"The Roman Emperor and his Court" comprises two volumes that offer a comprehensive compilation of research on the emperor at the center of interaction with not only the established “acceptance groups”1 but also various individuals across all levels of status within and beyond the empire. The authors’ objectives are directed in three key dimensions:
1) Broadening the temporal scope of study to uncover long-term patterns in the Roman court culture,
2) Expanding spatial boundaries2 to explore the emperor’s mobility and the impacts on social and ritual spheres when absent from Rome, and
3) Accentuating the “court culture”3, including discourse and cognition of the court and the intricate interplay between court perceptions and realities.
Volume 1 systematically explores the imperial court from Augustus to the end of the third century. Volume 2, the accompanying sourcebook, comprises literary, epigraphic, and archaeological sources or illustrations of archaeological reconstructions directly tied to Volume 1.4 As it is intended to be used primarily in pedagogical contexts, the sourcebook provides a glossary, a list of emperors with the dates of their reign, a register of significant courtiers, and a short introduction of the ancient writers and sources with their relevance to the imperial court.
Rejecting terms like domus or aula5, the authors employ an etic approach and define the court as an “ideal type that has been developed by modern historians of diverse eras to describe a transhistorical phenomenon” (p. 6). Consequently, the Roman imperial court consisted of individuals in close proximity to the emperor, particularly those people in frequent verbal interaction with or providing domestic or security services to him. It included members of the imperial family, parts of the aristocracy, descendants of foreign royals residing in Rome, service staff and bodyguards, cultural providers (poets, actors), and “technicians” (astrologers, physicians) (p. 7). This differentiation suggests a social, though not spatial, hierarchy of “inner” and “outer courts” employed by the authors (p. 8).
Furthermore, they distinguish between “court” and “courtiers”. “Courtiers” include individuals in potentially regular interaction with, or in service to, the emperor when they were in the same locality, but not necessarily at all times, for example, during the absence of either one from the capital (p. 8).6 While this definition is useful, it inevitably poses the question of whether certain family members should not also be labeled “courtiers”, given that not all of them were always present during the emperor’s journeys.
The authors do not aim to construct a comprehensive model for the functioning of the imperial court due to the extensive timeframe studied and individualistic exceptions. They also reject the teleological narrative of the court evolving into a final product, as Winterling's concept of institutionalization suggests.7 Instead, they search for repetitive trends and patterns in the court’s history as a middle course between a model and the transition and continuous development of the court.
Across 19 contributions, the authors identify various patterns of court life, the most prominent of which are the struggle for control and the negotiation of a court style. As far as the court network extended, so does the range of the articles.
The first essays investigate past-era impacts on the imperial court. Rolf Strootman provides an extensive overview of the major characteristics of Hellenistic courts and comparative examples in the Roman imperial court, such as philia versus amicitia, Hellenistic royal pages who prefigured the education of client kings’ children in Rome, or the exceptional status of women in both cultures. Additionally, his analysis sheds light on potential Hellenistic influences, including certain Hellenistic conduct that Roman leaders of the Middle and Late Republic and the emperors themselves adopted, such as the re-bestowal of regal dignity of former kings or the practice of artistic patronage at the imperial court.
Jaclyn Neel’s insightful chapter about Republican precursors analyzes the interactions in the households of prominent Late Republican families. She shows continuities in those persisting within the imperial court, focusing on personnel, rituals, patronage, and space. She highlights the influence of freedmen on their former masters, using Cicero’s increasingly hostile attitude toward his relatives’ freedmen to demonstrate Republican anticipations of later senatorial moralizing about influential imperial freedmen. Neel also examines senatorial anxieties that stemmed from the armed retinues of Republican politicians, akin to the public’s wariness of the emperor’s bodyguards. Exploring patronage as a precursor, Neel credibly exemplifies Caesar’s dictatorship in which senators of equal status such as Cicero involuntarily assumed courtier-like roles as his clientes, prompting later emperors to adopt a princeps civilis persona to avoid associations with tyranny. Regarding spatial precursors, Neel identifies parallels between Republican senators’ house enhancements and later imperial building projects that encroached on private property.
Those building projects are further elaborated on by Jens Pflug and Ulrike Wulf-Rheidt, who discuss the architectural development of Rome’s imperial palaces. Starting with the allegedly “modest” Augustan beginnings and Nero’s opulent Domus Aurea, their profound analysis of the Flavian palace complex, bolstered by architectural reconstructions, shows how the palace became a symbol of imperial power and a representation of the visitors’ favor. Spatial differentiation of venues for visitors reflected the social hierarchy and facilitated courtly practices. As they compellingly demonstrate, despite architectural changes during the adoptive emperors, the Flavian palace, with its flexible spaces for leisure activities and court rituals, became an enduring model imitated during the Tetrarchy.
The archaeological focus is extended by Michele George, who traces the development of imperial villas in form and function. Using Tiberius’ villa Iovis, Hadrian’s villa at Tibur, and the Antonines’ villas as examples, she demonstrates with great depth that villas outside of Rome were indeed a central focal point of imperial administrative business, leisure time, and even family life besides the palaces in the capital.
Angela Hug provides an extensive study of the imperial family’s roles, illustrating the limits of their influence (or the lack thereof) with a particular, but not exclusive, focus on women. In doing so, she highlights their multifaceted power, including high status, honorific titles, physical representation in the capital and provinces, wealth, and freedom of movement around the palace and city. Hug also emphasizes the importance of what she calls “imperial trappings” (p. 65), indicators of the emperor's favor like bodyguards, distinct attire, or privileged seating arrangement in public spaces that represented their status and functioned as a reminder of the emperor’s pledge to secure stability. Moreover, their access to him allowed them to build their own networks of patronage, ultimately making them power brokers themselves, especially during palace intrigues. At times, female relatives, notably widows, assumed roles akin to the emperor, such as Livia after Augustus’s death. In that respect, Hug discusses in detail the various ways in which the emperor withdrew access from relatives who became too powerful, such as through abandonment, exile, or even assassination, and shows how familial influence – a double-edged sword – shaped every emperor’s reign.
The family’s role was intertwined with sexuality. E. del Chrol and Sarah H. Blake deconstruct patterns underlying the biographers’ narratives of the emperors’ sexual misconduct and investigate how their sex lives were linked with court dynamics. They pose the imperative question of why there was no formal reserve for sexual partners, contrary to most pre-modern monarchies. Their plausible explanation for this historical anomaly includes Roman values rooted in Republican history, such as Tarquinius Superbus’ transgressions, which led to safeguarding free women’s status. Furthermore, due to the possibility of re-marriage or adoption, the emperor had no need for concubines to produce legitimate heirs. Likewise, while having concubines was not problematic, public opinion played an essential role in the matter, particularly when they gained status equal to that of the emperor’s wife. Finally, sociopolitical, economic, cultural, and ideological roles fulfilled by women’s reserves in other monarchies held different or negligible significance at the Roman imperial court, rendering them redundant.
Helmut Halfmann expands the introductory definition of “court” based on its singular flexibility during imperial journeys. Examining the changing composition and size of the emperor’s retinue, he shows in detail the respective tasks and roles of the consilium principis, for example, during adventus, profectio, and provincial sojourns. Moreover, he points out the benefits of traveling, as imperial journeys provided provincials with greater access to the emperor and his amici. However, he also underscores its challenges, the most prominent being the potential limits of communication with the elites in Rome due to the retinue’s condensed composition and the impositions resting on local cities. One aspect that the reviewer believes would have enriched the treatise even more is by exploring the role of the family during imperial journeys.
Further contributions cover other areas of court life and workings, ranging from composition (examining fixed and potential participants in its everyday routines, e.g., the aristocracy or foreign royals) over court spaces (including the Palatine, villas outside of Rome, and imperial journeys), to court activities (i.e., administration, rituals and religious ceremonies, patronage, dealing with violence and security, or leisure activities like dining, hunting, or having performers entertain at court). Additional fields of study that could be included are the interactions between the imperial court and the plebs urbana or the military stationed in the provinces.
The epilogue aims to highlight continuities and changes in court spaces, composition, and activities. Olivier Hekster demonstrates continuities in social rituals and identifies non-linear and rather abrupt changes from one reign to the next, which occurred due to a certain type of emperor choosing a certain style, depending on personal preferences – one pattern potentially attributed to “good” and “bad” rulers. Despite this, the epilogue left the reviewer with a slightly dissatisfactory feeling as the most remarkable changes in court life ensued due to the emperor’s increasing absence from Rome. However, instead of going into detail regarding those changes, the author puts a somewhat repetitive emphasis on the difficulty of differentiating between changes in court life and changes in the Roman society as a whole from the Early Principate to Late Antiquity. While this difficulty should not be disregarded, and while continuous changes cannot be identified due to even inner-dynastic variations in court styles, one would expect a slightly stronger and more extensive conclusion to the insightful essay collection.
The sourcebook comprises seven sections, beginning with a general conceptualization of the imperial court, followed by spaces, relationships, rituals, ceremonials, and visual reconstructions, and concluding with the court in crisis. Introductory texts in each section offer a contextualization of the major problems in question. To any student of the Roman court, it is incredibly beneficial to have the most prominent and relevant sources directly at their disposal when referenced in the respective essay. Furthermore, the variety of sources included demonstrates the range of means used by the emperor and his court for self-representation and interaction and demonstrates external perceptions.
One point of criticism is the occasionally uneven distribution of references to the sourcebook, such as in Chapter Two or the epilogue. The contributions also differ in their mode of using documentary evidence. While Strootman and Halfmann largely draw on research previously conducted in their field of expertise and therefore supply more bibliographical references than primary sources, most other contributions primarily work directly with the sources to support their arguments. Addressees of the volumes will profit from both approaches; however, given the accompanying sourcebook, one would expect a closer interplay of both in all essays.
In general, the volume presents a valuable collection of essays and source material to students endeavoring to study the Roman imperial court. While some essays are mainly informative, others provide discursive research questions. The mixture of both reflects the authors’ intent to cater to undergraduate students; however, advanced researchers will also profit from the range of topics, sources, and bibliography. The diverse contributions in both volumes yield far-reaching historical knowledge and will stimulate fruitful discussions, both inside the classroom and in further research contexts.
Notes:
1 Egon Flaig, Den Kaiser herausfordern. Usurpationen im Römischen Reich, Frankfurt am Main 1992.
2 As compared to the works by Winterling and Wallace-Hadrill. See: Aloys Winterling, Aula Caesaris. Studien zur Institutionalisierung des römischen Kaiserhofes in der Zeit von Augustus bis Commodus (31 v. Chr.–192 n. Chr.), Munich 1999; Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, The Imperial Court, in: Alan K. Bowman / Edward Champlin / Andrew Lintott (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 10: The Augustan Empire. 43 B.C.–A.D. 69, Cambridge 1996, pp. 283–308; Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, The Roman Imperial Court. Seen and Unseen in the Performance of Power, in: Jeroen Duindam / Tülay Artan / Metin Kunt (eds.), Royal Courts in Dynastic States and Empires. A Global Perspective, Leiden 2011, pp. 91–102.
3 The authors use Peter Burke’s definition of culture as “a system of shared meanings, attitudes and values, and the symbolic forms (performances and artefacts) in which they are expressed or embodied.” (See: Peter Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe, New York 1978, p. xi; Kelly, Introduction, p. 4).
4 Since the authors address not only an academic audience on the professorial level, but also senior undergraduate students potentially unfamiliar with Latin and Ancient Greek, only the English translations are given.
5 The authors only focus on the meaning of aula as a social circle, not as a physical place or a form of behavior.
6 This conforms with Wallace-Hadrill’s (Imperial Court, 1996, p. 286) implication that the emperor’s court followed him where he went, but this does not hold true for all courtiers.
7 Winterling, Aula Caesaris, pp. 6–7 himself concedes that several important aspects of the court cannot be incorporated into his model, the most problematic of which was the imperial family.