Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T07:01:03.859Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emperors at Work*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Fergus Millar
Fergus Millar
Affiliation:
The Queen's College, Oxford.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most revealing single items of evidence on the political character of the Empire is an anecdote told by Dio about Hadrian; a woman approached the Emperor on a journey and demanded his attention; Hadrian said he had no time and moved on—καὶ μὴ βασίλευε shouted the woman after him, ‘then stop being Emperor’. The point is clear; the ideology—and the practice—of the Empire was that the Emperor was personally accessible to his subjects in a way which now seems incredible, and which most books on the Empire tend to ignore, or regard as trivial. One may recall, for instance, Maecenas struggling to get through the crowd surrounding Augustus as he gave judgement, the advocati trying to hold Claudius by physical force on the tribunal to hear their pleas, or the story of how a muleteer of Vespasian was bribed to stop and shoe a mule, giving time for a litigator to approach.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 1-2 , November 1967, pp. 9 - 19
Copyright
Copyright ©Fergus Millar 1967. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Dio LXIX, 6, 3.

2 Dio LV, 7, 2.

3 Suet., Div. Claud. 15; cf. Div. Aug. 97.

4 Suet., Div. Vesp. 23.

5 Sherwin-White, A. N., ‘Trajan's Replies to Pliny: Authorship and Necessity,’ JRS LII (1962), 114 f.Google Scholar = (with very slight additions) The Letters of Pliny (1966), 536f.

6 CAH x, 686–7.

7 See for example Suet., Div. Aug. 42; Dio LIV, xix, 7; LIX, 13, 5–7; Suet., Cal. 30; Jos., , Ant. Jud. XIX, 24–6Google Scholar; Martial, de spec. 20; Suet., Div. Tit. 8; Dom. 13; Dio LXIX, 6, 1; 16, 3; LXXI, 29, 4.

8 See Dio LIV, 35, 2 (Suet., Div. Aug. 57; CIL VI, 456 = ILS 99, in absence); LVII, 8, 6 (Suet., Tib. 34—Tiberius out of Rome on 1st January to avoid gifts); LVII, 17, 1 (Tiberius A.D. 17, refuses); LIX, 24, 4 (A.D. 40, gifts given symbolically to chair of absent Gaius). It seems to have been this custom which Claudius abolished: Dio LX, 6, 3.

9 See Van Berchem, D., Les Distributions de blé et d'argent à la plèbe romaine (1939), 164 f.Google Scholar

10 Suet., Div. Aug. 40. Compare Hadrian's description of his procedure in conducting cases, Dig. XXII, 5,3,3.

11 E.g. Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquités, s.v. ‘legatio,’ 1035; CAH x, 687.

12 Philo, Legatio 179–83.

13 Dio LX, 33, 5. On Cilo see Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), ch. XXIII, n. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Spengel, , Rhetores Graeci III, 423–4Google Scholar. The section ends, εἶτα ἀξιώσεις ἐπινεῦσαι αὐτὸν δεχθῆναι τὸ ψήφισμα.

15 P. Oxy. 2435, lines 40–1: ἀνέδωκεν τὰ [ψηφίσ]ματα〈ι〉 Αλεξανδρος καὶ εἶπεν… cf. line 44.

16 ILS 140 = EJ 69, lines 42–7.

17 Syll. 780 = Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration no. 36 = EJ 312.

18 P. Oxy. 2177; Musurillo, H., Acts of the Pagan Martyrs x, Fr. 2, Col. ii, 1, 59 fGoogle Scholar.

19 IG VII 2711 = ILS 8792: ἀναγνοὺς [τὸ δο]θέ[ν] μοι ὑπὸ τῶν ὑμετέρων πρεσβευτῶν ψήφισμα.

20 Suet., Nero 15.

21 Dig. XXVIII, 4, 3 praef.

22 Dig. IV, 4, 38.

23 Told with varying details by Quintilian, Inst. VI, 3, 59; Suetonius, Div. Aug. 53; and Macrobius, Sat. 11, 4, 3.

24 Suet., Div. Claud. 37.

25 VIII, 82, 1; VIII, 31.

26 Philost., , V. Apoll. Tyan. v, 38Google Scholar.

27 Suet., Dom. 17.

28 Corp. Gl. Lat. III, 31, 34. Compare Justin, Apol. 11, 2 (a woman giving a βιβλίδιον to the Emperor).

29 Rufinus, EH x, 2; Sozomenus, EH 1, 16, 3–5; Socrates, EH 1, 8, 18–19.

30 Suet., Div. Aug. 88; cf. Dio, Boissevain, Vol. 11, 557. This is one of a number of items which Dio may have taken direct from Suetonius, see Millar, F., A Study of Cassius Dio (1964), 85–6.Google Scholar

31 Legatio 254, trans. Smallwood.

32 Ibid. 331.

33 Ibid. 304. Compare Jos., , Ant. Jud. XVIII, 163–4Google Scholar—Tiberius reading a letter from the procurator at Jamnia, Herennius Capito—ταύτην ἀναγνοὺς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν περιαλγεῖ ὁ Καῖσαρ.

34 IV, 12, 6–7.

35 LXXVII, 18, 2.

36 Jahreshefte Öst. Arch. Inst. XLV (1960), Beiblatt, col. 80–2, no. 7Google Scholar.

37 Dio LXXVIII, 4, 2–3.

38 Philost., , Vit. Soph. II, 9Google Scholar. Compare Constantine's reply to a letter from Eusebius, Bishop of Antioch, Euseb., , vita Const. 111, 61, 1Google Scholar: Ἀνέγνων ἥδιστα τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἣν ἡ σὴ σύνεσις ἐποιήσατο.

39 Suet., Div. Aug. 45.

40 HA, Marc. Aur. 15. Compare HA, Had. 20, 11 ‘uno tempore scripsit dictavit audivit et cum amicis fabulatus est, si potest credi’.

41 Suet., Div. Vesp. 21; cf. Philost., , Vit. Apoll. Tyan. v, 31Google Scholar.

42 Pliny, , Ep. X, 60, 107Google Scholar.

43 So Sherwin-White o.c. (n. 5), p. 120; The Letters of Pliny, p. 546.

44 Corpus. Gloss, Lat. 111, 33, line 32 f.

45 Suet., Div. Vesp. 22.

46 HA, Sev. Alex. 21, 6–8.

47 Vell. Pat. II, 124.

48 Tac., , Ann. 1, 11, 7Google Scholar.

49 Suet., Div. Aug. 101.

50 Suet., Tib. 76.

51 Eutrop. IX, 15, 2; Zosimus 1, 62.

52 E.g. Suet., , Div. Aug. 71, 87Google Scholar; vita Horat., p. 45 Reiff.; Dio LXXI, 36, 2; HA, Clod. Alb. 2, 2. For other evidence on Imperial private correspondence see, e.g., Nepos, , Att. 20, 1–2Google Scholar; Quint., , Inst. 1, 6, 19Google Scholar; Aurelius, Marcus, Med. 1, 7Google Scholar.

53 Sen., , Ep. LXXXIII, 15Google Scholar.

54 Dio LXVIII, 3, 4; 5, 2.

55 Euseb., , Vit. Const. IV, 8Google Scholar, text in 9–13; cf. Sozom., , EH 11, 15, 1–5Google Scholar; Theodoret, , EH 1, 24, 13—25Google Scholar, 11. Cf. H. Dörries, Das Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins (1954), 125 f.

56 Cavenaille, Corp. Pap. Lat. 238, with bibliography; cf. Syme, Tacitus, App. 7.

57 AÉ 1962, 183. Note the subscription of greeting at the end, ‘vale mi Marsiane, karissime mihi’.

58 Suet., Tib. 42.

59 Epictetus 111, 7, 30. For the setting see JRS LV (1965), 142, 145Google Scholar and Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny 477–8.

60 Suet., Cal. 18.

61 Suet., Div. Claud. 29.

62 Suet., Nero 10.

63 Sen., , de clem. 1, 2Google Scholar.

64 Pliny, , Ep. 1, 10, 9Google Scholar.

65 Frag. Vat. 163.

66 CJ 1, 23, 3.

67 HA, Com. 13, 7.

68 HA, Carus 16, 8.

69 CIL III, 411 = ILS 338 = FIRA 2 1, 82.

70 ILS 6870 = Abbott and Johnson, no. 111 = FIRA 2 1, 103.

71 OGIS 519 = IGR IV, 598 = CIL III, 14191 = Abbott and Johnson, no. 141. See in general Wilcken, U., ‘Zu den Kaiserreskripten’, Hermes LV (1920), 1Google Scholar.

72 Philo, Leg. 258–60. Smallwood translates ‘dictated’. The Loeb translation gives, ‘gave one of his secretaries instructions about answering Petronius’.

73 Suet., Div. Tit. 6.

74 Suet., Dom. 13. For Imperial dictation of a letter compare HA, Max. 12, 5. Lact., , de mort. pers. 46, 5Google Scholar records Licinius dictating to a notarius.

75 Dig. 1, 18, 8.

76 Fronto, , Ad M. Caes. IV, 7Google Scholar (Naber, p. 70; Loeb 1, 184; Van Den Hout, p. 64).

77 Legatio 333–4.

78 HA, Sev. Alex. 31, 1.

79 FIRA.

2 1, 93.

80 IGR IV, 1619b = Syll 3 883.

81 Euseb., , Vit. Const. II, 46, 3Google Scholar; similar phrases appear in the numerous other letters quoted in this work.

82 Optatus., App. IX, ad fin.

83 Opitz, , Athanasius Werke III, 1Google Scholar, doc. 34, ad fin. (p. 75).

84 HA, Com. 13, 7.

85 Dio LXIX, 1, 4. The Loeb translation ‘signed’ will not do, because ancient letters were not signed in this sense.

86 See Oost, S. I., ‘The Career of M. Antonius Pallas’, AJPh LXXIX (1958), 113Google Scholar.

87 Evidence in PIR 1 N 18.

88 Evidence in PIR 2 I 229.

89 See Grosso, F., La lotta politica al tempo di Commodo (1964), esp. 113 f., 197 f.Google Scholar

90 Philo, Legatio 166–77.

91 Suet., Div. Aug. 67.

92 Dio LX, 34, 5.

93 Jos., , Ant. Jud. xx, 183–4Google Scholar.

94 Statius, , Silvae V, 1, 86 fGoogle Scholar.

95 Plut., Otho 9.

96 See in general Townend, G. B., ‘The Post ab epistulis in the Second Century’, Historia X (1961), 375Google Scholar.

97 VS 11, 24, Loeb translation.

98 VS 11, 33.

99 Phrynichus, Ecloga 379, Lobeck, CCCLVI Rutherford.

100 There are, however, significant indications that the style of Imperial letters became more discursive and ‘literary’ from about the middle of the third century. Even if one disregards the long letter of Decius to Philippopolis ‘quoted’ by Dexippus (FGrH 100 F 26) one may note the sentiments discursively aired by Valerian and Gallienus writing to Philadelphia in 255, Anz. öst. Akad. Phil.-hist. Kl. XCIII (1956), 226, no. 8Google Scholar, and further developments in later Latin letters, the Imperial letter to Tymanda (Abbott and Johnson, no. 151), the letter of Constantine to Ablabius about Orcistus (no. 154) or his rescript to the Umbri (no. 155).

101 See Kunkel, W., Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen (1952), Z19 f.Google Scholar; Pflaum, Carrières, no. 172.

102 Dio LXXVIII, 13, 4.

103 Suet., Div. Claud. 28.

104 P-W s.v. ‘Polybius’ (5).

105 Zonaras XI, 9–10 = Dio (Boiss.) LX, 30, 6b.

106 Pliny, , Ep. IX, 15, 1Google Scholar.

107 Martial XI, 1, 5.

108 The normal supposition (e.g. Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten 2, 332 f.; Friedländer, Sittengeschichte *, 55; Duff, Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire * (1958), 157) is that the a studiis was some kind of ‘director of research’ for the Emperor. This is no more than a deduction from the common sense of ‘studia’. One might wonder whether the meaning is not better understood by taking it as a simple plural of ‘studium’ in the sense of ‘favour’ or ‘support’.

109 Kunkel, Herkunft 174 f.; Pflaum, Carrières, no. 141.

110 Pflaum, Carrières, no. 181.

111 Kunkel, Herkunft 224 f.; Pflaum, Carrières, no. 220.

112 HA, Pesc. Nig. 7, 4.

113 ‘The Severan Lawyers: A Preliminary Survey’, Stud. et. Doc. Hist, et lur. XXVIII (1962), 162Google Scholar.

114 Philo, Legatio 181, τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν πρεσβειῶν, Ὅμιλον ὄνομα, προσπέμψας.

115 Dio LXXV, 15, 5; Philost., , VS 11, 30Google Scholar (both of which show that the a cognitionibus normally acted on the Emperor's instructions); VS II, 32. Cf. Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten 2, 331.

116 Lucian, Apology 12.

117 Philo, In Flaccum 130–4 (the text is not certain).

118 Dio. LV, 7, 4.

119 Tac., , Ann. IV, 68, 2Google Scholar; Juvenal, , Sat. X, 78–9Google Scholar.

120 Suet., Div. Vesp. 4.

121 Juvenal, , Sat. VII, 88–90Google Scholar.

122 Aelius Aristides, Or. XII Dindorf/XXXII Keil, 15–6.

123 Suet., Div. Aug. 33; Dio LXIX, 18, 2–4; LXXI, 6, 1.

124 See especially Fronto, de feriis Alsiensibus 3 (Naber, pp. 224 f.; Loeb 11, 4 f.; Van Den Hout, pp. 212 f.).

125 Suet., Nero 40.

126 Jos., Vita 408–9. Cf. JRS LVI (1966), 159Google Scholar.

127 HA, Macrinus 13, 1.

128 Dio LXXVII, 17.

129 Fronto, , ad Verum III, 7Google Scholar (Naber, p. 124; Loeb 11, 138; Van Den Hout, p. 117).

130 Tac., , Ann. XIII, 3, 3Google Scholar; Dio LXI, 3, 1.

131 Suet., Nero 47: ‘inventus est postea in scrinio eius hac de re sermo formatus; sed deterritum putant, ne prius quam in forum perveniret discerperetur’.

132 Tac., , Ann. XIV, 11Google Scholar, 4; cf. Quint., , Inst. VIII, 5, 18Google Scholar: ‘qualis est Senecae in eo scripto, quod Nero ad senatum misit occisa matre’.

133 Herodian VII, 8, 3.

134 Suet., Dom. 20. Cf. HA, Ael. Ver. 4, 7: ‘orationem pulcherrimam, quae hodieque legitur, sive per se seu per scriniorum aut dicendi magistros parasset’.