process, the  Praetorian  
cohorts.  In 41  Claudius  (the  uncle  of  the  mur- dered  Gaius) was found  by  them,  taken to 
the camp,  and  pro- claimed; in 54,  after Claudius’  murder,  Nero,  his step-son  and adopted  
son,  went  first  to  the  Praetorian  camp,  distributed largesse,  and  was  hailed  as 
Imperator.  The  vote  of  the Senate followed.
The  second  century  saw  the development  of a more  definite
system of appointing a successor. The first stage, from 136 when Hadrian   adopted   a   senator,   
who   soon   died,   L.    Ceionius Commodes,  under  the  name  L.   Aelius  Caesar,  was  to use  
the name  ‘Caesar’  specifically  as a  title to designate  the  heir  to the throne. The final 
stage was for the Emperor to make his sonjoint
35




THE ROMAN   EMPIRE   AND  ITS  NEIGHBOURS
Emperor  with  himself  in  the full  sense;  thus Marcus  Aurelius and Commodes  ruled  jointly in 
177—80,  and on Marcus’ death in 180 Commodes simply remained as sole Emperor. Similarly, Septimius 
 Severus  had  Caracalla  as his colleague from  198  to 211, and his younger son Geta as third 
Emperor  from  209—11. This system  reappears  repeatedly  in the third  century  (as with the 
joint rule of Valerian and Gallienus in 253—60) but the hopes of stability it offered  were 
destroyed  by  the fact, mentioned  in the first chapter, that the endless wars meant that the 
Emperors were constantly on campaign, and therefore constantly exposed
to the turbulence of the army and the attacks of rivals.
The primary  setting for the Emperor's life and business — as for  that  of  a  senator  — was his  
palaces  in  Rome  and  villas  in Latium and Campania. These were privately owned  residences; 
Augustus had lived first in a house near the Forum, then in one on the Palatine hill which had 
previously belonged to the orator
Hortensius. This house alone took on in part the character  of a

THEEMPEROR9
Outside  Rome  there  were country  retreats  like the island  of Capri, which Augustus had bought 
from the city of Naples, and where Tiberius lived from 27 to his death in 37, or Tibur, where 
Claudius sat in judgment during the summer and where Hadrian built his famous villa (Plate 4). 
Philo describes how his delega- tion from  the  Alexandrian  Jewish  community  followed  Gaius 
fruitlessly round the villas of Campania in the spring of 40. Each villa had its own staff of 
slaves; a poem  by Phaedrus describes how when Tiberius arrived at his villa at Misenum, and took a 
stroll along the lawns and avenues,  one of  the slaves there  ran about officiously  watering  the 
grass and  brushing  the dust — in the hope, which was not rewarded,  of  being awarded  his free- 
dom. The Antonines had a taste for more self-consciously rustic pursuits  than strolling in  the 
grounds;  Marcus Aurelius  writes from a villa to Fronto to describe how, after a morning reading 
Cato  On  Agriculture,  he  joined  Antoninus  Pius  (138—161)  in helping to gather the vintage, 
after which  they both had supper

royal palace (the word derives from
Palatium’). In 36 Augustus
with the workers in the oil-press  room.^

had  given  part  of  it  for  the  construction
or a  new  temple  of
Originally  the  State  provided   the  Emperor  with  no  staff

Apollo. In the libraries and porticoes attached to the temple the Emperor might hear embassies,  
and even the Senate sometimes met. In 12 xc, when Augustus  became Pontifex  Maximus,  part of  the 
 house  was  made  public  property  as  the  Pontifex’  resi- dence, and a new temple of Vesta was 
built on the Palatine. In the  course  of  the  first  century  the  Emperors  seem  to  have 
acquired  all  of  the  Palatine  hill  (which  had  been  a  favourite dwelling-place for the 
Republican  nobility) and  through exten- sive rebuilding converted  the whole into a complex  of 
palaces. The most extravagant development was that of Nero, who after the fire or 64, spread  his 
‘Golden House’ across a large part of Rome to the Esquiline  Hill (Plate 3).• Vespasian  restored  
much of  this  area  to  public  use  and  began  the  construction  of  the Colosseum on part of 
it. Throughout  Rome, the Emperors  pro- gressively  acquired,  by  inheritance  or  confiscation,  
other  resi- dences each  with  parkland  (hence  known  as ‘gardens’  — horti) like  the  horti  
Sallustiani  where  Vespasian  held  receptions, where Nerva died in 98 and where Aurelian (270-5) 
preferred to
stay when in Rome.
36
beyond  the lictors who escorted  him, and  some military  units. The most important of these were 
the Praetorian cohorts, which derived  from  the  units  on  service  at  the  headquarters    
prae-
/oriiim)  of  a  Republican  commander;  originally  scattered  in towns near Rome, they were 
brought together early in Tiberius’ reign in a camp, whose walls partly survive, on the Viminal 
hill in Rome. One of the nine, later ten, cohorts, each commanded by a tribune, stood guard at the 
Emperor's residence each night.• Also attached  to the Emperor was a separate corps of mounted 
speculatores, who acted as both escort and messengers. From the end of  the first  century  the 
function  of  the escort  seems to  be taken over by soldiers called equites singulares Augusti, 
recruited mainly  from  Germany  and  Pannonia;  a  little  later  (it  seems) soldiers  on  
special  duties,  known  as  frumentarii,  began  to  be quartered in a separate camp in Rome and 
to serve the Emperor (as  other  fr  meninrii  did  provincial  governors)  as  messengers and,  
more importantly,  as spies or police.'
All  other  staff  were  in  the  beginning  the  employees  or  (as
slaves) property of the Emperor. The Emperors from Augustus
37




THE  ROMAN   EMPIRE   AT D   ITS   N EIGHBOURS
to Galba (68—9) even supplemented the soldiers at their disposal with a private bodyguard of 
barbarians recruited from Germany; Caracalla  (211—17)  restored   the  bodyguard,  recruiting  
them from Germans and Scythians.
The number of slaves and freedmen in the Imperial household
cannot  be calculated,  but must have  nin into many thousands. At  Rome slaves  performed  all the 
menial  tasks of  the palaces; the  inscriptions  on  their  tombstones  show for instance  a  head 
cook, who established the tomb for himself and his descendants, and, if there were none, for the 
guild {collegium) of cooks in the Palatium;  or  a  chief   mirror-maker  who  similarly  leaves  
his tomb in the second instance for the apprentice mirror-makers in the  Palaoe.  Separate  
households  of  slaves  and  freedmen  were established  for  the  various  horti  in  Rome,  the  
villas  outside Rome,  the  estates  in  Italy  and  the  provinces.  Freedmen  and even slaves of 
the Emperor  might live in considerable state and enjoy considerable  honour in local communities, 
making bene- factions and (in the case of freedmen)  being honoured  with  the honorary  rank  of 
town-councillor; a famous  inscription  shows a slave from the treasury of the province of Gallia 
Lugdunensis, who  had  sixteen  sub-slaves  (vicarii)  of  his  own  —  secretaries, cooks, 
footmen, a valet, a doctor and others — with him when he died on a visit to Rome in the reign of 
Tiberius." When Flaccus, the  Prefect  of  Egypt,  was arrested  in  38  he was dining  at  the
house of an Imperial freedman in Alexandria.
It was naturally in the immediate service of the Emperor  that the greatest  position  and  
influence  was to be gained.  We have cases like Theoprepes who began as the slave in charge of 
glass- ware in the Palace, then of the Emperor's ornamental  brooches
t fibulae), then of a dining-room, and then rose to manage estates, to hold minor secretarial posts 
with the Emperor and to manage
the  Imperial  dye-works  in  Greece,  Epirus  and  Thessaly  under Severus Alexander  (222—35) ; 
or  Ulpius Phaedimus  who started with  the charge of Trajan's  drinking-cup. came to  be  
principal lictor  and  in charge  of  the files  of  benefi‹ia  (Imperial  favours) and  was  with  
Trajan  when  he  died  in  Cilicia  in  117.  Philo describes in the greatest detail how an 
Egyptian called  Helicon gained  in8uence  with  Gaius  by  being  his  chief  cubicularius
38

THE   EMPERORS
(chamberlain)  and then being constantly  with him — exercising, bathing and eating with him, and 
attending him as he retired to bed.•
The  most  important  household  positions  held  by  freedmen were those concerned  with the 
public business of the Emperor — his letters, petitions, the accounts of public funds. Their 
greatest influence  was  in the reign  of  Claudius,  when  Pallas  (accounts) Narcissus   
(letters)  and   Polybius  (petitions?)   dominated   the political  life  of  the  Court,  and  
amassed  huge  fortunes.  Their position  and influence  offended  more than anything else about 
the fact  of  an  Emperor's  existence  against  the  conventions  of Roman  society.  The Imperial 
 biographer  Suetonius  records of Polybius  the  single  fact  that  he  was  seen  in  Rome  
walking between the consuls;  no more needed  to be said.
Towards the end of the first century, as we shall see in the next chapter,  the  chief  
‘secretarial'  positions  came  to  be  given  to equites  promoted  from  administrative posts  — 
an indication  of the degree  to which  posts with  the Emperor  were acquiring an official or 
public status. But the lower clerical  posts attached  to these secretarial positions all remained 
in the hands of Imperial freedmen.  Among  the  chief  posts,  that  concerned  with  Greek 
correspondence  was  quite  frequently  given  directly  to  Greek orators  or writers  — who thus 
formed  part  of  the  considerable groupof Greekfi/terateurs, doctors (like the medical writer 
Galen under  Marcus  Aurelius),  tutors  and  philosophers  who  at  all times clustered round the 
Court, and could exercise considerable influence.  Furthermore,  even  if  the chief  posts  were  
now filled from  outside  the  household,  cubicularii,  eunuchs ’and  others could   still   
exercise   great   power,   The   most   notorious   was Cleander,  who  was brought  from  Phrygia 
 to  Rome as a slave, was bought into the Imperial household, became a cubicularius of  Commodus  
(186-92),  was  made  the  freedman  colleague  of the  Praetorian  Prefects  and  made  a  huge  
fortune  —  which  he partly  dispersed  in  largesse  to  cities  and  individuals  —  from 
patronage and the sale of office, before being executed  in 190 in the face of a popular riot.'°
In  the middle 40-50  years  of the third  century  (238—84)  our evidence,  both  literary  and  
documentary,  is  much  less  good.
39




THE  ROM AN   EMP I RE   AN D   ITS   NEI GHBOURS
But the in8uence of the household, the slaves and freedmen  of the palaces, must have been greatly 
lessened in the period when the  Emperors  were  mainly  with  the  army.  We  do,  however, hear 
of  cubicularii  accompanying  Carus  (282—3)  on campaign, or of one Dorotheus, later presbyter  
of the Church at Antioch, who  as an  educated  eunuch  had  gained  the  confidence  of  an 
Emperor  and  then  been  placed  in charge of  the  Imperial  dye- works at Tyre in the late third 
century. It is only with the more settled   conditions,   and   fuller   evidence,   of   the   
period   of Diocletian  and  after  that  the  Imperial  household  re-emerges into the light of 
history.
The  same  lack   of  evidence   hampers  our   picture  of   the Emperors  and  their  setting  in 
 this  ‘military’  phase  of  their existence.  But  we  do  have,  from  the  tontempoTary  
historian Dexippus,  a valuable  picture  of  Aurelian  in the field  receiving an embassy from the 
luthungi. ‘When he heard that the embassy from the luthungi had arrived, he said that he would deal 
on the following day with the matters about which they had come. He marshalled  the army in battle 
order so as to dismay the enemy. When  the  parade  was  in  order  he  mounted  a  lofty  tribunal 
wearing a purple cloak, and arranged  the army around  him in crescent formation.  Beside  him  he 
placed  the officers  to whom commands  had  been entrusted,  all  on  horseback.  Opposite the 
Emperor   were  the  standards  of  the  picked  troops  —  golden eagles, Imperial images and 
banners of the legions picked out in golden letters — all raised on poles plated  with silver. When 
all this  was  arranged  he ordered  the  luthungi  to  be  brought  into his presence.’l’
Essential  to  the  question  of  the position  of  the  Emperor  in relation to the Republican 
institutions is the problem of Imperial property  and  income.  Some aspects  of  lhe  problem  are 
clear; some are disputed, and for the moment insoluble. The Emperor appears not to have received 
any regular grants of public money. Instead,  he relied  on his own income,  made up of the 
revenues from  properties,  legacies  and  inheritances  from  friends  and others (the giving or 
legacies and inheritances  to public figures was  a  Republican  custom  which  hardened  —  
especially  under some  rulers  —  almost  into  an  obligation  in  the  case  of  the
40
THE    EMPERORS
Emperor),  spoils  from  wars  (manubiae)  and  the ‘crown  gold’ presented  by cities and  
provinces.  Both  of these  benefits came to the Emperor as they had to the Republican  generals.
Beyond  that  the  position  is  obscured  by  disputes  as  to  the legal nature of the separate 
Imperial treasury, the Fiscus, which is attested  in connection  with  Imperial  properties,  bona 
caduca (goods falling  vacant  on death),  the confiscated  goods  of con- demned  persons  — in  
the course of  the first  century  the  Fiscus came  to  share   both  of  these  with  the  public 
 treasury,   the Aerarium  — and  with various fines,  penalties  and extraordinary taxes. The 
author of this book has argued  that all ‘fiscal’ funds and   properties  were  essentially   the   
private  property  of  the Emperor  — and  that  therefore  the acquisition  of such  incomes 
represents  a  usurpation  by  the  Emperor   of  properly  public revenues.  Oth#rs  believe  that 
 ‘fiscus’  refers  to  public  funds handled by the Emperor in his capacity as an agent of the 
State. However,  wherever  the  borderline  between  ‘Imperial’  and ‘public’ funds was drawn — and 
by the third century the distinc- tion  is barely  traceable     the essential  thing is that even 
in the Julio-Claudian period  the Emperors had acquired  a wide range of properties  — palaces and 
villas in Rome and  Italy, estates in Italy and  the provinces  — which  then,  though  in theory  
private property, passed automatically  to their successors on the throne as such, even where there 
was no family connection. Thus Otho and Vitellius, in their brief reigns in 69, could enjoy the 
delights of  the  Julio-Claudian  palaces,  and  the ‘horti  Sallustiaiii’, left by  a  friend  to  
Tiberius  (14-37)  could  be  used  as  a  standard example  of  Imperial property  by an early 
third-century  lawyer. This  change  indicates  the  rapidity  with  which  the  position  of 
Emperor as such  took on a life of its own, irrespective  of who occupied it. This is shown clearly 
in the action of Pertinax (193) who   refused   to  have  his  own  name  inscribed  on  buildings 
which were Imperial property, saying that they belonged  to the
State,  not to himself.'°
Outside   the  realm  of   these  complex   technicalities  which defined the relation of the 
Emperor to the surviving structure of the  city  state,  his  position  was  a  personal   
monarchy.  The soldiers  took  the oath  to serve the  Emperor  by  name,  not  the
41




THE   ROhlAN   EMPIRE   AT D   ITS   N EIGHBOURS
Senate  and  People  of  Rome;  their  discharge  certificates  were granted personally  by  the 
Emperor.  The coinage  of the Empire bore  the image  and  the name  of the Emperor  — ‘Whose image 
and  superseription  is  that?’  Deceased  and deified  Emperors  — and  to  a lesser  extent  
living  ones — received  divine  honours  in the provinces, which involved temples and 
cult-rituals, run either by  the  cities  or  by  provincial  leagues  which  formed  the  chief 
meeting-ground for the leading men of the cities.  Statues of the Emperors  and dedications  to 
them  were everywhere.  Images of the  Emperors  were  carried  by  the  legions  and  placed  on  
the judgment-tribunal of  provincial  governors.  A  man  could  seek asylum by clinging  to the 
statue of an Emperor; the importance of such images is illustrated  by an inscription from Lycia 
dating to the mid-third century  in honour  of a local  official  who gave a show  to celebrate  
the installation  of a ‘sacred image’  (eikon) of the Emperor.'°
Similarly,   not   only  communities   but   ordinary   individuals could and did turn to the 
Emperor personally for the settlement of  disputes  or  the  granting  of  privileges.  The  
satirist  Martial, late  in  the  first  century,  mentions  a  man  who  had  come  from his 
native  town  to petition  the Emperor  for the privileges  of a father of three children.In the 
second century  Artemidorus,  the writer   on  dreams,   mentions   the  case   of  a  shipowner   
who dreamed that he had been imprisoned by the Heroes on the Isles of the Blessed and had then been 
rescued by Agamemnon: what the dream foretold  was revealed  when  he was seized  for trans- port 
service by the Imperial procurators, petitioned the Emperor, and was released.  In the second 
century  also, as we shall see in the  next  chapter,  there  developed  a  regular  system  by  
which both oRcials and private persons wrote directly  to the Emperor to  consult  him  on  legal  
questions  and  were  answered  in  re- scripts.  The  Emperor  might  be  hostile  —  and  might  
dispense punishment  as well as reward — preoccupied,  indifferent  or just lazy, or else absent in 
a distant province or hidden in his palace. Access to him  was vulnerable  to influence  or 
bribery.  But  none the  less  we  see  something  essential  about  what  the  Emperor as an  
individual  signified  to his  subjects  in anecdotes  like one recorded  of  Hadrian.  A  woman  
made  a  request  of  him  as  he
42

TH  E   EM P ER OR8
passed on a journey; when he said  he had  no time she shouted, ‘Then  stop  being  Emperor!’  —  
so  he  turned  and  gave  her  a hearing.'4

Men and  Dynasties
The  Empire  arose  from  political  struggles,  culminating  in  the civil wars, between the 
members of the Roman aristocracy. The first  dynasty .to  occupy  the  throne  was  securely  
rooted  in  the history  of  the Republic,  descending  via  Augustus,  the adopted grand-nephew  
of Julius Caesar, from the patrician Julii, and via Tiberius,  the step-son  and adopted  son of  
Augustus,  from  the patrician Claudii, who went  back to the Rome of the Kings. In their  
personalities  and  way of  life, familiar  from  the  pages  of Tacitus  and  Suetonius,  the  
Julio-CIaudians  exhibited  in  their various ways  the self-glorification,  brutality,  
luxuriousness  and eccentricity of the Republican nobility, whose final product they were. Their 
reigns were marked  by continuous conflict  with the Senate; men could still dream of restoring the 
Republic — and if there  was to  be  an  Emperor  there  were  other  men, constantly under 
suspicion  and in danger  of prosecution  and  death,  who by  virtue  of  descent  from  
Republican  families  or  Augustus himself might have as good a claim to the position as those who 
ruled.1^
Nothing  showed   the  rapidity   with  which   the  world   was changing  better  than  the events 
of 68—70.  When the governing class, disgusted  by the brutality, sexual  aberrations and lack  of 
dignity of  Nero, also became alarmed  by a long series of execu- tions,  the  lead  in  getting  
rid  of  him  was  taken  by  a  second- generation  Gallic senator  from  Aquitania,  Julius  
Vindex,  then (probably) governor  of  Gallia  Lugdunensis.  He and  the Gallic army he raised were 
suppressed.  But he and the Senate in Rome had  turned,  significantly, to a  rich,  elderly  
senator  whose first known ancestor had fought against  Hannibal,  Sulpicius Galba, the governor of 
part of Spain. After a brief reign (68—9) he suc- cumbed  to a coup in Rome and was succeeded by 
Salvius Otho, whose  great-grandfather  had  been  only  an  eques,  and  whose grandfather  had  
reached  the Senate by the  patronage of Livia
43




THE  ROMAN   EhlPl RE   AND   US   NEIGHBOU RS
the wife of Augustus. He was swept aside when the Rhine legions invaded   Italy  and  placed  on  
the  throne  A.  Vitellius,  whose grandfather had been an eques and agent of Augustus, but whose 
father had been  three times consul, and  the chief senatorial ally of  Claudius.  The throne  was 
finally  taken,  and a  new dynasty established,  by  Flavius  Vespasianus,  then in  command  in  
the Jewish war. He was a first-generation senator, whose father had been  a  tax-collector  and  
money-lender,   though  his  maternal grandfather  had been an eques and maternal  uncle a senator.
The arrival on the throne of a modest Italian bourgeois family brought,  as  Tacitus  noted,  a  
significant  change  in  the  soCial climate of Rome. His old-fashioned  strictness and avoidance 
of luxury and display set the tone for society; while Vespasian also brought in more men of his own 
type, from the towns of Italy or the  provinces,  whose ‘domestic  parsimony’  was not altered  by 
success and fame.'° Vespasian maintained on the whole easy and unceremonious  relations  with  the 
Senate, struggled  apparently successfully   with   the   financial   chaos   brought   by   
Imperial extravagance and civil war, but did not entirely avoid a reputa- tion  for  undignified  
greed  and  parsimony.  The  actor  who  by ancient custom  played  the role of  the dead  man at  
his funeral asked those in charge  how much it cost, and replied, ‘Give me the money and throw the 
body into the Tiber’.
In the reign of Vespasian's second son, Domitian (81—96),  on
the other hand, relations with the Senate worsened steadily, end- ing with a rising  by a 
senatorial  general in 89, an expulsion  of philosophers — thought to be subversive — about 92 and 
an orgy of  prosecutions  in 93—6.  Works  like Tacitus’  biography  of  his father-in-law 
Agricola, or Pliny's Panegyric of Trajan, written in the following years, look back  on Domitian's  
reign as a period of humiliation  and  terror.
When Domitian was murdered  by members of his household
in  96,  the  conspirators  turned  (as  they  usually  did)  to  a  rich elderly senator c? 
respectable descent, M. Cocceius Nerva, of an Italian senatorial family which went back to the 
Republic, and included  two well-known  jurists. In his brief reign of two years his most  
successful  act was to adopt  his successor,  M.  Ulpius Traianus,  then  governor  of  Upper  
Germany  (it  was  not  an

THE  EPf PERORS
accident  that  this was the  nearest  major  military command  to Rome). He was the son of a 
senatorial general of the same name who had governed Syria and Asia and been made a patrician by 
Yespasian;  the family,  however, came from the municipality  of Italica in Spain which had been 
settled by Roman veterans dur- ing  the  Second  Punic  War.  He was  thus  the first  Emperor  of 
provincial origin (though  he may not actually have been born in Spain). Few Emperors, if any, were 
more successful in relations with the Senate. Pliny the Younger, who was in the Senate dur- ing his 
reign, has left not only the Panegyric {an expanded  ver- sion of the speech of thanks to the 
Emperor which  he delivered on entry to the consulate in 100), but his letters, witch illustrate 
the tact Trajan showed  both to the Senate and to the senatorial friends he invited to advise him. 
Moreover, Trajan conquered a new and wealthy province, Dacia, in two wars, 101—2 and 105—6, and  
made  an  invasion  of  Parthia  (ultimately  unsuccessful,  in that  his  conquest  could  not  be 
 retained)  in  I13—17,  dying  in Cilicia in 117.
His successor,  Hadrian,  his nephew  by  marriage  and  ward, also came of a senatorial family 
from Italica, though in fact born in Rome. At the moment  of Trajan's death he was governor  of 
Syria,  and  it  was  announced  subsequently  that  he  had  been adopted as heir and successor. 
That naturally aroused some dis- belief, and the historian Cassius Dio was told by his father, who 
governed Cilicia later in the century, that the true story was that the Empress  Plotina  and  the 
Praetorian  Prefect  had concealed Trajan's death for several days while the coup was effected. The 
atmosphere was not improved by the summary execution of four senators of consular rank for 
‘conspiracy’ as Hadrian was on his way back to Rome.
Hadrian,  in   many   ways   the  most   intexesting   of  ail   the Emperors, might be said to 
personify in himself the variousness and  the limitations  of  classical  civilization.  Much  of  
his  reign was spent in tours of the Empire — through the western provinces to  Britain  and  back  
via  Spain  in  121—3,  Syria,  Asia  Minor, Pannonia, Greece (where he spent the winter of 124—5, 
in Athens) and  Sicily in 123—5,  Africa  in 128,  Greece, Asia  Minor, Syria, Judaea  and  Egypt  
in  128—32.  Hadrian  composed  verses,  had
45



THE  ROMAW   E  fPIRE   AN D   ITS   NEIG HBOU RS
ideas  on  architecture,   surrounded   himself   with  orators   and artists;  on  visiting  
Alexandria  he debated  with  the scholars  of the Museum.  He founded cities  on his travels,  
Antinoopolis  in Egypt, named after his favourite Antinous who was drowned in the Nile,  
Hadrianoutherai in Asia Minor,  Aelia Capitolina  on the site of Jerusalem — which led to the last 
of the great  Jewish wars, the revolt of Bar Kochba in 132—5 (Hadrian's  varied sym- pathies  did  
not  extend  outside  Graeco-Roman   culture).   He busied himself actively with  the discipline  
of the army — inscrip- tions preserve part of the speech of mingled praise and criticism which he 
made after watching some auxiliary  units on exercises In Africa — and initiated the construction 
of the great wall named after him in the north of England.  His greatest devotion was to the Greek 
world, especially  Athens which he visited three times, where he built temples and other buildings, 
and which he made, the meeting-place  of amew  Panhellenic  League.
Yet  his  complex,   many-sided   character  aroused   suspicion and distrust.  The end of his 
reign  was  marred  by  more  execu- tions,   his  first   choice  for  adoption   and   the  
succession,   L. Ceionius  Commodus,  died  in  138  and  he finally  resorted  to  a respectable 
middle-aged senator,  whose grandfather came from Nimes,  T.  Aurelius  Fulvus  Boionius  Arrius  
Antoninus,  better known as Antoninus Pius (138-61); he was instructed  to adopt, as his 
prospective successors, his nephew by marriage, M.  Annius Verus — Marcus Aurelius (161—80) — and 
the son of L.  Geionius Commodus,   later   called   L.    Verus   (joint   Emperor,   161—9). 
Antoninus Pius lived modestly in Rome and on his estates, never stirred  from  Italy  and  
preserved  excellent  relations  with  the Senate. Very little is really known of him as a man. 
Much more is revealed  of Marcus  Aurelius both in the letters he exchanged with Cornelius Fronto, 
and in his Meditations, written in Greek, the fruit of the Store philosophy to which he had devoted 
himself since  childhood.   Nothing   shows  the  modest   and  ‘domestic’ spirit  of  the  
Antonine  régime  better  than  the  passage  in  the Meditations  where  Aurelius  lists  the  
things  he  learnt  from  his adopted father: ‘Mildness, and remaining unshaken in decisions taken  
on due consideration;  indifference  to  seeming  honours; industry  and  perseverance;  readiness  
to  listen  to  those   with
46
THE     EMPERORS
something  of  public  benefit  to  contribute   ...       permitting  his friends  not  to dine  
with  him  always  or to  be obliged  to  travel out of Rome with him ...    the check in his reign 
put on acclama- tions  and  all forms  of  battery; his careful  watch  on  the needs of  the  
Empire,  the  husbanding  of  resources,  the  patience  to endure criticism  on such matters.’i*
Two  at  least  of  the  twelve  books  of  the     Meditations  were
written  on  campaign  against  the  barbarians  from  across  the Danube.  For  wars  dominated  
the  philosopher's   reign,  in  the East  the Parthian  war conducted  in  162—6  by L.   Verus,  
whose returning  troops  brought  a  terrible  plague  in  their  train,  and then wars against 
invaders  from the north from  167 to 175, ter- minated  by  a revolt  in  the  east.  Finally  
there  were  aggressive campaigns  across  the  Danube  in  the  joint   rule  (177—80)  of Marcus  
and  his son Commodus.
Commodus,  assuming sole power at eighteen when his father died on campaign, at once asserted his 
authority by rejecting the counsel of all his advisers to carry on the w«kmade peace and returned  
to the pleasures  of Rome.  The pleasure  was not  to be shared  by the Senate (in a famous 
metaphor,  Cassius Dio, who entered the Senate during  the reign, says the change from father to  
son was  a descent  from  an  age of  gold  to one of iron); the reign  produced  some of  the  
features  of  Nero's  — conspiracies, the  strife   of  favourites,   self-glorification  and   
exhibitions   of gladiatorial  prowess  by  the Emperor.
When Commodus  was strangled  in his bath on the last night of  192,  the conspirators  turned,  in 
 a  way  now  familiar,  to  an Italian senator of advanced years, P.  Helvius Pertinax. In origin, 
however, he reflected the changed  conditions  of the second cen- tury; born in Liguria as the son 
of a freedman, he had served in equestrian  posts,  mainly  military,  and  was then elevated  to 
the Senate and exercised military  command in the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.  At the 
time of his succession  he held the  highest  senatorial  post  of  Prefect  of  the  City.'^ His  
reign, entirely senatorial in spirit, lasted only three months until he was killed by  the 
Praetorian cohorts.
There ensued a grim period when two senators bargained with the Praetorian guard for the nomination 
 as Emperor,  and when
47



THE  ROMAN   EM PIR E  AH D   ITS   N EI G HBOU RS
the winner  was swept  aside by Septimius Severus,  the governor of Upper Pannonia,  who then 
foughta four-year civil war before finally  securing  his  throne  against  his  rivals,  the  
governors  of Syria  and  Britain.  Severus  was an  African  from  the  old Punic town of Lepcis 
Magna in Tripolitania,  which had been given the status of a Roman colony in 109/ 10. At that time 
his grandfather had become an e2ues; his uncles, though not his father, had been Roman  senators.  
The first  part of his reign, with  the civil wars culminating  in  the  victory  of  Lugdunum  in  
197  and  with  the persecution  of  hostile  senators,  left  an  ugly  impression.  From 197 to 
202 he  was  in the East, making  a moderately  successful invasion   of  Parthia   and   
traversing   Syria   and   Egypt   before returning  via Asia Minor and the Danube.  Thenceforth  
he led a relatively peaceful life in Rome until in 208 he went  with his two sons, Caracalla and 
Geta, on campaign in Britain.  When he died at York  in 211, the two sons left  as joint  Emperors, 
 returned  to Rome where Caracalla murdered Geta late in 211. The familiar pattern of summary 
executions followed, broken  finally by his departure  on an expedition  to the East  which  
occupied  the rest of  his  reign.  Caracalla,  if  our  hostile  sources  can  be  trusted, 
exploited  the  position  of  Emperor  to  the  full,  dressing  up  as Alexander  the Great  and 
trying  to play  the role, carrying  out  a ferocious  massacre  of  the  Alexandrians  who  had  
insulted  him for the murder of his brother, and humiliating  the senators who accompanied   him.   
Cassius  Dio,  who  was  with  Caracalla   at Nicomedia  in  214,  describes  how  he  would  
announcc  that  he would  begin  hearing  cases  in  the  morning,  and  then  keep  his senatorial 
 advisers  waiting  at  the  door  till  evening,  while  he practised  as a gladiator  or drank  
with  his escort  of soldiers.'"
When the Court  was  in  Syria  in 217,  the  Praetorian Prefect, Macrinus,  fearing  execution  
himself,  had  Caracalla  murdered and after four days’ hesitation  became the first eques to 
proclaim himself Emperor.  It happened,  however,  that Severus  had mar- ried into a Syrian family 
 which held the hereditary  priesthood at Emesa  in Syria;  and  the  great-nephew  of Severus’  
wife,  Varius Avitus (better  known  as  Elagabal  —  the  name  of  the  Emesene god),  was  now  
pushed  forward  by  his  ambitious  mother  and grandmother,  proclaimed  to the troops (falsely)  
as the  bastard
48
THE  EMP ER O RS
son   of   Caracalla,   and  ended   Macrinus’   rule  after   fourteen
months.
The accounts of Elagabal's four-year reign (he was only  four- teen  when  it  began)  are  a mere  
catalogue  of  immoralities  and follies.  By 222 his family  was able to replace  him  by his 
cousin Alexianus,  now  named  Severus  Alexander,  also aged fourteen, who  was  dominated  by  
his  mother  Mammaea  and  by  Ulpian the  jurist,  now   briefly   Praetorian   Prefect,   and   
who   had  of necessity  to pay scrupulous attention  to the Senate. Though  the father of Elagabal 
had been a senator, and that of Alexander an equestrian  procurator,  it was still an accident of 
fate that it was these two youths, rather than any senators from the prosperous bourgeoisie of Asia 
Minor,  who were the first representatives of the Greek  East  to reach  the throne.
When  Severus  Alexander  was  killed  in  2S5  on  the  Rhine, and  replaced   by   the  Thracian  
soldier  risen  from  the  ranks, Maxirtiinus,  a new era  was beginning.  Contemporary  historical 
sources dry up, Cassius Dio's History ending in 229, Herodian's history  of the Emperors from 
Marcus  Aurelius onwards in 238. We  are  left  with  brief  fourth-century  and  Byzantine  
histories, and the fourth-century collection of Imperial biographies known as the Historia Augusta, 
which is hlled with fantasies — and more- over  missing  for  the period 244-60. Incomparably  less 
is there- fore  known  of  the  Emperors  in  this  period.  Some  are  mere names;  many  of  
pretenders  who  are  briefly  sketched  in  the Historic   Augusta  may  never  have  existed  at  
all.  Not  all  the Emperors  need  be  mentioned,  and  it  will  be  enough  to  talk about  
those of  whom  something  significant  is known.
The   salient   features   of   the   period   have   been   mentioned
already,  the dominance  of  wars  and civil  wars,  the removal  of the  Emperor  from  a 
primarily  ‘senatorial’  to  a  ‘military’  con- text, and the growing  tendency for the Emperors  
to come from the army not the Senate, and (for that reason) to originate from the  Danubian  lands. 
 Other  influences  were  still  at  work,  how- ever; the proclamation in 238 of the proconsul of 
Africa Gordian as Emperor with his son, Gordian ii, led to the Senate's success- ful war against  
Maximinus,  and the six-year  rule of Gordian In (238—44).  Gordian's rule, filled with constant 
wars, ended when,
49



THE   ROMAN   EMP I RE  AN D   ITS   N EIG HBOU RS
like Caracalla,  he  was  murdered  by  the  troops  on  the Eastern frontier and replaced  by his 
Praetorian Prefect, Julius Philippus, born in Arabia. The social development  of the Roman  world 
is aptly indicated  by the fact that it was to him that it fell in 248 to celebrate,   with   
magnificent  shows  in  Rome,   the   thousandth anniversary  of the founding  of  the City.  He  
was  replaced  by  a Pannonian proclaimed by  the army on the Danube,  C.  Messius Quintus Decius, 
who was,  however, a senator and married into an  old  Italian  family.  It  was  in his  reign  
that  the first  general edict  of  persecution   of   the  Christians   was  proclaimed.   His 
death in 251  at  the great battle of the Abrittus in the Dobrudja was followed  by  the  brief  
régime (251—3)  of Gallus and  Volus- ianus and then by the joint rule of an Italian senator, P. 
Licinius Valerianus, and his son Gallienus.  Their rule was marked  by an endless  series  of  
disasters,  invasions  in  West   and   East,  the creation  of  an  independent,   but  Roman,   
Empire  in  Gaul  — extending  to  Spain  and  Britain  —  the  rise  to  independence  of Palmyra, 
and the capture and humiliation of Valerian in 260 by the Persian king Sapor. Of  Gallienus (sole 
ruler 260-8) we know a little more than of the other Emperors of the time. He ended the  second  
Christian  persecution,  begun  by  his  father  in  257, and,  when  wars  permitted,  spent  his  
time  in  Rome,  showing civilized   tastes   little   known   to   his   predecessors   since   
the Antonines.   He   patronized   the   great   philosopher,   Plotinus, promising to build him a 
philosophers' city, called Platonopolis, in Campania,  and (according  to the Mistoria  Augusta)  
was  like Hadrian, archoii -  chief magistrate — at Athens, was initiated into the  Eleusinian  
mysteries,  and wrote  verses in Greek  and Latin.
When Gallienus  was  killed  in civil  strife  near  Milan  in 268,
Claudius (268—70)  gained  power  and  inaugurated  the  series  of Balkan and Danubian Emperors — 
Aurelian (270—5) and Probus (276-82) — who in the course  of  long  years of fighting  restored the 
unity of the Empire and drove back, though  they could not prevent,   a  series   of   barbarian   
invasions.   Claudius,   born  in Dalmatia, and Aurelian, probably from Pannonia,  were cavalry 
commanders  of  equestrian  rank;  Probus  was  also  from  Pan- nonia,  but our  scanty  sources 
do not even  reveal  what  military position  he occupied  at  the  moment  of  his proclamation.  
The
50
THE  EMPERORS
reigns of these men were of fundamental importance in restoring the Empire  to the point  where the 
reforms  of Diocletian  (284— 305)  were  possible;  but  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  we  know 
much  about  then  beyond  the  barest  facts  of  the  wars  they fought.
Between the murder of Aurelian in 275 and the proclamation of  Probus  in  276 came  the  last  
great  moment  of  the  Senate, when the army invited  them  to name an Emperor.  After some 
hesitation   they  ran  true  to  form  and  acclaimed   Tacitus,  a distinguished senator, 
probably of Italian birth and seventy-five years old. Finally, in 282, the Praetorian Prefect Cams 
was pro- claimed,  mad‹i  his  two  sons  ‘Caesars’  and  after  a  successful invasion of Persia, 
died or was killed. Soon the troops proclaimed a  Dalmatian  soldier  named  Diocles,  who  as  the 
 Emperor  M. Aurelius  Valerius  Diocletianus  inaugurated  a  new  era  in  the history of the 
Empire.





















5l



4
Government  and Administration



The  Roman  Empire  had  no Government.  That  is  to  say  there was no body  of persons formally  
elected  or appointed who had the  responsibility  for  effective  decisions.   Nor  was  there  
any representative  body,  duly  elected,  to  which  the  ‘Government’ might  have been 
responsible,  nor any sovereign  assembly or list of  voters.  As  we  have  scen,  the  people  of 
 Rome,  though  they retained  considerable  actual  political  power  and  privilege,  no longer 
either elected  the magistrates  of Rome. nor (so far as we know)  even  formally   passed  
legislation.  The  Roman  Senate. filled  by  hereditary  entry  supplemented  by  Imperial  
patronage, represented neither the people of Rome, nor, when its sources of entry  spread  through  
the provinces,  the local communities;  for although  a senator  often  did  in fact  further  the 
interests  of his local  community,  he  was  neither  elected  by  nor  responsible  to them.  Nor 
could  the Senate,  in  spite of its  very  important  role vis-â- vis  the  Emperors,  and  in  
spite  of  the fact  that  it  did deal with  a   variety   of  legislative   and  administrative   
business,   be described  as  the  governing  assembly  of  the Empire.
The  Empire  was  in  fact  ruled  by  the  Emperor,  assisted  by his  ‘friends’  {amici).  By  
long-established  custom,  any  Roman magistrate  or  governor,   when  taking  decisions   or  
sitting   in judgment, had with him a group of advisers, chosen  by himself, whom   he  would  
consult.   The  actual  decisions   and   verdicts, however,  were  his alone; he was not  bound  
by  the  view  of  the majority  of  the  advisers.   Precisely  the  same  pattern  operated with 
the Emperors. Augustus had in fact set up a body of a more
52
GOV ERN MED T   A ID     ADMiNlSTR ATION
formal  type, composed  of the consuls,  one each  or the holders of the other offices and Wteen 
other senators chosen by lot for a six-month period, to prepare business for the Senate. This body 
however,  did  not  survive  his  own  reign,  and  later  Emperors reverted  to  the  previous  
custom.  The essence  of  the  system  of consultation  with  friends  was  its informality.  
Firstly,  although there  tended  to  be  some  stability  in  who  was  consulted  even from  one 
reign  to the next, and although  the holders of certain posts, like  the Praetorian  Prefecture,  
always  tended  to  be con- sulted,  the Emperor  was always in fact free to consult  whom  he 
wished (and conversely  to ban from  his counsels anyone whose advice was displeasing).  If,  for 
instance,  the Emperor left Rome to go on campaign or tour the provinces,  he took with him those 
whom  he  wished  as his  ‘companions’  (cami/ei),  and  consulted them.  Secondly  he  was,  as  
stated,  not  bound  by  their  advice. When Marcus Aurelius died on campaign on the Danube in 180 
he entrusted  the eighteen-year-old Commodus  to the  guidance of  the  friends  who  were  with  
them  there.   They  advised   the continuation  of  the  war;  Commodus  made  peace  (with  
rather successful  results) and went  home.
Alone  of the  Emperor's  friends,  the Praetorian  Prefects  had
something   approaching   an   ex   offirio   place   in   the   Imperial counsels.   This   was   
partly   because   a   Prefect   who   lost   the Emperor's confidence rapidly lost the post also, 
but also because of  the  nature  of  the  post,  in  origin  —  under  Augustus  —  the command   
of   the   Imperial   praetorium   (headquarters).   The potentialities of  the office  were  
displayed  at  once,  when  Aelius Sejanus,  sole Prefect after  his father  had  been sent  in  14 
to the Prefecture  of  Egypt,  gathered  the  Praetorian  cohorts in  a  per- manent  camp,  and, 
until his  downfall  in 31,  exercised  supreme influence with Tiberius, attacking members of the 
Imperial house, exercising patronage over senators, being awarded public statues, the  ‘ornaments’  
of  a  praetor  and  finally (though  an  eques)  the consulate  itself.  Thereafter,  the  role  
of  the  Prefects,  normally two at a time, tended to be more modest; they accompanied  the Emperor 
 most  of  the time,  and from  the  latter  part  of the first century  sometimes  took  an active 
command  in  the field,  norm- ally on campaigns at which the Emperor  was present. They also
53



THB  ROjifAN   EMPIRE  AND  IT8  NBIGHBOURS
GOYBR2'lHB1'fT  AND  ADHINISTRAT$ON

hept prisoners under guard
and in thesecond and third 9entDtiTS
important military forces were stationed, direct appointment  b7

are found             g jurisdiction in Italy outside Rome, bavin8
some prisoners  sent to
the  Empemr  continued.  The  ,governors  of  the  ‘Imperial’  pro-
vinces scre  all  also  senators,  whp,  like  the  proconsuls,  were

or,  when  delegated  by  the Emperor,
reforming  judgments  of
either   of  ex-praetor   or  exmonsul   st*tus   depending   on   the

provisional  governors.   A
Commodus   (180—92),   Of
few  Prefects  like  Perennis  under Fulvius  Plautianus  under  Severus of Sejanus; Plautiaflus 
held the daughter  to Caracalla before
importance of the province, were called  fegari A  gttrii (delegates of Augustus),  and served 
until the Emperor  recalled  them. The commanders  of  the  legions,  nearly  all  stationed  in  
Imperial provinces,   were  also  senators,  normally  ex-praetors,  entitled

executed  in  205. Later  in the  third century,  as we has
legati of the legion, and appointed by the Emperor.

seen,  some  Praetorian
Prefect›  reached  the  throne.  But  their
The  major  exemption  to this pattern  was Egypt  which,  from

standing importance  resulted  from  the fact of  propinquity to the Emperor: it was mcorded of 
Martins Turbo, Prefect under Hadrian, that he never left aaPau«»v»ato gakoaco •!•w-
st     •  jwiadiction occupied so
Prefects' judicial abilitien  became as important as their military
one. TltC great eta  Of the Pfefectuffl WftS the early third cents,
when  it was hald by the laWyef8 Pa)3illi8ft,  tJlpian and possibly
its conquest in 30 xc, had always been governed by a Prefect of equestrian rank, the significant 
anomaly here being that he had under  him  legions  of  Roman citizens.  There  were  also  minor 
provinces likt Judaea governed by men of equestrian rank (who at first had the military title of 
‘prefect’ but in the middle of the first  century  tame  to  be called  ‘procurators’);  they,  
however, had under  them only auxiliary  units of nen-citizens.

Pauhi
By this time too the Prrf       had come to have a formal
With   they   inceptions,  however,   the  Empire  retained   the

statuscomparable, in some respects wpenor, IO  thatof.senators:
Caracalla  (211—17)  show  that
when  the. EmQBfo£'  tBOk  US  8  itt  1f1  council  he. Wh8  formBl)J
monopoly  of  provincial  governorships  exercised  by  senators, leaving,  however,  those  which  
were  important  military  com- mands in the patronage  of the Emperor.  The division  between

Praetorian  Prefects,  then of the ‘secretariats’.
by lf& other
’Imperial’ and ‘senatorial’  provinces has often been regarded as an  administrative one,  with  
the  Emperor  ruling  the  Imperial

rurther details about what the Emperor and hf8 advisers did, and how, must W&ft »«t i w‹y can be 
put in the content of the structure of  the Roman  state. The fundBTRgntal featUEB  Of this
structure  was  that  it  was  a  compromise  bnwoen  the govern-
half and  the Senate (allowing  for occaéonal  ‘interventions’ by
the  Emperor)  the  senatorial  half.  But  in fact,  the  method  of appointment  apart, the only 
administrative difference was the varying   length   of  tenure  on  the  part  of  legati.   From  
 the

mental practice of the Republic and the
real power,
beginning,  as  it  now  aeems,  proconsuls,  libe  fsgafi,    x;pived

and  responsibility, lay with  the Emma. In the Republic,  the
instructions  (media)  from  the  Emperor.'  Otherwise,  both

§OYe¥MOM  O7 VG
prpvioces   had   been
senators,  normally
Emperor  and  Senate  (predominantly  of  course  the  former)

appointed  by lot for a single year each. From the ‹itab1ishment of thg ‘Triumvirate’ in 43 ac, the 
Triumvirs had M      * P  >*° to appoint governors,  a power
continued  to exercise  doc      to 27 ac.   When  in  27 he ‘restored
the  Republic’,  one  essential   thing  was  that,  fOT  6O2RC. OF  DC
made regulations apphcable everywhere, and passed measures relating to places in either t      of 
province.

provinces,  appointment  by  lot
of  governors  (all  called  P°°-
consuls) for a year was restored; these were known as ‘public’ or 'senatorial’.provinces. For the 
others, mainly those in which
ss




TH E   ROMAN   EMP I RE  A HD   US   II EI G HBOU RS
available for sale all corn over and above their  household needs which  they had in stock, 
threatened  penalties against  hoarding, and fixed  a maximum  price.i•
From  about  the  end  of  the  first  century  we find  provincial governors taking a more 
systematically active role in the affairs of cities, especially with regard to finance. The 
documents show governors approving new endowments, and permitting distribu- tion of cash or the 
establishment  of festivals.  Ulpian says that a governor  during his stay in a city must inspect  
the temples and public  buildings  to see if  they  need  repair,  and  have  the work done, as far 
as the finances of the city permit; he should appoint men  to supervise  the  work  and,  if  need  
be, detach  soldiers  to assist  them.  These  increased  responsibilities  must  have  been 
limited, however, by the establishment, from the same period of curatores  -  of  senatorial,  
equestrian  or  lower  status  —  for  the finances  of  individual  cities,  or  groups  of  
cities,  who  were appointed directly  by the Emperor.
Furthermore  it  was always  possible  for  the cities  to contact the  Emperor.  Sometimes  a city 
appealed  against  a  decision  of the governor; sometimes a governor wrote spontaneously to the 
Emperor  to consult  him. In the first century  this seems to have been done only by Imperial 
legati. But from the reign of Hadrian on proconsuls did so too; so for instance we find the 
proconsul of Asia in 125/6 writing to Hadrian about a dispute over sacred lands, and the rent from 
them, in the city of Ephesus;  Hadrian writes  back giving his decision, and the proconsul  writes 
to the city  enclosing  both  Hadrian's  letter  and  his own  letter  to  the Imperial  procurator 
  (and  the  latter's  rather  arrogant   reply) asking him  to get the lands  measured.'•
But there were also a large number  of cases where cities went direct to the Emperor, sometimes  on 
purely diplomatic errands (Pliny   discovered   that   Byzantium   sent   an  embassy   to   the 
Emperor  every  year  at  considerable  expense),   but  often  on serious  matters.  So also  did  
the  provincial  assemblies,  at  least in  the second century;  Hadrian  sent a rescript  to the 
assembly of  Baetica  about cattle-rustlers, and  Antoninus  Pius to  that of Asia  on  the  
immunity  of  orators  and  other  public  teachers. Many  examples  of  embassies  to the Emperor  
are given  in  the
66

GOV ERN hlENT   AN D   ADM INISTRATION
chapters  on  the  various  regions.  How  the  Emperor  dealt  with them  will  be discussed  
below.
It  can  thus  be  seen  that  the  real  power  of  the  provincial governor in dealing with the 
communities  under him was limited both by the existence of the Emperor and by the growth of other 
posts whose  occupants,  appointed  by  the Emperor,  operated  in the provinces.  Much  the same 
pattern can be seen in the gover- nors'   jurisdiction   over   individuals.    Of   the   
governors   civil jurisdiction (which  will  have  been confined  to the more import- ant  cases)  
we  do  not  have  much  direct  evidence.  Our  fullest evidence is indirect — the Imperial  
rescripts on matters of private law  which  make  up the whole  of the  Code.x  Jusliniarius  and 
are quoted  occasionally  in  the  Digest,  these  are  directed  both  to private persons  and to 
the governors  taking  the cases, and  thus again show the degree  to which  the Emperor  
overshadowed  the officials.
From  at  least  the  end  of  the  second  century,  and  probably
before,   cases   about    sums   due   (from    fines,    confiscations, vacant inheritances  or 
commercial  transactions)  to the Imperial Fiscus  were  dealt  with  independently   by  Imperial  
procurators; the  new  position  is summed  up in  the  words of Ulpian,  'There Is nothing in the 
province which is not the proconsul's concern. a»t  :r  there  is  a  case  about  money  due  to  
the  Fiscus,  which concerns the Emperor's procurator, he does better to keep off."• Furthermore,  
second  and early  third  century  inscriptions  from  I niperial  estates  (especially  those  in  
Africa)  and  mining  areas show  the  procurators  exercising  effective  police  powers  and 
settling disputes.  Even outside the area of the Imperial interests and  properties,  some  items  
of  late-second-  and  third-century evidence show procurators  decidin* ordinary  civil cases.
The evidence  for criminal  jurisdiction  is  much fuller, especi- iilly in Christian sources, from 
the Gospels and Acts to the Acts of the Martyrs. Once again. much criminal jurisdiction from the 
provinces  came  to  the  Emperor.  Sometimes  accusations  were brought  before  him  directly  
without  (it  seems)  the  provincial governor  being  involved  at  all ;  for  instance  Trajan  
when  in Rome  took  the  case  of  a  prominent  Ephesian  accused  by  his enemies.  On other  
occasions governors sent  men, mainly  those
67



THE   ROMA N   EMPIRE   AND    I TS   NEIG HB OU R S


e others  executed,  but  set  aside  those  who  were  Roman  citize for  despatch  to  Rome.  The 
 legates  of  Gaul  in  177,  howevi merely  wrote  to Marcus  Aurelius  about  the  punishment  of 
 t Christians.  Consultation  of  the  Emperor  rather  than  despat‹  of the  prisoner  himself  
had  also  become  the rule  by  the end the  second  century  in  respect  of  the class  of  
decuriones  (tow councillors) and above; with  the growth  from Hadrian (117-3 of the system, 
mentioned in the first chapter,  by which they we exempt from  the harsh  penalties  reserved  for 
‘plebei’,  it  beear obligatory   for  provincial   governors  to  consult   the  Emperc before 
sentencing  them  to deportation.
There  remains   the  vexed  question   of  the  right   of  Rom: citizens as such to appeal to the 
Emperor. The best-known ca! that  of Paul,  turns  out  not  to be  very  clear.  It  is when  the 
ce turion  arrests  and  is about  to  beat  him  in  the temple  that Pa proclaims his 
citizenship; his appeal to Caesar comes later, wh Festus  suggests  moving  his  trial  from  
Caesarea  back   to  Jet salem.  The other  known  first-century  case is equally  unhelpfi when   
a   man   appealed   from   the   tribunal   of   the   legates Germany  in 68, the legates went 
through the mime of moving a  higher  tribunal (i.e.  playing  the  role  of Emperor),  made  hi 
plead  his case  and  then  executed  him.  The  normal  view  that Republican  right  of appeal  
to the people  remained  as a right citizens  as  such  to  appeal  to  the  Emperor  may  be 
correct,  b rests  on  slender  evidence.
Much  better  known  is  the  second-century  system  wheret once  a  provincial  governor  had  
given  his  verdict,  the  prisor would   appeal,   whereupon   the   governor   would   send   to  
 t Emperor  a  statement  about  the  case,  with  a  libellus  (petitio from the appellant.  In 
this case, as with  those of the deportatii of decuriones, the execution of the sentence was 
delayed until t Emperor's  answer  was received.
In  criminal  jurisdiction  too,  Imperial  procurators  came play  a  role,  though,  with two  
temporary  exceptions,  this  repi sented an improper usurpation,  and was the subject of a numb of 
Imperial rescripts — evidently ineffectual — designed to preve
68
GO VERNMENT   AND   A D MI NIST RATIO N
it.  As early  as  the 60s we find  procurators  in  the Imperial  p vince  of  Tarraconensis  
(Spain) condemning  people  and  con eating  their  goods,  while  the  legates  stood  by  
helpless;  and revolt in Africa in 238 which led to the proclamation  of the p consul, Gordian,  as 
Emperor,  was sparked  off by exactions ‹ condemnations  by a procurator. Typical of the Imperial 
rescri is one sent  by Caracalla  in 212 — ‘My procurator  — if not  act in place  of  the governor 
— could  not  (properly)  have senteni you  to exile; so you need not  fear a sentence  which  has 
no Ie validity’  (but  which  had  none  the  less  been  passed).  The  t exceptions   were  cases 
 of  kidnapping   and  adultery,   in  wh Caracalla  conceded  the jurisdiction  which procurators  
had l‹ usurped;  but  a  rescript  of  Gordian  Ili,  written  in  239,  firi denies  the 
jurisdiction  of  procurators  in cases of  kidnappin{ Such  was  the  administration  of  the  
provinces,  omitting peace-time   activities   of   the   army,   and,   equally   imports finance. 
 Finance,  as  regards  the  taxes  paid  by  individuals  i the  manner   of  their  exaetion,   
will   be  described   in  the  n chapter,  on State  and  Citizen.  As regards  the  level  above  
tl that  is  the  question  of  how  State  funds  were  handled  by  p vineial  officials,  what  
methods  of  accounting   were  used,  h coin was transported  and distributed  for  the payment of 
trot and   officials,   and  how   far   there   were   shipments   of  coin

complete  darkness.
The  very  faint  traces  of  evidence  available  can  best  be  con- sidered  along  with  two  
branches  of the ‘central  administration’ (the term is an exaggeration), the treasury  (Aerarium)  
in Rome, and  the  mints  in  Rome  and  the  provinces.  The  study  of  the Aerarium  suffers  
from  the disadvantage  already  mentioned,  the total lack  of evidence  about  the  transport  of 
funds  to and  from it. The Aerarium  itself, however,  is fairly  wel! known. It was the temple of 
Saturn on the side of the Capitol hiJl, which had served since  the  early  Republic  as  the  
depository  for  the  treasure,  in- cluding coin, and documents of the State.  Among the documents 
were financial  ones,  State contracts  and  the  accounts  deposited by  provincial  governors  on 
 leaving  their  province;  provincial governors also ‘reported’  their apparitores, cornices and 
others to
69




T HE   ROMAN   EMP IRE   AN D   ITS   NEI G H BOU RS
the  Aerarium,  thus  putting  them  on  the  list  for  pay,  and  (it seems)  continued  to  do  
so  even  in  the  third  century.  But  the officials  of the  Aerarium  — quaestors  in the 
Republic  and  then, after various changes, Prefects of ex-praetorian  rank, chosen by the Emperor  
— never  used  these documents  to make  up gcneral accounts or a budget for the State. Their 
functions  were  limited to keeping  the cash and documents,  to making  payments on the authority  
of  the  Senate  or  the  Emperor,  and  to  some  judicial
activities,  which  they  acquired  in  the Empire,  over  the recovery
of  debts.  They  did  not  administer  or  plan  the  finance  of  the Empire. The  Aerarium  is a 
prime example of the survival  in the Empire — to the mid-fourth century,  in fact — of the 
primitive and now  inadequate  institutions  of the  city-state.  To  meet  the defi- ciencies five 
separate commissions  of senators were set  up in the course  of the first century,  with  the task 
 of calling in revenue  or limiting  expenditure ;  none  o( them  is  recorded  as  having  done 
anything.  "the management  of State finance  was  left  — in so far as it  was managed  at  all  — 
 to the Emperor  and  his assistants.
In spite of the  immense  volume  of evidence  provided  by  the
many  thousands of coins surviving r  om  the Empire,  very
known of the mints  themselves and even less of the processes  of decision which governed their 
output.  Here too there was a sur- viving  Republican  element,  the  rre.sviri  nionrfp/e.v  
(moneyers) three  of  the  posts  in the  most  junior  senatorial,  or  rather  pre- senatorial,  
rank, the Vigintivirate. These  posts areattested  until the mfd-third century.  Among the bronze 
and copper coins pro- duced  in  Rome  and  circulating  mainly  in  Italy  and  the  West (bronze  
and  copper  coins  produced  locally  in the  Western  pro- vinces disappear  by the middle of the 
first  century) the  majority are marked S.C. {senutus consulto -  ‘by a decision of the Senate’). 
The  types  on  the  coins,  however,  are  very  similar  to  those  of Imperial coins —  which 
include all gold  and (in the West) nearly all  silver  -  produced  at  Lyon  until  Caligula 
(37—41)  and  there-
«rter  at  Rome.  The  letters  S.C.  may   indicate  that  thc  separate
issues   were  decided  on  by   the  Senate  and  produced  by   the moneiales,-  but there is no 
evidence for the Senate do*inp this, and equally  no evidence for the activity  of the monetales,  
apart from the  appearance  of  the title  on  inscriptions.
70

CiOVERN MELT   AND   ADMINISTRATION
Nor is there any evidence from the first century for officials of the Imperial  mint  at Rome.  
Under Trajan (98—117),  however,  a Procurator  of  the  Mint  appears;  and  from  115  we  have  
some dedications  by  the  workers  there  —  ojficinatores    *),  signatores (die-cutters?), 
suppostores  (setters?), malleaiores (strikers?) — all of  them  Imperial  freedmen,  aided  by  
Imperial  slaves.  Under Aurelian  (270-5)  the  mint-workers  in  Rome  were  numerous enough  to  
stage  a  serious  revolt   whose  suppression   required thousands  of  soldiers.  In  the Greek  
provinces,  apart  rrom  the local city  mints striking  bronze  and copper  coinage,  there  were 
provincial and some city mints striking silver coins on standards different from those of the Rome 
coinage.  These mints are none the  less  regarded  as  ‘Imperial’,  though  nothing  whatsoever  
is known about  them except  the coins  themselves.
The  question  of  who  decided  the  frequency   of  issues,   the standard  of the coins (the  
silver  coins  especially  show  a steady debasement  from  Nero  on,  ending  in complete  
collapse  in  the second  half of the third  century), or the type and  legends  to be put on them 
is totally obscure. 3’he last point is particularly tan- talizing,  since  the Imperial  coinage  
carried  propaganda  for  the Emperors in a vast variety of forms — representations of Imperial 
constructions (like the harbour  at Ostia), largesses or victories — or slogans like AErsRldlTAs or 
PRoviDE  iTlA.  Much of the history of  the  Empire  can  be  seen  reflected  in  the  coins.  Yet 
 we  are ignorant  not only of who decided what should be portrayed, but to  whom  the  new  coins  
were  issued  and  under  what  circum- stances  (in donatives  to  the  army  and  congiaria  to 
*he  Roman people?). The point is important,  for coins remained  in circula- tion a  very  long  
time after  their  issue:  64  per cent  of the coins buried  in  hoards  during  the  Flavian  
period  (66—96)  had  been minted before 27 ac.  Hoards show similarly that coins in circula- tion 
in the Antonine  period (138—50)  averaged  about  fifty years from  the date of issue. Our only 
clue to the sources of decisions is two lines of a consolatory  poem by Statius on the death in the 
90s  of  a  former  Imperial  freedman  a  ralioiiibus  (in  charge  of accounts);  among  his  
duties  was  to  decide  how  much  metal ‘should  be struck  in  the fire  of  the Italian (Roman) 
 Mint’."
That  apart,  we  have  two  references  in  the  historian  Cassius
71




THE   ROMAN   EMP I RE   AN D   ITS   N EI G HBOURS
Dio  to  Imperial  coinage;  in  one  he  says  (as  the  coin  hoards abundantly  confirm)  that  
Trajan called in old coins and issued new  ones;  in  the  other  he  says  that  his  own  
contemporary Caracalla (211—17) gave debased  coins to his subjects,  but good ones  to the  
barbarians  across the frontier — whom  by  this time Rome was buying off. In neither case does he 
say anything of the processes  of decision.  More details about the  Imperial coinage and  its  
collapse  in  the  third  century   will  come  in  the  final chapter; for the moment  the coinage 
must  serve as an example of how  little we  know  of many  aspects  of the Imperial  system.

GO VER N MED T   A ND   ADh'fI N ISTRATION
addressed  to governors, magistrates and private persons, dating mostly from the reign of Hadrian 
(117-38) onwards; while some of  the  lawyers  whose  works  make  up  the  Digest  occasionally 
retail  legal  debates  on  the  Imperial  council,  on  which   they themselves sat.
In other words the type of Imperial activity we know about is essentially that in response to the 
needs or conflicts of individuals or communities.  It cannot  be denied, indeed, that such activity 
took up a large part of the Emperor's working life; this type of work  will  be  discussed  in  the 
 last  part  of  this  chapter.  But

When  we  come  to  the  actual  activities  of  the  Emperor,  his
beyond
this  there are  substantial areas where, for  all  the basic

advisers  and  his  assistants,  the same  warning  must  apply.  In  a famous passage Cassius Dio 
explains that, while in the history of the Republic  the  truth  could  be arrived  at  because  
affairs  were subject  to public debate,  different  accounts  in historians  could be compared,  
and public records checked,  in Imperial  history it was  not  so:  ‘After  this  time  most  
things  began  to  be  done secretly  and by hidden  means; and if anything is made public it is 
disbelieved, since it cannot be checked. For it is suspected that everything  is  said  and  done  
by  the  wish  of  the  Emperors  and those who have influence  with them.  As a result  many  
rumours spread  about  things which  never in fact happened,  many things which happened  are 
unknown,  and nearly all public  versions of the events  are different  from  the reality."® That  
is a fair  intro- duction to the state of our knowledge about the central decision- making  
processes  of  the  Empire.  There  are  some  areas  about which we are relatively well-informed; 
Imperial jurisdiction  was very  often — partly  as  a matter  of  propaganda  — carried  on  in 
public,  and  descriptions  of  cases  therefore  find  their  way  into the  literary  sources.  
Favourable  decisions,  given in the form  of letters,  to delegations   from cities  tended  to  
be recorded  in  in- scriptions ;  the  literary  evidence  also  has  descriptions  of  how 
delegations  were  received.  Petitions from  individuals  were  also received in public, and 
beyond that the literary evidence contains a lot  of details  about  the fortunes  of individuals — 
including  in some cases the writers themselves — at the hands of the Emperor. Finally  the  
law-codes  (the  Digest  and  the  Code.x   Juslinianus) quote  a  large  number  of  reseripts  on 
 matters  of  private  law
72
inertia or the system,  positive  decisions  must  have  been  made, and  about  which  we  have  
almost  no  evidence.  Tiberius,  as  a demonstration of his Republican attitude, allowed the 
Senate to debate about  revenues,  public  works   the recruitment  and  dis- missal of soldiers, 
military commands and letters to client kings. The   implication   must   be   that   these   
things   were   normally decided   by  the  Emperor,  presumably   with  his  friends.  What 
evidence  have we about  decision-making on such matters?
The  best  evidence  of  a  debate  about  finance  is  the  occasion in  58   when   the  people  
complained   of   the  exactions   of  the publicani,'  Nero,  it  is  stated,  thought  of  
abolishing  the indirect taxes  altogether,  but  was  dissuaded  by  his  advisers,  who  said 
that  the  Empire  would  collapse  if  they  were  abolished  —  and the people would go on to ask 
for the abolition of tribute also.'e The Emperor's  friends apart,  however,  there  was  the 
freedman ‘in charge  of  accounts’  (n rationibus)  superseded  at  the end  of the first century 
by an eques (his subordinates  however remained freedmen).   Some  of  these  subordinates   had  
purely  domestic functions;  a  rationalix   mentioned   by   Galen  had  the  job  of supplying   
from   the  Imperial   stores   the  herbs   which   Galen mixed daily for the antidote taken by 
Marcus Aurelius (161-80). As  for  the  functions  of  the  a  rationibus  himself,  Augustus  left 
in 14 a general  statement  of the finances  of the Empire,  adding the  names  of  slaves  and  
freedmen  from  whom  more  details could  be obtained.  He, Tiberius (until he left  Rome in 26) 
and Gaius  also  published  public  accounts,  but  later  Emperors  did not. The accounts 
themselves presumably  continued  to be kept;
73




T HE   ROh15N   EM PIR E  AN D   ITS   NEIG HBOURS

but  our  only  evidence  is  the  passage  of  Statius  mentioned earlier in which  he describes 
in poetic terms the functions of the dead n rafionibus, ‘Now was entrusted  to him alone the 
control of the Imperial wealth (a list of revenues follows) ...   quickly he calculates  what  the  
Roman  arms  beneath  every  sky  demand,
how much the tribes (the people of Rome) and the temples, how much the lofty aqueducts, the 
fortresses by the coasts or the far- flung lines of road require . .  •20
About decisions on public works or recruitment and dismissal we have no evidence at all. From a 
related area, declarations of war  or  the  making  of  peace,  we  have  two examples,  Nero's 
consultation  of ‘the  leading  men  of  the State’ about  war  with Parthia  in  63  and  the  
occasion,  already   referred   to,  when Commodus  disregarded  his  advisers  and  made  peace  
in  180. About appointments,  however — that is the ‘commendation’ of senators   for   
magistracies,   the   appointment   of   senators   to Prefectures,  curatorships  or  
governorships,  or  of  equites  and freedmen in the Imperial service — we have much better 
evidence, all of which shows that the appointments were made personally by the Emperor (Tacitus 
notes that Tiberius actually appointed some  procurators  whom   he  did  not  know,  on  the  
basis  of reputation),   influenced   inevitably  by   the   favourites   of   the moment  and  by  
personal  petitions  or  letters  from  patrons  of candidates. Pliny writes to Trajan asking for 
the praetorship for a friend; Fronto writes to Antoninus  Pius to ask for a  procur- atorship for 
an Imperial freedman  (‘If you do not recognize  the man personally, when you come to the name 
Aridelus, remember
that F h8ve commended him to you’) and another procuratorship
for an eques, the historian Appian.  There also may  have  been, at  least  for  the  lower  
personnel,  a  regular  system  of  reports. Pliny at least sent from Bithynia  what are evidently 
brief rormal reports on the Imperial employees; and in the only clear  bit or evidence on an 
Imperial ‘secretary’ concerned with promotions
—  again  a  poem  by  Statius,  addressed  to  the  ab  episiulis  (in
charge of letters) — he is said to send letters of appointment as a
primus pilus, or for equestrian military posts."
The actual appointments were  made  by  the Emperor  (Dorn- itian  was overheard  asking  his 
favourite freak, ‘Why did  I give
74
GOVEHNIf ENT   AN D    A D M1 N 1 STRAT ION
Mettius  Rufus  the last  appointment  as Prefect of  Egypt?’) and was  transmitted  by a  
‘codicil’  dictated  by  him,  if  not  actually written in  his own hand: an inscription contains 
the actual text of one of these, from Marcus Aurelius to a procurator: ‘Having long  wished  to 
promote you  to the splendour  of a ducenariate procuratorship I  now  use  as  opportunity  which  
has  presented itself. Succeed  therefore to Marius Pudens, with the hope of my lasting  favour   
while  you  continue   to  display   your  probity, diligence and  skill.’°°
Modern  books tend  to assume, on the model of present-day bureaucratic   procedure,   thai  
correspondence  directed   to  an Emperor  was digested  by  the ‘bureau’  of  the ‘ab  epistulis’  
and an answer drafted, which would then be signed  by the Emperor. This is not so. Firstly, ancient 
letters were not signed; secondly the  evidence  makes  clear  that  letters  were  brought  
directly  to the Emperor, who would read them and dictate a reply. Augustus had  removed  a legatus 
 because when reading a letter from  him he saw that he had written ‘ixi’ instead of ‘ipsi”, Philo 
describes how  Gaius  read  a  letter  from  the  governor  or  s  ria,  getting angrier  as  he  
read,  and  then dictated  a reply.  When  Caracalla (21 I —17)  was on campaign in Syria he 
directed  his mother Julia Domna (not, it should  be noted, a ‘secretary’)  to read  and deal with  
 the   routine  correspondence,   This  she   did;  a  recently published  inscription  contains  a 
 letter  from  Julia  to  Ephesus, the  only  one from an  Empress  to a city.°•  Reading  letters  
and dictating the replies was part of the Imperial routine. Vespasian began  his  day  by  reading  
letters  and  the  reports  of  the secre- tariats,  and  then  admitted  his friends  to  salute  
him,’  when  he grew old  his son Titus would  do the dictation for  him.
An  Emperor's  dealings  with  cities  or  provinces  were  con- ducted  mainly  by  means of 
delegations.  If the city's delegation was coming on a purely diplomatic  mission,  or to ask for 
some favour not opposed  by any other  party, the form was that they were  admitted  to  the  
Emperor's  presence,  one  of  them  (some- times an orator  hired for the occasion) made a speech, 
and then the decree of  the city  was  handed  to  the  Emperor,  who  seems sometimes  to  have  
read  it  there  and  then.  When  a  delegation arrived  either  to  make  accusations  or  to 
contest  some  matter
75



THE  ROMAN   EMPIRE   AND   US   NEIGHBO.UR5
with a rival delegation, both sides spoke, and the procedure took the  form   of   a  judicial   
hearing..   Many   embassies   came   on diplomatic errands, congratulating an Emperor on his 
acoession, bringing gold crowns on the occasion of a triumph, or consoling him  on  the  death  of  
a  relative.   Even  .these  embassies  were actually  heard  by  the Emperor.  When an einbassy  
from Ilium (Troy)  was  making,  rather  belatedly,  a  consolatory  speech  to Tiberius   on  the  
death   of  his! .son  Drusus  in  23,  he  replied sarcastically, ‘And I in turn offer my sympathy 
for the death.of your fellow-citizen Hector.'Hearingsbefore the Emperor became an arena in which 
fame and fortune might be won; for instance, an orator from .Arabia,  Heliodorus, .travelled  all 
the way  to the German frontier  to represent  his native,town .before Caracalla, and  on  being  
called  into  court  before  he  was  ready  by  the official  'in  charge  of. .hearings’  (a  
cognitionibus)  managed   to turn the occasion  to his .advantage,  was asked by  the Emperor to 
deliver .an extempore  ovation (on  the  theme  ‘Oemosthenes, after breaking down before 
Philip,1defends himself on the charge ofi .cowardice’),  and .was  awarded   with  the  post. of 
advocates fisei  and. the  privilege  of  riding  in  the  annual  procession  of equitez in Rome.U
On other  occasions  the decrte. Of, a  city might  be sent  on .to the  Emperor  by  the  governor 
 of  the  province.  In either  case, the  ,decree   would   be  read  by   the  Emperor   and  an  
answer dictated following!the order of.the.points in the original docroe — which  tended  to. begin 
 with  soms point.of a diplomatic  nature and  go. .on! to  matters  of  substance.  Thus. 
Claudius,  writing. in response:  to an embassy  from Tbasos in 42,. deals  in  turn  with their1  
proposal  to  build  a  temple  to  him, 1 the  confirmation  of privileges  granted ihqm by 
Augustus,  and with questions about their revenues and.the export of corn.°• The last known 
Imperial letter  in .response  to an embassy  from  our pgriod (they  appear again in, the period 
of Diocletian.ant.Constantine), was written by Yalerian and Gallienus from Antioch in 255 to 
Philadelphia in  Asia.  The  Philadelphians  had  complained  that  the  koinon (council) of Asia 
had.laid on minor cities like their own expenses of  the  High  Priest  and  presidents  of  
festivals  formerly   born only  by .the metropoleis.  The Emperors  granted  their request  to
G.OVERN.  tENT   AND   ADMINISTRAT ION
be excused, expressing  in rather moralizing  terms the hope that they would not ftse the favour to 
the detriment of other cities.•• In  all  this .it  is  not  clear  what  the  Imperial  
secretaries  .'for Greek  letters’  or  ‘for  Latin  letters.’  actually  did.  From  what 
Philostratus  says  about  Aelius  Antipater,  mentioned  above  - that  he  wrote  Imperial  
letters  in a  more  pleasing  and suitable style  .than  anyone  else  —  it  seems  that   the  
Greek   secretary actually composed the letters to Greek cities in Greek, presum- ably  being  
given  a draft  in .Latin.  Beyond  that  we  are  in .the

Such  was  the main form .of Imperial contact  with the cities. Individuals  who wished  to. 
approach  the Emperor  often did so by'presenting  written  libelli  containing.  their  requests  
(or  on occasion denunciations  of others).   !lt is..evident  that at leaat in the early.period 
libetli were presented personally to the..Emperor at  his  .regular  , audience-sessions,  
(calutationes);   Augustus   is recorded  to  have  said  to  a man, who  handed  over  his  
/i6effm with  excessive  timidity,  *You  are  like  a  man  giving  a coin  to an elephant.’ These 
too were read by!the Emperor —bthe plan.for Domitian's murder! was!,that  he should be handed a. 
libelfus and struck  down!  while  reading  it  -   as  he  did   file/fi  which,  like letters 
from cities,  might  be  sent  on by  a provincial  governor. When  Pliny  sent  on  .to  Trajan  a 
 fibeffm  from  an  auxiliary centurion  in  Bithynia,  Trajan  replied,  ‘I  have  read  the 
./i6e/W
...     which you sent; moved  by his entreaty,  I  have granted his
daughter  the  Roman  citizenship.  I  have  sent  you  the  libelf  i with  the rescript  to 
.give.to him.*" The phrase 'the libellus  with the rescript',is evidently a.reference to the fact 
that.an Emperor, like  mapstrateB  and  governors,  normally  answered  libelfi  by writing a brief 
answer {sub5cr,iptio)i underneath.  Thus„in answer to a long liâellus from the .tenants .of 
Imperial estates in Africa, complaining  that undue days of, free labour  were being exacted from  
them  by  middlemen,  Commodus  (l80=92)  wrote,  ’The procurators, observing orders and my 
instructions that no more than  two or three  days  labour (should  be demanded),  will  see to it  
that nothing is wrongfully  demanded  from  you in contra- vention Sof the standing arrangement.’••
A  libellus might  thus  be a request for anything (there was no





exemption  from  legal  liabilities,  no  status,  no  release .from  a penalty which an Emperor 
could not grant purely as a.matter,of grace)  from  cash,  to  citizenship,   to  the  righting   
of  wrongs. As .such,  the libellus-subscriptio system shades indistinguishably into   the  
rescript   system,   by   whieh  !Emperors  .gave   written réplies  on  points  of  law.  But  
before   we  come  to  tbat  it  is necessary  to  look  at  the  Emperor's  role  in  civil  and  
criminal jurisdiction.   The  Emperor's  jurisdiction,   whose  formal  legal origins — if.any — 
are not easy to discern, was part, in one!respect, of his public role in. settling  disputes  and 
righting  wrongs,  and as  .auch  is  continuous  with .the  hearing  of  embassies  (wliich might  
in any case  be  bringing, civil or’criminal  actions  against individuals)  or  of.complaints  
from  private persons.  In another respect,  the’!private  trial  and condemnation  of.prominent  
men uspected of subversion,  it was a weapon, often greatly abused, against  the  upper  classes  
and  possible  riva'ls; .and  a  source  of great .bitterness  arrd .tension  in relations  between 
 Emperor  and Senate.
These  last  cases  were  Ii.kely  to  be .held  in! .secret  within  the walls.. of  the  Palace.  
In  routine.. jurisdiction,  Emperors  would sometimes  make  a  point .of  sitting  in judgment  
in  the  Forum
(assisted  as always by  their  friends),  but  would  also  take cases at  a regular  at«fiforiwn  
in  the  Pa)ace,  at  their  villas  in  Italy, or on campaign. The only indlsputabty  genuine 
verbatim record we have of a.case. before  the Emperor,  is .one brought.by:some Syrian 
villagers'against. a man who'had usurped.the  priesthood of their'1ocal  temple, .heard  by 
Caracalla  at Aniioch in 216.'•
This case.had not been heard by the..feganzr of Syria, !but was taken  by  the. Emperor. as .a  
matter  .of  grace. in  response  to  a petition. In this it was not.exceptional. Firstly, the 
Emperor tried riva'ls .and  conspirators  himself., .Some  civil  and  criminal cases came  to. him 
 as a result. of  appeals;  some  prisoners  were. sent. (rom the provinces .to be tried by hint, 
and even some civil cases seem  to have been referred to him spontaneously  by governors; Fronto  
made  a, long  speech  before  Antoninus  Pius  protesting against  the action  of  a proconsul  of 
 Asia  in referring  cases  of disputed  wills to the Emperor,  and pointing out  the delays and 
inconveniences   which   would   result   if  .that   procedure   were
adopted  generally.  But these types of. case: apart, there. appears to  have  been  no  machinery  
whatsoever  for  choosing  which cases! were  heard  by .the  Emperor; plaintiffs  or  aocusers  
put a case before him and,.if he wished, he heard.it. Pliny t:he Younger, for. instanci›, was 
irivited to the consilium,of Trajan when he   as hearing a: number of cases at,his villa at 
Centu:mcel1aeabout 106,; the cases  were:those  of  a  prominent. Ephesian  accused .by  his 
enemies; the .wife. of a military tribune accused of adultery .with a  centurion  (here  the  fegn  
zc of  the province  had  referred  the case to.Trajan — and Trajan added in his judgment:that.he 
did not wish. to call all adultery cases  to himself), .and  of an e     s and  an  Imperial  
freedman  who  were  accused   of  falsifying  a will -  the  heirs  had  simply  written  to 
Trajan  when  tie ivas in Dacia and asked him to take the case. The hearings lasted three days,  
during  which  the Emperor's  advisers  were entertained  at the villa, and afterwards. rewarded  
with .gifts.*°
Even though, as mentioned earlier,! profe  sional jurists began to be !employed  in.’secretarial’  
positions  with  the Emperor,.!.to rise.’to  the Praetorian  Prefecture  (which. meant  .being  
with  the Emperors in court), .or to be employed as paid ‘const/inrii’  — the earliest case is 
ajurisconsult  who was later also ‘a libellis’ and ‘a cognitionibus’ (in charge of hearings') under 
Commodus (18a 92) -   the actual judgments  were  always  given by  the Em{ieror himself.  Tbe 
lawyer Marsellus describes how Marcus  Aurelius, when deciding a difficult case, dismissed his 
advisers,  meditated alone  and  then  reassembled  the court  to hear  the  verdict; the great   
legat  writer   Paulus  relates   how   he   urged   an  opinion on Septimius Severus,  who 
listened  but  took the opposite  view. For the last half century or so of the period we have, as 
with other'things, little evidence about Imperial jurisdiction  at work. What we do .have is the 
rescripts quoted subject by subject in the Codex  Justinianus. These decline  very sharply in 
number in this period — the Codex quotes a total of 369 from the decade 220—30, 67  from  25a-60,  
26  from  260—70,   and  9  from  270—80;  but though the volume of legal decisions thus declined 
dramatically in the most troubled years of the Empire, it is significant  that the
flow of rescripts  never disappeared  altogether.°ˡ
Rmcripts  begin  to  be  attested  in  significant  numbers  from




TH E   RO  M AN   EM PI R E   AN D   ITS   N E1GH BOU RS
Hadrian  (117—38)   onwards,   and   were  addressed  not  only  to magistrates and governors but 
also to private persons,  including common  soldiers,  freedmen  and  even   slaves.   Sometimes   
the rescript  is merely  a directive  to the addressee  to go to the proper authority;  thus  the  
lawyer  Salvius  Julianus  says,  'I  have  often heard  Caesar (Antoninus  Pius) saying  that  the 
 rescript.  “You can  approach  the  provincial  governor”  does  not  impose  on  a proconsul  or  
his  /‹•,gofu.s   or  the  governor  of  a  province  the obligation  to hear the case’.“ Other 
rescripts,  which,  like cases and embassies, continued  to be dealt  with during journeys and 
campaigns,  were answers on actual  points of !aw.  Thus in 283 we  find  Carus and  his  sons  
sending  a  rescript  from  Emesa  in Syria  to  advise  a  man  that  a  transfer  of  property  
to  him  was illegal, as a contravening  a decision of the Senate.
This  item  of  Imperial  business.  insignificant  in  itself,  might serve  to point  to the main 
developments  of the period, the con- tinued  existence  of the Senate  but  steady  exclusion  of 
it and  its members  from  the active exercise  of power,  the development  of an   ‘Imperial'   
administration   growing   round   the   senatorial framework  and eventually  invading  it, and 
above all the increas- ingly independent  role of the Emperor  as the sole real source of political 
 decisions  and  of  law.






80

How do the ideas of mark and engels serve as a radical rebuttal to the industrial revolution

Identify and describe the working conditions endured by the working class during the industrial revolution

what is your evaluation of the impact capitalism had on the industrial revolution

What are some key terms that can be used to describe capitalism?

What is the "invisible hand" and why is it an important term when describing capitalism?

*Please see the image attached*

Describe the difference between liberal and conservative ideologies in American politics.

what is a tribe and why are there tribes in Africa and why is it important