THE IMPERIAL SYSTEM: EMPEROR, SENATE, KNIGHTS, AND PEOPLE
We have seen, and succinctly traversed, the extent of the Roman world.
The next step is to consider, as tersely as possible, its system of
government and administration about the year 64. This task is not only
entirely necessary to our immediate purpose; it is also one of great
interest and profit in itself. If we are either to see in their proper
light the experiences of such a man as St. Paul, or to understand the
long continuance of so wide an empire, we must observe carefully the
principles and methods adopted by the Romans as rulers.
We speak fluently of the "Roman Emperor" and of the "reign of Nero."
What was an emperor? What were his powers, and how did he exercise
them?
In the first place, it must be noted that, strictly speaking, Rome
acknowledged no such thing as an autocrat. It had no monarch; the
title "king" was disowned by the Caesars and entirely denied by the
people; the emperor was technically not a superior sovereign, but, on
the contrary, something inferior to a sovereign. He was the first
citizen, the "first man of the state." The state was nominally a
commonwealth, and the emperor its most important officer.
He was, to begin with, the representative of Rome as civil and
military governor of all provinces containing an army, or apparently
calling for an army. "Emperor" means military commander, and he was
the commander-in-chief of all the forces of the empire, military or
naval, but in a sense far more liberal than would now be intended by
such an expression. Of all the fighting forces he had absolute
control, determining their numbers, their service, all appointments,
their pay, and their discharge. He moved them where he chose, and,
beyond this, he possessed the power of declaring war and concluding
peace. Wherever there existed an armed force, whether in the far-off
field or in garrison, its obedience was due to him. In sign of this
every soldier, on the first of January and on the anniversary of the
emperor's accession, took a solemn oath--and an oath in those days was
felt as no mere matter of form, but as a solemn act of religion--that
he would loyally obey the commander-in-chief. The emperor's effigy was
conspicuous in the middle of every camp, and, in small, it figured on
the standard of every regiment. The sacred obligation of the soldier
to an Augustus or a Nero was kept perpetually in evidence, and he was
never allowed to forget it. Wherever the emperor appeared or
intervened in the provinces, all other powers became subordinate to
his.
[Illustration: FIG. 11.--AUGUSTUS AS EMPEROR.]
Theoretically such a commander might always be deposed by the Roman
people, acting through its Senate. In reality he was master of the
situation. If he was ever deposed, or if a new commander was ever
appointed, it was by the army. If he proved a tyrant, there was no
other means of getting rid of him than by the army, unless it were by
assassination. At such times the Senate might make a show of naming
the successor, and the army might make a show of agreeing with the
Senate, but such expressions, as Tacitus repeats, were "empty and
meaningless words." The madman Caligula had been assassinated. When,
four years after our date, Nero was compelled to flee from his palace
and was persuaded into committing suicide, it was because the soldiers
had declared against him and had elected another.
The vast powers of the emperor had come into the hands of one man
simply because the republic had been found incompetent to handle its
empire, whether from a military or a financial point of view. It
managed neither so consistently nor so honestly as did the individual.
The emperor, then, by a constitutional fiction, was an officer of the
commonwealth, commanding its forces, not only with the freedom of
action which Rome had always allowed to its experts in dealing with
the enemy, but with that freedom greatly enlarged, and with a tenure
of the office perpetually renewed.
But to him that hath shall be given--especially if he is in a position
to insist on the gift. The emperor's military authority, his position
as governor of provinces, could not alone rightfully qualify him to
control Rome itself, with its laws, its magistrates, its domestic and
provincial policy. Theoretically the Roman emperor never did control
these matters.
In practice he did with them very much as he chose. If he seriously
wished a certain course to be followed, a certain law to be passed or
abolished, even a certain man to be elected to an office, it was
promptly done. But how could he thus perpetually interfere and yet
appear to remain a constitutional officer? Not through the mere
obsequiousness of every one concerned, including the Senate. That
would be too transparent, clumsy, and invidious. It was necessary that
he should possess some adequate appearance of real authority, and he
was therefore ingeniously invested with that authority. It was thus.
There were under the commonwealth certain annual officers of wide and
rather indefinite powers called "tribunes of the commons." These
persons could veto any measure which they declared to be in opposition
to the interests of the people. They could also summon the Senate, and
bring proposals before it. Meanwhile their persons were "sacrosanct,"
or inviolable, during their term of office. Here lay the opportunity.
The emperor was invested by the Senate with these "powers of the
tribune." He was not actually elected a tribune, for the office was
only annual and could not be held along with any other, whereas the
emperor must have the prerogatives always, and in conjunction with any
other functions which he might choose to hold. He, therefore, only
received the corresponding "powers" and privileges. This position
enabled him to veto a measure whenever he chose, and with impunity.
Naturally therefore it became the custom, as far as possible, to find
out his wishes beforehand, and to move accordingly. He could also, in
the same right, summon the Senate and bring measures, or get them
brought, before it. To make certainty doubly certain, he was granted
the right to what we should call "the first business on the
notice-paper."
Observe further the shrewdness of the first emperor, Augustus, when he
selected this particular position. The "tribunes of the commons" were
constitutionally popular champions; they represented the interests of
the common people. By assuming a position similar to theirs, the
emperor--or commander-in-chief--made it appear to the common people
that he was their chief and perpetual representative, and that their
interests were bound up with his authority. He took them under his
wing, and saw, among other things, that they did not starve or go
stinted of amusements. He saw to it that they had corn for their
bread, plenty of water, and games in the circus. His "bread and games"
kept them quiet.
Supported by the army on one side, with his person secure, enjoying
the right of initiative and the right of veto, this officer of the
"commonwealth" became indeed the Colossus who bestrode the Roman
world. He was invariably made also the Pontifex Maximus, or chief
guardian of the religious interests of Rome. He might in addition
receive other constitutional appointments--for example, that of
supervisor or corrector of morals--whenever these might suit a special
purpose. What more could a man desire, if he was satisfied to forego
the name of autocrat so long as he possessed the substance? It was
quite as much to the purpose to be called _Princeps_, or "head of the
state," as to be called a king, like the Parthian or other Oriental
monarchs. Among the Romans, therefore, "Princeps" was his regular
title. The Graeco-Oriental half of the empire, which had long been
accustomed to kings and to treating them almost as gods, frankly
styled this head of the state "king" or "autocrat," but no true Roman
would forget himself so far as to lapse into this vulgar truth.
One other title, however, the Romans did attach to their "Princeps."
Something was still wanting to bring home, to both the Roman and the
provincial, the peculiarly exalted position of so great a man;
something which should be a recognition of that majesty which made him
almost divine, at least with the divinity that doth hedge a king. The
title selected for this purpose was _Augustus_, a word for which there
is no nearer English equivalent than "His Highness," or perhaps "His
Majesty," if we imagine that term applied to one who, by a legal
fiction, is not a king. The insane Caligula called himself, or let
himself be called, "Lord and Master," and later Domitian temporarily
added to this title "God," but even Nero claimed neither of these
modest epithets.
Here, then, is the position of Nero: Commander-in-chief of all the
forces of Rome by land and sea, and master of its foreign policy; the
titular protector of its commons and therefore inviolable of person
and virtual controller of laws and resolutions; official head of the
state religion; rejoicer in the style of "His Highness the Head of the
State." To speak ill of him, or to do anything derogatory to his
authority, was _lèse majesté_.
[Illustration: FIG. 12.--COIN OF NERO. British Museum.]
Reference has several times been made to the Senate. It is time now to
speak briefly of that body. For the sake of clearness, however, we
must include a survey of the recognised constituent elements or
"orders" of Roman society.
The body politic consisted nominally of all who where known as "Roman
citizens." These included men of every rank, from the artisan, the
agricultural labourer, or even the idle loafer--of whom there was more
than plenty--up through every grade of the middle classes to the
richest and bluest-blooded aristocrat who considered himself in point
of birth more than the equal of the emperor. Any such citizen was
secured in person and property by the Roman laws. It was a punishable
act for the local authorities at Philippi to take Paul, a "Roman
citizen," and, before he was condemned, chastise him with rods.
According to the letter of the constitution, the power of electing all
officers of state, and of passing laws, had belonged to this
miscellaneous body, the "people," gathered in assembly. Meanwhile the
power of determining foreign policy and controlling the finances had
lain with a special body, consisting largely of the aristocracy and of
ex-officers of state, known as the "Senate." We are not here concerned
with the causes of the changes which buried this constitution out of
sight, but only with the actual state of things in the year 64.
In point of fact there were, under the emperors, no longer any
assemblies of the "people"; the people at large neither elected nor
legislated. The chief articles of the constitution had fallen into
complete abeyance during the troublous times which preceded the
establishment of that poorly disguised monarchy which we know as the
empire. All real power of electing and law-making came to be in the
hands of the Senate, acting with the emperor. While the emperor
dominated the Senate, he was nevertheless glad to fall back upon that
body in justification of his own actions and as a means of keeping up
the constitutional pretence. He permitted the Senate to pass
resolutions, and to exercise authority, just so far as there was no
conflict with his own pronounced wishes and interests. It was not his
policy to interfere and irritate when there was no occasion. On the
other hand, when he desired a piece of legislation or an important
administrative novelty, he preferred that it should be backed up by
the sanction, or promoted by the apparently spontaneous action, of the
Senate. It then bore a better appearance, and was less open to cavil.
The people are no longer consulted at all in such matters. They have
no say in them, for they have neither plebiscite nor representative
government.
It must not be supposed that there never was friction between emperor
and Senate. The Senate was often--or rather generally--servile,
because it was intimidated. But there were times when it was inclined
to assert itself; some of its members occasionally allowed themselves
a certain freedom of speech, toward which one emperor might be
surprisingly lenient or good-naturedly contemptuous, and another
outrageously vindictive. In the year 64 the Senate was outwardly
docile enough, although at heart it was anything but loyal to his
Highness Nero the Head of the State. It must always be remembered that
among the Senate were included many of the highest-born, proudest, and
strictest of the Roman nobles or men of eminence. To them the whole
succession of emperors was still a series of upstarts--the family of
the Caesars--usurping powers which properly belonged to the Senate.
You could not expect these persons, aristocrats at heart, and many of
them true patriots, bearing names distinguished throughout Roman
history, to acquiesce in the spectacle of one who was no better than
they, as he passed up to his huge palace on the Palatine Hill,
escorted by his guards, or as he entered the Senate-House to give what
were practically his orders, perhaps scarcely deigning to recognise
men whose families had been illustrious while his was obscure. At
times a member here or there was calculating his own chances of
supplanting the man who galled him by condescension, or coldness, or
even insult. These aristocrats felt as the French nobles might feel
with Napoleon. And on his side the emperor, good or bad, never felt
quite safe from a plot to overthrow him. On the whole these earlier
emperors were much engaged in keeping the Senate in its place, and
were inclined, with quite sufficient reason, to be jealous and
suspicious of its more important members.
It was natural, therefore, that they should keep a very practical
control over the composition of that body. The situation was much as
if a modern nation were ruled by a virtual autocrat assisted by a
House of Peers. The senators and their families formed a "senatorial
order." So far as the Romans had such a thing as a peerage under the
empire, it is to be found in the senatorial order. And as a title may
now be either hereditary or conferred by the sovereign as the "fount
of honour," so, under the Roman emperors, the right to belong to the
senatorial order might come from birth or from the choice of the head
of the state. Normally you belonged to the "order" if you were the son
of a senator; you ranked in that class of society. To belong to the
Senate itself and to take part in its debates you must then have held
a certain public office and must possess not less than £8000. The
£8000 is the minimum. Most senators were rich, and some were
enormously wealthy. They are found with a capital of £3,000,000 or
£4,000,000 and an income up to £150,000. As for the public office
which you must first hold, you could not even be a candidate for it
unless you were already of the "order." If, when you are a senator,
there is anything serious against you, or if you become impoverished,
your name may be expunged from the list. Otherwise you remain a
senator all your life, and your son in turn is of the "order," and may
pass into the Senate by the same process. If you were a popular or
highly deserving person, and from any accident had lost your property,
the emperor would frequently make up the deficiency, or your brother
senators would subscribe the necessary amount.
But an emperor could meanwhile raise to the "order" anyone he chose.
He could give him standing, and so make him eligible as a candidate
for that public office which was preliminary to entering the actual
Senate. Moreover, when it came to the elections to this office which
served as the indispensable stepping-stone to the Senate-House, the
vacancies were limited in number, and the emperor had the right of
either nominating or recommending the candidates whom he preferred.
Needless to say, those candidates were invariably elected. It was, of
course, monstrous arrogance for Caligula to boast that he could make
his horse a consul if he chose, but the taunt contained a measure of
truth.
Let us then put the case thus. Imagine that a modern senate is
recruited from persons whose names are in the _Peerage and
Baronetage_, and that, before any scion of such a family can enter the
Senate itself, he must go through some sort of under-secretaryship, to
which he must first be elected.
But next imagine that the sovereign can raise to the rank of "peerage
or baronetage" some favoured person whose family does not yet figure
in _Debrett_. Such a man is then entitled to put his name on the list
of candidates for the necessary under-secretaryship, and, when the
sovereign reviews that list, he marks the candidate as nominated or
recommended by himself. So he passes into the Senate.
Most emperors did this but sparingly. They made the Senate an
aristocratic and wealthy body, keeping its numbers at somewhere near
600. We must not be perpetually assuming that the Caesars were either
reckless or unscrupulous, because two or three were of that character.
Many of them were remarkably capable and sagacious men. They
recognised the need of ability and high character in their Senate.
They had themselves enough of the old Roman exclusiveness to keep
their honours from being made too cheap, and the probability is that
under their rule the Senate was quite as honourable and quite as able
a body as it was at any time under the republic.
The feeling of _noblesse oblige_ was strongly implanted in this
senatorial class. The wealth of most members also put them above the
more sordid temptations. The senator was not permitted to undertake
any mercantile or financial business. The ancient notion still
survived, that the only really honourable occupations for money were
war and agriculture. The senator might own land and dispose of its
produce or receive its rents, but he could not, for instance, be a
money-lender or tax-farmer. Sometimes, no doubt, a senator evaded
these provisions by employing a "dummy," but we must not probe too
deep under the surface. In compensation for this disability it was
from the senatorial class that were drawn all the governors of the
important provinces, except Egypt, and all the higher military
officers. In these capacities they received salaries. The governor of
Africa, for example, was paid £10,000 a year.
Such men were no mere inexperienced aristocrats or plutocrats. They
had regularly passed through a military training in youth, and had
then held a minor civil appointment, commonly involving some knowledge
of public finance. Next they had passed into the Senate and taken part
in its business; had then held other public offices which taught them
practical administration and probably legal procedure; and had
afterwards been put in command of a "legion," that is to say, a
brigade or _corps d'armée_. After performing such functions with
credit, a senator might be sent to govern Syria or Macedonia or
Britain or some other province. He was then a man of varied experience
and ripe judgment, trained in official discipline and etiquette, as
well as in knowledge. This was the kind of man whom Paul met in Cyprus
in the person of the governor Sergius Paulus, or at Corinth in the
person of Gallio.
Certain smaller provinces might be administered by men of another
order, who were neither filled with the senatorial traditions nor had
passed through the senatorial career. These were but "factors" or
"agents" of Caesar, and among them were the Pontius Pilate, Felix, and
Festus, who were administrators of Judaea in New Testament times.
Next in rank to the senatorial order stood that of the "Knights." If
the senators represent, in a certain sense, the peerage and
baronetage, the next order represents--also in a certain sense.--the
knightage. Generally speaking, it comprehended what we should call the
upper middle classes, and particularly those concerned in the higher
walks of finance; such persons as, with us, would be the directors or
managers of great companies and banks. It also included persons whom
the head of the state chose to honour with something less than
senatorial standing. Many of these men were extremely wealthy, but the
minimum property qualification stood at only £3200, and Roman citizens
who possessed that amount were rather apt to pose as knights, and to
be commonly spoken of as such by a kind of courtesy title, although
their names could not be found upon the authorised rolls. Though
several emperors did their best to stop this practice, the endeavour
was for the most part fruitless. Once in England the "esquires" were a
class with certain recognised claims, but nothing could stop the
polite tendency to add "Esq." to the name of a person on a private
letter. The case was somewhat similar at Rome, although the practice
did not proceed quite so far.
Nevertheless there was a distinct and official roll of "Roman
knights," whom the head of the state had honoured with a public
present of "the gold ring," a ceremony corresponding to the royal
sword-stroke of modern times. This body, mounted on horses nominally
presented by the public, and riding in procession through the streets,
was reviewed and revised every year. Their roll was called, and if a
name was omitted from its proper place, it meant--without explanation
necessary--that by the pleasure of the emperor the person in question
had ceased to be a knight. Every member of the already-mentioned
higher or senatorial order was by right a knight until he actually
became a senator, from which time he ceased to enjoy the privileges of
a knight because he was enjoying those of the higher order rank. For
there were privileges as well as disabilities in each case. As a
senator could govern large provinces and command armies, but could not
engage in purely financial business; so the knight could--and almost
alone did--conduct the large financial enterprises of the Roman world,
but could not command armies nor hold any of the great public offices
or higher provincial appointments, except the governorship of Egypt.
Relatively to the senators the emperor was technically only "first
among equals"; he was the first senator, as well as the first man of
the state. At this date a senator would hold a truly public office,
civil or military, with or under this "superior equal," but he would
not act as his personal agent or assistant. The Roman aristocrat had
not yet learned to serve in that capacity, still less on the
"household" staff of the autocrat. There were as yet no highly placed
Romans serving as Lord High Chamberlain, much less as Private
Secretary. The "knights" stood in a different position. They were
prepared to be the emperor's personal agents, just as they were
prepared to be the agents of any one else, if sufficiently
remunerated. They would take his personal orders, whether in managing
his estates, collecting his provincial revenues, or relieving him of
some routine portion of his own official labour.
It follows that it was often more lucrative to be a knight than a
senator, and a number of senators were not unwilling to give up their
rank, for the same reasons which induce a modern peer to serve on
companies or a peeress to open a shop. On the other hand many a knight
would have declined to become a senator, at least until he had
sufficiently feathered his nest. The inducement to become or remain a
senator was the social rank, the honour and dignity, with their
outward insignia and the deference paid to them, the front seat, and
the reception at court. In these the wives also shared, and at Rome
the influence of the wife could not be disregarded.
If you met a senator, or a person of senatorial rank, in the street,
you would know him for such by the broad band of purple which ran down
the front, and probably also down the back, of his tunic, and by the
silver or ivory crescent which he wore upon his black shoes. His wife,
it is perhaps needless to say made even more show of what is called
the "broad stripe." If you met a knight, you would perceive his
standing by his two narrow stripes of purple appearing upon the same
part of his dress. Each would wear a gold ring; but that in itself
would prove nothing, since, despite all attempts at prohibiting the
custom, every Roman who could afford a gold ring permitted himself
that luxury.
If you entered one of the large semicircular theatres, which are to be
described in due course, you would find that the men wearing the broad
stripe seated themselves in the chairs which stood upon the level in
front of the stage, while those wearing the narrow stripes would
occupy the first fourteen tiers of seats rising just behind them. No
one else might, occupy those places. If some one who had been
improperly posing as a knight, or who had been degraded from his rank
because he had wasted his credit and his money and no longer possessed
either £3200 or a reputation, ventured to seat himself in the fourteen
rows in the hope of being unnoticed, he would be speedily called upon
by the usher to withdraw. Snobs occasionally made the attempt, and, at
a somewhat later date, we have an amusing epigram of Martial
concerning one who repeatedly but unsuccessfully dodged the usher and
who was at last compelled to kneel in the gangway opposite the end of
the fourteenth row, where it might look to those behind as if he were
sitting among the knights, while technically he could claim that he
was not sitting at all.
Elsewhere also, as for instance at the chariot-races in the Circus,
and at the gladiatorial shows in the amphitheatre, there were special
places set apart for the two orders.
Below the senators and the knights came the "people,"--the "commons,"
or "third estate"--with all its usual grades and its usual variety of
occupation or no occupation, of manners and character or absence of
both. With the life of these, as with the life of a noble, we shall
deal at the proper time.
So much for the Roman citizen proper. Other elements of the population
were the foreigners. At Rome these were exceedingly numerous, and the
city may in this respect be called--as indeed it was called--a
microcosm, a small copy or epitome of the Roman world. Gauls,
Africans, Greeks, Jews, Syrians, and Egyptians were perhaps the most
commonly to be seen, but particularly prominent were the Greeks and
the Jews. The Greeks were recognised above all as the clever men, the
artists, the social entertainers, and the literary guides. The Jews,
who formed a sort of colony in what is now known as Trastevere--the
low-lying quarter across the Tiber--were not yet the princes of high
finance. As yet they were chiefly the hucksters and petty traders,
notorious for their strange habits and for the fanaticism of their
religion, which nevertheless exercised a strange potency and made many
proselytes even in high places, especially among the women. Poppaea,
the wife of Nero himself, is commonly considered to have been such a
proselyte, although the strange notion that she herself was a Jewess
is without any sort of foundation. It is a common error to suppose
that the Jews came to Rome only after the destruction of Jerusalem.
The dispersion had occurred long before Rome had anything to do with
Judaea, and naturally the enterprising Jew was to be found in all
profitable places, whether in Alexandria, Antioch, Smyrna, Corinth,
Rome, or farther afield.
In the political sense all these foreigners belonged to their own
provinces and communities. They might be citizens there, but they were
not citizens at Rome. At Rome they had no public claims and no
official career, unless--as not seldom happened--they received, for
some service or some distinction, the gift of the Roman citizenship.
Sometimes the citizenship was given wholesale to a town, or even to a
province. How the Hebrew father or grandfather of St. Paul became a
Roman citizen, we do not know. Their own abilities or the emperor's
favour might carry such citizens, or their children, up all the steps
which were open to the ordinary Roman.
After the foreigners come the slaves. At Rome itself they formed about
one-third of the population. This is not the moment for any detailed
account of their employment, their treatment, or their liberation.
Suffice it for the present that the slave possessed no rights at all.
He was the chattel of his master, who possessed over him the full
power of life and death, limited only by public opinion and prudential
considerations. A Roman might have at his disposal one slave or ten
thousand slaves. He could use them as he liked, kill them if he chose,
and, subject to certain limitations, set them free if he willed,
provided that he did not set too many free at once. The last
restriction was especially necessary, inasmuch as a slave who was
manumitted by his master with the proper ceremonies became _ipso
facto_ a Roman citizen, but was still bound by certain ties of loyalty
to his former master. For a Roman to possess too large an attachment
of "freedmen," as they were called, might prove dangerous. The
"freedman," though a citizen, could not himself enter upon a public
career; neither, in ordinary circumstances, could his children; but in
the third generation the family stood on an entire equality with any
other Roman family in that respect.
For the present it may be added that our conception of the meaning of
the word "slave" must not be that attached to its modern use. Many
such slaves were men of great special or general ability, or men of
high culture, especially if Greeks, Syrians, Jews, or Egyptians. They
were frequently superior to their masters, and subsequently, as free
citizens, added much to either the refinement or the over-refinement
of Roman life. Perhaps it is as well, in passing, to point out that
the later Roman people was in no small degree descended from all this
aggregation of foreigners and emancipated slaves, and that we must
speak with the greatest reservation when we describe the modern Roman
as a direct descendant of the ancient stock who fought with Hannibal
and subjugated the world.