Roman Aristocrats and the Imperial Court, before and after the sack

Scholars generally agree that the Roman aristocracy and the imperial court were in large part responsible for the Sack of 410, perhaps as much as Alaric and his troops This was already noted by Zosimus, who puts great em-phasis on the political ineptitude and economic self-in-terest of the Roman elites Although most historians nowadays would not subscribe to fifth century views, it remains a consensus that the crisis that culminated in the fall of Rome in August 410 cannot be understood without due consideration of the role played by senators and courtiers As Peter Brown observed four decades ago: “When Alaric was deflected from the Balkans to

the West, however, he faced a society with neither strength nor skill The senators had failed to pay their taxes or to provide recruits for the Roman army […] A strident chauvinism and a refusal to negotiate with the barbarians led to the Sack of Rome by Alaric in 4101 ”

The aim of this article is to discuss these issues, focus-ing on two inter-related questions: what was the impact of the crisis of 408–410 on the imperial court and the Roman aristocracy; and how did these groups react to the developments that took place during this period? In order to do this, I will follow a very specific approach Whereas most scholars are usually concerned with re-constructing the historical events and their immediate context, my aim is to focus on more structural issues2 What was the social composition of these groups, and what dynamics shaped them? How did their interaction help court and aristocracy to define themselves? More fundamentally, who were the Roman aristocrats and the imperial courtiers, and how did they behave during this period?

These are not simple questions, and it would be im-possible to provide definitive answers to them There is, however, plenty of information for discussion, thanks to the impressive progress made by scholars since the publication of the “Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire” I present this information in two forms Tables 1–3 list the holders of high civilian offices in Italy chron-ologically The Appendix presents a list of Roman aris-tocrats, roughly organized chronologically Although relying on the work of prosopographers and employing methods favoured by them, this is not a prosopographic work in itself3 This is because recent years have been marked by important discoveries about the careers and even the existence of members of the late Roman elite4, and dealing with this new information would involve a very different type of analysis

Scholars dealing with this period have usually stud-ied the senatorial aristocracy as a whole, and not just Roman aristocrats This is understandable, since there were important elements, such as cultural and career patterns, that united members of the ordo throughout the Empire5 The political and administrative reforms started by Constantine led to the expansion of member-ship into the clarissimate, incorporating large numbers of imperial officials into it As Peter Heather put it, the rank of clarissimus became “[…] the ultimate distinc-tion aimed for by all participating in the different ca-reer structures of the Empire ”6 At the same time as this process of integration was taking place, the late fourth and early fifth centuries were marked by a process of differentiation between regional elites The creation of the Senate in Constantinople was already consolidated, having generated an aristocracy with its own political power-base and culture7 At the same time, the reign of Honorius was marked by the regionalization of the

Carlos Machado

The Roman Aristocracy and the Imperial Court, before and after the Sack

49

I would like to thank Rita Lizzi Testa, Giovanni Cecconi, and Fernando López Sánchez for kindly send-ing me copies of their work on this topic Thanks are also due to Fabio Faversani and Alexandra Eppinger, who helped me access essential material, and especial-ly to Lizzie o’Keeffe, who improved the text consider-ably

1 Brown 1971, 124 2 Throughout, my discussion is heavily based on the im-

portant works of Matthews 1990, as well as Lizzi Testa 2012 and Cecconi (forthcoming)

3 For useful discussions of the prosopographic method,

1. Umbruch

see Chastagnol 1970, Nicolet 1970 and Stone 1987 The publication of Salzman 2002 and the debate generat-ed by her book is also very useful: see Mathisen 2002; Salzman 2005; Mathisen 2007

4 Especially through the work of epigraphists: see, for example, orlandi 2004, and the most recent fasci-cles of CIL VI, which have considerably changed our knowledge of the Roman senatorial order

5 See, for example, the discussion in Jones 1964, 523–562; more recently, Chastagnol 1992 (a collection of his studies) and Salzman 2002

6 Heather 1998, 189 7 See Heather 1994

50 Carlos Machado

elites, a process that was accelerated by the fragmenta-tion of the Empire towards the end of his reign8 There are good reasons, in this sense, to focus on the Roman aristocracy as a distinct group (although still part of the ordo), with its own interests and dynamics The Senate was, after all, located in Rome, and the city was still home to an unusually high number of imperial offices The former capital, with its economic and political op-portunities, continued to attract aristocrats from differ-ent parts of the Empire More importantly, the Sack and the events leading to it affected the city’s aristocracy (as well as the rest of the population) in a way that requires setting this group apart from the aristocracies of other parts of Italy, such as Milan or Ravenna

The Roman aristocracy was also marked by impor-tant social, political, and economic inequalities This was reflected in legislation that associated position in government with social status, consolidating the hier-archy of rank of clarissimi, spectabiles and illustres in ascending order9 Furthermore, not all aristocrats were members of the Senate, a political association that was limited to a few hundred men10 These differences had an important influence on what we know about the Ro-man aristocracy We are significantly better informed about this smaller group of members of the Senate and the highest-ranking officials and their families than about the majority of clarissimi living in Rome Such imbalance has inevitably led scholars to focus on the likes of Symmachus, Petronius Probus and his wife Pro-ba, and Praetextatus and his wife Paulina, who were the elite of the elite11

Although much of our discussion will be influenced by what is known about these extraordinary men (and women), I have tried to be as comprehensive as possi-ble when identifying members of the Roman aristocra-cy In order to do that I followed three main criteria: a) firstly, I have included all men and women who held the rank of clarissimus or higher I have tried to include also those who are known to have occupied an office that led to promotion to this rank, although these are harder to identify; b) secondly, I have considered those clarissimi who are known to have owned a house, occu-

pied a function, or been buried in the city; c) thirdly, I considered only those who are known with certainty (or that we may safely assume) to have been active between the years 380 and 440, i e , 30 years before and after the Sack This is based on the assumption that the length of one familial generation should be approximately 30 years, leaving us with one full generation before and af-ter 41012 The data was collected from the first two vol-umes of the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire and other prosopographical publications, and I have been able to identity 232 aristocrats who meet at least one of the three criteria13 These are presented rough-ly in chronological order, based on the dates for which they are attested to As a result, I have identified 185 sen-ators as active ‘before’ the Sack, and 47 ‘after’ it Classi-fying a senator in such a fashion is necessarily an arbi-trary procedure: apart from death, there is no reason why a senator active in 409 could not have continued to enjoy an official career later (and in some cases we have evidence for such continued activity) Although I am convinced that this was the best way of dealing with the questions that I am asking, I have indicated in the Ap-pendix the dates when these aristocrats were active, in the hope that other scholars will be able to correct and improve this list – or simply to pose different questions

The Court and the Aristocracy, before the Sack

one of the main difficulties in trying to characterize the Roman aristocracy is the quality of the informa-tion available This can be realized by quickly glancing through the list of known Roman aristocrats presented in the Appendix of the 185 aristocrats active before the Sack, only 40 (21, 6%) are women This is a very low per-centage, even for a male-oriented society such as that of the later Roman empire, and it is a product of the availa-ble evidence that mentions women This consists mainly of Christian writings (especially Jerome) and epitaphs, possibly a by-product of the Christianization of the up-per classes14 Another troubling bias of our sources is the fact that, of 145 male aristocrats identified, 106 (ca

8 one of the underlying themes in Matthews 1990 (see the post-script 391–392), brought to the fore in Wor-mald 1976, 221–222

9 For these developments, see Jones 1964, 143–144 378–379 528–529

10 See Chastagnol 1992, 259–291 for the criteria for enter-ing the Senate

11 Chastagnol 1992 is a good example of both the advan-tages and pitfalls of this approach

12 This is a very conservative estimate: 30 years is among

the highest average age for mothers at the birth of their first child in oECD countries, see http://www.oecd.org/social/familiesandchildren/41919586.pdf (last checked in 08/2011)

13 See the Appendix for the list of aristocrats and the bib-liography consulted

14 For a discussion of gender and the Christianization of the aristocracy (not just in Rome), see Salzman 2002, 138–177

gutomachado

Sticky Note

Please update to new address: http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/SF2.3%20Mean%20age%20of%20mother%20at%20first%20childbirth%20-%20updated%20240212.pdf (last checked in 09/2013).

51The Roman Aristocracy and the Imperial Court, before and after the Sack

73%) were holders of an office of public interest, includ-ing rhetors, architects, and even a deacon15 Clarissimi who were not directly engaged with public office were usually not mentioned by our sources This is natural, since our richest sources for the period are concerned with public life, be it imperial legislation, the work of Ammianus Marcellinus, or inscriptions

It is important to bear these limitations in mind, but we should also remember that they are, in a way, a product of the very social order that we are analyzing In fact, our list actually helps us to visualize important aspects of Roman aristocratic society The most notable of these is its social and political openness This is well illustrated by a letter of Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, urban prefect in 384, to the imperial court In his re-latio, Symmachus requested that the Athenian philos-opher Celsus be adlected into the Senate16 Although we do not know the outcome of Symmachus’ request, the case of Celsus is interesting because it shows that a non-Roman, a man whose main qualification was his knowledge (although he was certainly of some standing in Athens, where his father had also been a philosopher) could be seen as worthy of entering the ranks of the Ro-man aristocracy17

It is impossible to quantify in any meaningful way the different career strategies through which new men became aristocrats, or aristocrats came to Rome, since our information is so limited But we do know that Aux-entius was a vir perfectissimus and governor (praeses) of Cilicia before he appeared in Rome as a vir clarissi-mus in 384 A man of an essentially palatine career, such as Sextus Rusticus Iulianus, could legitimately end up in Rome as urban prefect18 A number of notaries and other officials of the major prefectures show up in our record as viri clarissimi active in Rome, as well as doc-tors, philosophers, and architects The historian Sextus Aurelius Victor, urban prefect in 389, claimed to have been of humble country background (from Africa), and to have improved himself through study19 once some-one had reached – through a given career – the rank of vir clarissimus, it was perfectly possible to move to Rome, even if it were only for a brief tenure of office This can be extended to those who held a position that could fast-track them into the clarissimate, such as the

agens in rebus Severianus, who served as princeps officii at the urban prefecture in 38420

The aristocracy of Rome was a group with fairly ex-tensive geographical connections of the 106 aristocrats known to have held official positions, 32 occupied them outside Italy (ca 30%), including in the eastern prov-inces, by this time usually reserved for members of the eastern senate21 In fact, the actual numbers must be considerably higher, since our knowledge of the guber-natorial fasti of eastern and western provinces is very limited, in comparison with what we know for Italy for example22 At the same time, we find ca 13, 8% of Ro-man aristocrats (men and women) originally from or destined to settle in other provinces, such as Greece, Gaul, and Galatia Here again, the fact that we are bet-ter informed about higher ranking officials suggests that the actual numbers were probably higher: provin-cials who were powerful or well connected moved to wherever the court was, as is the case of the family of Ausonius Humbler provincials (like the young Augus-tine) occupying or vying for middle level offices, have certainly escaped our radar It is impossible to quantify the number of Roman aristocrats with properties in the provinces, although we know that this was the case for the wealthier ones23

The international character of the Roman aristocra-cy is connected to the degree to which this group was integrated into the structures of imperial government As mentioned above, 106 out of the 145 male aristocrats identified (ca 73%) held official positions of these im-perial officials, 36 held positions in the imperial admin-istration (i e , not in a province or Rome), such as prae-torian prefect or comes sacrarum largitionum, as well as humbler agentes in rebus In fact, it seems that the last decades of the fourth century and the first decades of the fifth were marked by an intense collaboration between Roman aristocrats and the imperial court As Matthews observed, this was in large part due to the greater physical proximity between the court in Milan and the Senate, a proximity that enhanced the impor-tance of links of amicitia and diplomacy24

The maintenance of close ties with Roman aristo-crats, as well as with other powerful groups, was of cru-cial importance for a recently established (in the West)

15 Respectively PLRE I, Magnus 10; Cyriades; and Arseni-us 4

16 Symm rel 5 For Celsus, see PLRE I, Celsus 4 17 For this and other examples, see Jones 1964, 523–524 18 See, respectively, PLRE I, Auxentius 5 and Iulianus 37 19 PLRE I, Victor 13 20 PLRE I, Severianus 6

21 E g , PLRE I, Praetextatus 1; Ampelius 3; and Flavianus 14

22 For the recent fasti of Italian governors, see Cecconi 1994

23 See for example Jones 1964, 782 24 Matthews 1990, 256

52 Carlos Machado

Theodosian dynasty In order to consolidate its position, the regime of Honorius and his general and protector Stilicho relied on old associates of the emperor Theodo-sius25 The reappearance of Flavius Mallius Theodorus, a former associate of Gratian, first as praetorian prefect of Italy in 397–398 and consul in 399, is another sign that Honorius and his associates were trying to consoli-date their power-base26 Members of Theodorus’ family also reached important positions, including the urban prefecture27, suggesting that although maintaining close contact with Roman aristocrats the government did not rely exclusively on them

These movements within the court can be best ap-preciated when we consider the information gathered in Table 1, presenting known office-holders for the main posts between 401 and 408 The consular fasti of this period is a good illustration of the role played by Ro-man aristocrats Two members of prestigious Roman families, Flavius Anicius Petronius Probus and Anicius Auchenius Bassus, held the consulship (in 406 and 408, respectively) Roman aristocrats had held such a posi-tion in previous years: in 395, Anicius Hermogenianus olybrius and Anicius Probinus had occupied the sum-mit of public life at an unusually young age28 They were brothers of the consul of 406, and attest to the impor-tance of the family of Sextus Petronius Probus, even after the death of their father In 397, another Roman aristocrat, Nonius Atticus Maximus, was appointed consul He had been praetorian prefect (of Italy) during the reign of Gratian, just as Theodorus (not a Roman) had been consul in 39929 Links with previous regimes were definitely taken into account when considering political appointments Even the consulship of the chil-dren of Sextus Petronius Probus could be seen as a nod to the Roman aristocracy, and also to the previous re-gime and its powerful figures The same could be said of the appointment of Flavius Rumoridus, magister mili-tum in 384, to the consulship in 406 – perhaps connect-ed to Radagaisus’ invasion of Italy30 other aristocratic groups also occupied positions of power Appointments

to the consulship should be read as responses to specific political needs and situations, as part of political nego-tiations that involved Roman families, as well as repre-sentatives of different power-blocks

The praetorian prefecture of Italy was marked by considerable stability during this period Hadrianus, an Alexandrian who probably came to the West with the court of Theodosius, first appeared as comes sacrarum largitionum in 395, then magister officiorum in 397–399, until his appointment as praetorian prefect from 401 to 40531 Unfortunately, we are not certain about who held this office in the following years, possibly Flavius Macrobius Longinianus, who is certainly attested to as prefect in 40832 Longinianus had a successful career in the court, and had been prefect of Rome at the turn of the century33 It is impossible to identify a pattern in the appointments to the praetorian prefecture of Italy The long tenure of Hadrianus, and the appointment of Longinianus (even if just for one year), suggest that the court kept a firm grip on the government of Italy

The pattern of appointments to the urban prefecture, the highest office in Rome and one which was usual-ly associated with the local elite, also suggests a close supervision by the court34 Members of the Roman aristocracy continued to be nominated prefects of the city, such as Caecina Decius Albinus iunior, prefect in 402, and Postumius Lampadius (a native from Capua), sometime between 403 and 40835 More often, howev-er, we find men with careers closely associated with the court Such was the case of Protadius (in 400/401), who had a career and a brother in the court; Flavius Pisidius Romulus (406), who had spent a period in the court of Theodosius in the East; and Flavius Peregrinus Saturni-nus (if we accept the dating suggested by André Chast-agnol)36 A good example is the later praetorian prefect Longinianus, the official responsible for the dedication of the most important public works in Rome during this period: the enlargement of the Aurelian Wall As comes sacrarum largitionum in 399, Longinianus fined the then urban prefect Nicomachus Flavianus, prompt-

25 See discussion in Matthews 1990, 258–264; also Del-maire 1989, 121

26 See PLRE I, Theodorus 27 27 His brother was Lampadius, prefect in 398: see PLRE

II, Lampadius 1, with comments in Matthews 1990, 262

28 See respectively PLRE I, Probinus 1 and olybrius 2 29 PLRE I, Maximus 34; Flavius Mallius Theodorus was

PPo Pretorian Prefect of Gaul in 382: PLRE I, Theo-dorus 27

30 As suggested by PLRE I, Rumoridus 31 on Hadrianus, see PLRE I, Hadrianus 2; Delmaire

1989, 137–141; and Matthews 1990, 263–264 32 Suggested by Chastagnol 1962, 256–257; but see the ob-

jections of Delmaire 1989, 157 33 For his career, see also PLRE II, Longinianus 34 See the analysis of Chastagnol 1960, 392–457 35 See, for Albinus: PLRE I, Albinus 10 and Chastagnol

1962, 257–260; for Lampadius, PLRE II, Lampadius 7 and Chastagnol 1962, 260–261

36 Respectively: PLRE I, Protadius 1 and Chastagnol 1962, 253–255; I, Romulus 5 and Chastagnol 1962, 262–264; and PLRE II, Saturninus 2 and Chastagnol 1962, 261–262


ing Symmachus to write two letters of complaint37 Al-though they may have had different backgrounds and priorities, the imperial court and the Roman aristocracy were inextricably linked, as indicated by the fact that both Longinianus and Protadius were correspondents of Symmachus38 Consequently, the court was able to impose its own policies, while at the same time negoti-ating with the local elite

We are poorly informed about the magistri officiorum and the comites rei privatae for this period The situa-tion is very different, however, in the case of the office of comes sacrarum lartigionum, and here we can appreci-ate an unusual example of institutional stability Lime-nius is last attested to as holding this office on 27 March 401; on 28 April the new comes Patroinus received Cod Theod 6, 2, 2239 Patroinus was closely connected to the court, where his brother Petronius was a man of influ-ence He was also a correspondent of Symmachus, and as such a good example of the possible links between court and Roman aristocracy The fact that he remained in office during years of serious financial difficulties in-dicates the influence he held in Honorius’ government

As this brief analysis of the occupants of the highest offices in the court suggests, the relationship between Roman aristocrats and courtiers was essentially prag-matic The court of Honorius preserved its ability to pursue its own policies, imposing its own officials, while at the same time Roman aristocrats were able to exert their influence by occupying positions and maintaining personal links to courtiers Although complementary, these two groups were essentially different

It is in this perspective that we should consider the dynamics that marked the relationship between aristo-crats and courtiers in the reign of Honorius We may form a more accurate picture by focusing on a specific sequence of events, starting with the rebellion of Gildo in 397 When the African comes et magister utriusque militiae suspended the export of grain to Rome and shifted his allegiance to the eastern court, the western government was thrown into a serious crisis Its largest city, Rome, was badly affected by famine, while the eco-nomic and political importance of North Africa made its loss a real limitation to imperial ambitions40 For a short period, there were intense negotiations between

114 44 For our purpose, the best narrative and analysis of

these events is – again – Matthews 1990, 268–270 45 Cod Theod 7, 13, 12, from 17/06/397 46 Cod Theod 7, 13, 13 47 Symm epist 5, 63 48 Symm epist 6, 64 49 Symm epist 6, 64, 3, with Chastagnol 1962, 249

37 Symm epist 7, 96 and 7, 100 38 An opposition suggested by Chastagnol 1960, 443–444 39 See PLRE II, Patroinus and Delmaire 19989, 164–167 40 For a narative of these events see Matthews 1990, 268–

269; also Blockley 1998, 115 41 Matthews 1990, 268; also Cameron 1970, 231 42 Symm epist 4, 5 43 For the transfer of troops to the East, see Blockley 1998,

the central government and the Roman aristocracy Pride of place should go to the imperial request that the Senate declare Gildo a public enemy41 The decision of the Senate was communicated by Symmachus to Stili-cho himself, in a letter in which the general was also alerted of the pressing problems with the grain supply of Rome42

Equally important was the need to rearm and re-act: after having lost part of its troops to the East, the government increased its pressure on aristocrats and landowners in general, directly affecting members of the Roman elite43 The need for soldiers to face growing military needs led the government to order the enforced recruitment of workers in rural properties44 Even im-perial properties, across different provinces, were sub-ject to this ruling45 The measure affected senators, as indicated by a law of 24 September 397, issued at the request of the senatorial order, allowing the payment of gold instead of the provision of army recruits46 A let-ter of Symmachus to the comes sacrarum largitionum Paternus, datable to 397–398, probably belongs to this context47 The letter mentions abuses of tax collectors and the problems faced by the senator Minucianus, ask-ing that the latter be tried by the urban prefect in Rome, probably expecting more leniency The case of Sym-machus and Minucianus illustrates two aspects of the relationship between court and aristocracy In the first place, the problems posed by growing imperial pres-sure over senatorial land-owners; in the second place, the political negotiations and privileges that could be sought through carefully maintained contact between members of the two groups

The pressure was renewed in 398, as shown by a let-ter of Symmachus to his son-in-law Nicomachus Fla-vianus48, where he mentions reactions in Rome to the conscription of soldiers, in addition to the imperial demand for payments The prefect of Rome, Floren-tinus, was replaced by Lampadius, the brother of the then praetorian prefect Theodorus – a measure of the ascendancy of the family, but also of governmental in-terest in getting things done49 The Senate responded by sending an embassy, about which we are informed thanks to the survival of Symmachus’ correspondence with some of the officials involved In a letter to Priscus

54 Carlos Machado

Attalus, a member of the delegation, Symmachus asks for news about the embassy50 The Roman senator then wrote to Flavianus, to inform him of the progress in the negotiations, and on another occasion to tell him of the success of the initiative before official confirmation from the court had reached Rome51

The events surrounding the rebellion of Gildo set the tone for the relations between aristocrats and courtiers for the years to come It involved the frantic exchange of delegations and letters between Senate and court, as well as a growing financial pressure on senators and political negotiations to obtain exemptions It showed, furthermore, the degree to which the success of the western Empire depended on the collaboration of two groups whose interests were not necessarily identical, especially in times of crisis52 These events also demon-strate how a period of political turmoil could become a possibility for personal advancement over the course of the negotiations, Symmachus addressed letters of recommendation in favour of the senatorial ambassador (and future imperial usurper) Priscus Attalus to at least three imperial officials, all of whom connected to the financial administration of the Empire (certainly not a coincidence, considering the issues at stake)53

From the Fall of Stilicho to the Capture of Rome

The first years of the fifth century were unusually eventful, even by the standards of the later Roman Em-pire Between 401 and 408, the western Empire was put under severe military and financial pressure by invaders like Alaric and Radagaisus, as well as by usurpers Such a succession of troubles put a severe strain on the settle-ment between court and Roman aristocracy Claudian’s De Bello Getico presents a vivid depiction of the political anxieties of the time Read in Rome, after the victory of

Stilicho’s troops over Alaric in 402, the poem describes the panic that spread through all of Italy, including the former capital54 The defenses of Italian cities were frail, Italians fled to the islands, and wealth was considered a burden, at a time of escalating violence55

The years following the defeat of Alaric near Vero-na (402) witnessed the renewal of imperial pressure for men and funds In 403, a series of laws addressed to the praetorian prefect, Hadrianus, dealt with the problem of deserters, also threatening punishment for those hiding them56 In 405, the same Hadrianus received a law insti-tuting the extraordinary taxation of owners of houses, private baths, and shops for one year57 The same issues are seen during the invasion of Radagaisus (404/405) Two laws were issued at the beginning of 406, dealing with the recruitment of soldiers; one of them promised freedom to slaves who decided to enroll58 Troubles in Gaul, and the usurpation of Constantine III in 406-407, brought more difficulties to the government A law is-sued in November 407 determined that the revenues of temples should be confiscated and used for the military annona59 However, the most serious threat to the al-liance between government and aristocracy was some-thing that cannot be quantified or properly assessed, something that scholars have identified as an anti-bar-barian opinion, which certainly played a major role in the decline and fall of Stilicho and his supporters60

Although there is no clear starting point for the pro-cess that led to the execution of Stilicho and his col-leagues and the Sack of Rome in 410, it seems clear that Alaric’s threat to invade Italy and his demands for payment, at the beginning of 408, played an important role61 Alaric’s demands were fulfilled, a decision that involved a meeting of the Senate in which both Stili-cho and Honorius took part62 Honorius then decided to relocate to Ravenna, against the interest of Stilicho; the city became his residence for the rest of his reign63

50 Symm epist 7, 21 51 Symm epist 6, 58 (saying that Honorius had interrupt-

ed conscriptions until a decision could be reached) and Symm epist 6, 62 (announcing that the embassy had been successful)

52 Matthews 1990, 269 talks of ‘the limits of tolerance be-tween the senate and the court’

53 Symm epist 7, 54 to the magister officiorum Hadri-anus (later praetorian prefect), former comes sacrarum largitionum; Symm epist 7, 113 to Patroinus, possibly magister scrinium (Delmaire 1989, 166), later comes sacrarum largitionum; and Symm epist 114 to Petron-ius, possibly comes rei privatae in 401 (Delmaire 1989, 169, with doubts)

54 See Cameron 1970, 180 55 Claud Get 213–226

56 Cod Theod 7, 18, 11–13, from 24/02, 25/07, and 02/10/403

57 Cod Theod 11, 20, 3, from 05/10/405 58 Cod Theod 7, 13, 16–17, respectively dated 17 and 19 of

April Seeck 1919, 102 suggested February instead 59 Cod Theod 16, 10, 19 60 See Cameron 1970, 415 and Matthews 1990, 279 for this

opinion 61 Zos 5, 29, 5 For a presentation of the events, see Mat-

thews 1990, 278–300 62 See the narrative in Zos 5, 29, 5–9 The meeting took

place in May 408 (following the chronology suggested by Paschoud 1986, 217–219)

63 Zos 5, 30, 1–3; for Ravenna as Honorius’ residence, see Gillett 2001, 141


The emperor received news of the death of his brother Arcadius while still in Rome, and he was convinced in a meeting with Stilicho not to leave Italy, but to send his general to Constantinople instead64 From there Hono-rius proceeded to Ticinum (present-day Pavia), where the troops departing to confront Constantine III in Gaul were assembled It was in Ticinum that a rebellion of the soldiery, instigated by olympius, resulted in the killing of the highest officials in government on August 13: the praetorian prefect of Gaul (Limenius), of Italy (Longinianus), the magister officiorum (Naemorius), the comes sacrarum largitiones (Patroinus), the quaestor sacri palatii (Salvius) and the comes rei privatae (uni-dentified) Stilicho himself was executed in Ravenna, on 22 August65

The physical extermination of the government led by Stilicho set in motion a series of events that culminated in the Sack of Rome Rather than presenting a narrative of these events, however, my aim is to understand their impact on the aristocracy and the court, and how these two groups reacted to them This can be best achieved by focusing on three issues that gained prominence during these years: the divided character of the Roman aristocracy; the relationship between government and aristocrats, especially in terms of the financial problems faced by the court; and finally, the political instability faced by the government, and the opportunities it of-fered to ambitious men

a) Political divisionsThe Roman aristocracy was a strongly divided group66 This can be clearly seen in Zosimus’ narrative of the meeting convened by Stilicho and Honorius at the be-ginning of 408 to discuss the demands of Alaric – 4,000 lbs of gold67 The majority of the Senate voted against it, and in favour of war – against Stilicho and his sup-porters Most changed their vote, however, for fear of reprisal; only Lampadius, brother of Flavius Mallius Theodorus and prefect of Rome in 398, voiced his dis-agreement The most interesting element in this nar-rative is not the fact that Stilicho should be criticized

(with a quote from Cicero’s Philippics68), but that it was done by a member of a family that had played a cru-cial role in the consolidation of the regime Lampadi-us’ initiative suggests that there were vertical divisions, uniting groups of senators and of courtiers, as well as horizontal ones (i e , between members of the Senate or the court only) The existence of political divisions was also visible after the downfall of Stilicho Four laws, issued between 24 September and 29 November of that same year determined the confiscation of properties of the general’s supporters, certainly affecting a number of Roman aristocrats69 Three of these laws were addressed to the new praetorian prefect Theodorus, either Flavius Mallius Theodorus himself, or (more likely) his son70 In any case, it was a relative of Lampadius

Another important line of division was religious Historians have traditionally overemphasized the op-position between pagans and Christians, and André Chastagnol went as far as analyzing Stilicho’s policies in terms of his connection with a pagan and a Christian party in the court and Senate71 Although this picture has now been heavily criticized, it seems clear from the evidence that there were significant differences between these religious groups72 Contemporaries like Augustine and orosius responded to accusations against Christi-anity, and Sozomen affirmed that pagans and heretics supported the usurpation of Priscus Attalus73 These are certainly biased accounts, but they illustrate the fact that religious divisions were seen as relevant

More importantly, as a law from November 408 ban-ning pagans from official positions shows74, these divi-sions could affect even the access to positions of power Although specific to the palace, the ruling must have been part of a broader policy This is suggested by the case of Generidus, a pagan who refused to take office because of this ban, leading the court to revise its poli-cy75 The story involving the urban prefect Pompeianus is also interesting here; he received the visit of haruspic-es during the first siege of Rome, and negotiated the per-formance of traditional rites in the Forum and Capitol Authorization for the ceremonies was negotiated with

64 Zos 5, 31, 3–6; the meeting lasted from the end of May until the beginning of August

65 See the full narative of the events in Zos 5, 32, 1–34, 7 66 Lizzi Testa 2004 (for the fourth century) and Lizzi Tes-

ta 2012 (early fifth) are essential for what follows 67 Zos 5, 29, 5–9 Zosimus follows the text of olympi-

odorus, see discussion in Matthews 1970, 81–82 and especially 86

68 Cic Phil 12, 14 69 See Cod Theod 9, 42, 20–22 and 5, 16, 31, with Mat-

thews 1990, 264; see also discussion above

70 See PLRE II, Theodorus 9 The laws are Cod Theod 9, 42, 20–22

71 Chastagnol 1960, 166 72 As shown by Lizzi Testa 2012; for the criticism of the

traditional view, see Cameron 2011, 194 (but Lizzi Tes-ta’s observations must be kept in mind)

73 Soz hist 5, 46, 3–5 See Marcone 2008, for Augustine and orosius

74 Cod Theod 16, 5, 42 75 Zos 5, 46, 3–5

56 Carlos Machado

Innocent, bishop of the city, but the rites were never ac-tually performed76 This is not the place to discuss Pom-peianus’ personal beliefs, nor the issue of a ‘mini pagan revival’77 What is relevant for us here is that during the early fifth century the aristocracy was involved in a de-bate concerning the place of traditional rites in Rome’s public life This same debate also involved Christianity and the behaviour of its most ardent adherents This is shown by the case of Melania and her husband Pini-anus, who wanted to donate all their property, gener-ating a strong reaction from the Senate and even the urban prefect, the same Pompeianus78

The most important divisions were of a political na-ture The elevation of the senator Priscus Attalus to the throne in late 409, during the second siege of Rome, al-lows us to question even the degree to which the Roman aristocracy was committed to the reign of Honorius As Giovanni Cecconi and Rita Lizzi Testa have recent-ly showed, there are some interesting discrepancies in our sources (all of them derived from olympiodorus), which should be taken into account here79 The most straightforward narrative is that of Sozomen, who af-firms that it was Alaric who compelled the Romans to recognize Attalus as emperor80 Zosimus introduces another element in the process, the Senate According to him, the Senate gathered after Alaric took Portus It decided to accept all of his demands (money and hos-tages) and summoned him to the city, where it set up the new emperor following his orders81 The most in-teresting account is that of Philostorgius, who says that after Stilicho took the city (in itself an interesting piece of information), Alaric and the Senate chose Attalus as emperor, in unison82 It is impossible to be certain about which version is closer to the original, but the involve-ment of senators in the accession of Attalus certainly cannot be ruled out The possibility that at least part of the aristocracy was willing to collaborate with Alaric is reinforced by the fact that a close associate of Alaric and primicerius notariorum, Iohannes, was an important member of the embassy sent by the Senate to negotiate with the Visigothic king83

Historically, the Roman Senate had been marked by great diversity Although we should not think in terms of organized political parties, we should leave room for disagreements and convergences between different groups of senators Narrating the events that took place during the usurpation of Attalus, Zosimus tells us that all Romans were happy with the new regime The only exception, he says, was the family of the Anicii, who con-trolled all of the city’s wealth84 The Anicii were among the most influential families in the late fourth and fifth century West As mentioned above, the family could boast of three consuls – all brothers – between 395 and 408 (more would come later) The rumour recorded in Procopius, that the mother of the three consuls, Proba, had allowed the entrance of the barbarians, may in fact be seen as evidence of divisions within the aristocracy85 A division can also be seen in the debate concerning the dispatch of troops to North Africa, to oust Heraclian and take the region from Honorius Although the ma-jority of the Senate sided with Alaric and voted to send the barbarian Drumas, the opinion that prevailed was that of Attalus and a small group of senators, who were against the idea86 In this sense, the edict addressed by the court of Honorius in February 410 to Gaiso, magis-ter officiorum, in which amnesty was granted to those who abandoned Attalus, could be seen as an attempt at exploiting divisions within the Roman aristocracy87

b) Financial pressure, the court and the aristocracyIt is possible that the Roman aristocracy was not more divided between 408–410 than before or after The po-litical circumstances of the time made these divisions more visible (at least to us), and this is why we have to look at the broader context of the relationship between court and aristocracy The funding of the government’s needs represented a crucial element in the dynamics between the aristocracy and the court, and it is worth focusing on it here The finances of the late Roman state had traditionally been a concern of imperial officials, but this issue seems to have reached a crucial point in the early fifth century This is perhaps best demon-

76 Zos 5, 41, 1–3 and Soz hist 9, 6, 3–5 (Sozomen says the rites would involve other temples too)

77 Chastagnol 1960, 166; the expression is used by Camer-on 2011, 190–194

78 Vita Melaniae Gr 19; Vita Melaniae Lat 19, 7 79 See Cecconi (forthcoming) and Lizzi Testa 2012 For

the career of Attalus, whom we first met as a senatori-al delegate to the court during the Gildonic crisis, see PLRE II, Attalus 2

80 Soz hist 9, 8, 1 This is the most commonly accepted view, see PLRE II, Attalus 2 and Matthews 1990, 295

81 Soz hist 6, 6, 3–7, 1

82 Philostr 12, 3; see Cecconi (forthcoming) for discus-sion; Matthews 1970, 81 discusses the use of olympi-odorus by Philostorgius Senatorial involvement is also suggested by López Zánchez 2003, 281

83 Zos 5, 40, 2; PLRE I, Iohannes 2 on primicerii, see Jones 1964, 573–575, who observes that they ranked above proconsuls

84 Zos 6, 7, 4 85 Prok BV 3, 2, 27 86 Zos 6, 12, 1 87 Cod Theod 9, 38, 11

Menzel

Durchstreichen

Menzel

Ersatztext

shown


strated by the argument used by Stilicho to convince Honorius not to depart from Italy, at the news of his brother’s death: there was simply no money for such an expensive enterprise88 Besides the usual expenses, the imperial purse must have felt particularly squeezed with the reappearance of Alaric, at a time when it was being forced to deal with the successful usurpation of Constantine III in Gaul To the usual taxes and financial demands, the downfall of Stilicho added one more point of contention – a series of confiscations As mentioned above, between September and November 408, Hono-rius issued a series of laws confiscating the properties of the supporters of the ousted general89 At the end of November, the comes rei privatae Volusianus received an edict ordering the confiscation of all public property improperly appropriated by privates, probably distrib-uted by Stilicho90 Soon afterwards, in December, He-liocrates was appointed to succeed Volusianus, and was sent to Rome to enforce the confiscations91

We have no idea of which aristocrats were affected by these financial pressures, but it is noteworthy that im-portant families like the Anicii and the Symmachi had supported Stilicho’s policies, and had probably profited from it Taking properties from well-connected and powerful political leaders was not a simple task, and it is not surprising that a few weeks after Heliocrates was appointed, Honorius made Priscus Attalus comes sacrarum largitionum and sent him to Rome92 There is no obvious reason why the task should have been trans-ferred from the office of the res privata to that of the sacrae largitiones Zosimus tells us that Heliocrates was too lenient, a charge that he acknowledged by seeking asylum in a church Attalus, on the other hand, was a senior senator, having been chosen by his peers to take part in two important embassies to the court, and he must have held more authority among the Roman elite He was soon replaced by Demetrius, however, when he was promoted to the urban pefecture93

To the continued pressure by the court we should add the financial pressure exerted by the dealings with Alaric Zosimus’ narrative of the negotiations between the Senate and Alaric in 408 reports that the senators

agreed to pay 5,000 lbs of gold (after having paid 4,000 at the beginning of the year) and 30,000 lbs of silver and other valuables94 The sum was not paid for by the city, but by its aristocracy Payment was defined according to the census, and the comes sacrarum largitionum Palla-dius was put in charge of collecting the funds95 Jerome probably referred to these events, when he observed in a letter from 409 that Rome was not fighting, but buy-ing life for the price of gold and all of her goods96 A number of aristocrats tried not to pay, however, be it because they hid their money or because they were al-ready considerably impoverished by that stage To this should be added a reference in Sozomen97, that during the siege Romans had been sending gifts to their besieg-er, possibly trying to establish diplomatic ties and buy his goodwill

c) Instability and opportunismThe political divisions and the economic turbulence that affected the relationship between court and aris-tocracy were related to our third element – the insta-bility that affected the western imperial government, and the political opportunism of the Roman elites As Table 2 shows, the period between 408 and 410 was marked by sudden rearrangements in the govern-ment The coup that removed Stilicho and his regime from power was essentially a palatial plot The magis-ter scrinii olympius, the leader of the movement, was originally connected to Stilicho himself, and was able to exploit the decline of his influence98 The changes were visible to the better informed before they actually took place Justinianus, a lawyer in Rome and advisor of Stilicho, was able to see that his patron was about to be overthrown, and distanced himself from him99 The government that had ruled the West from 395 until 408 disappeared in a matter of days, and it was replaced by a cabinet dominated by the now magister officiorum olympius Theodorus, whom we already met, was made praetorian prefect In Rome, Nicomachus Flavianus, a son-in-law of Symmachus whose restoration in 399 was largely due to Stilicho, occupied the urban prefecture for a short period, until he was replaced by Pompeianus

88 Recorded in Zos 5, 31, 4; see the comments of Mat-thews 1990, 280, who calls it “a striking illustration of the chronic impoverishment of the government”

89 Cod Theod 9, 42, 20–22 and 5, 16, 31 90 Cod Theod 5, 16, 31; for the interpretation of the law,

see Delmaire 1989, 173 91 Zos 5, 35, 4; see PLRE II, Heliocrates 1 and Delmaire

1989, 175, on Heliocrates 92 Zos 5, 45, 3

93 Zos 5, 46, 1 94 Zos 5, 29, 5 95 on Palladius, see PLRE II, Palladius 19 and Delmaire

1989, 194–196 96 Hier epist 123, 16 97 Zos 9, 6, 7 98 olymp frag 5, 1; PLRE II, olympius 2 99 Zos 5, 30, 4–5; PLRE II, Iustinianus 2

58 Carlos Machado

As these appointments show, the break with the ousted regime was not complete, as olympius sought at least part of his support among the same groups

The cabinet was reshuffled again in 409, when the Senate sent an embassy to urge the ratification by the court of the treaty it had made with Alaric olympius, whose policy refused cooperation, thwarted the agree-ment, but he appointed two of the ambassadors, Cae-cilianus and Attalus, to the posts of praetorian prefect and comes sacrarum largitionum, respectively100 This is usually seen as evidence of a lack of a coherent policy by the government, or as the beginning of the downfall of the new regime101 It makes more sense, however, to see the appointment of powerful senators as a strategy to secure the support of members of the Roman aristoc-racy at a time of unpopular and costly initiatives We should not forget that olympius’ policy led to the recog-nition of Constantine III as Augustus; to the refusal to negotiate with Alaric; and to the enforcement of meas-ures against former allies of Stilicho102 The success of this strategy is suggested by the enthusiasm with which Attalus proceeded to Rome to enforce the confiscations (see above), and especially by Caecilianus’ willingness to torture supporters of the previous regime103

The regime of olympius did not last for very long Al-ready in early 409, a conspiracy in the court removed him from power, showing that in moments of insta-bility proximity to the emperor could be an advantage but also a risk104 This time, however, one can see a par-tial shift in policy towards Alaric The new praetorian prefect, Jovius, had been an associate of Alaric in the thwarted plans for taking over Illyricum in 407105 At-talus, again in Ravenna, was promoted to urban prefect, occupying the position that had remained vacant after the death of Pompeianus106 At the same time, Demetri-us was appointed to the office of either comes sacrarum largitionum or comes rei privatae, to continue the pre-vious policy of confiscating properties of the Stilicho’s supporters

During the years 408–410, a number of court in-trigues in theled to the collapse of different govern-

ments At the same time, each new regime had to in-corporate members of the Roman aristocracy (among other groups), attesting to the political opportunism of the city’s elite The most emblematic case in this respect is that of Priscus Attalus107 In 398, he took part in the successful senatorial embassy to the court, when his friendship with Symmachus paid dividends by helping him to establish a relationship with finance officials in Milan As far as we know, Attalus did not occupy any official position until taking part in another senatori-al delegation to the court, in early 409 Although the embassy did not succeed in its objectives, he was made comes sacrarum largitionum and, after another embas-sy, prefect of Rome His elevation to the purple should not be seen, therefore, as the elevation of a puppet, but that of an ambitious and skilful politician

At least part of the Roman aristocracy was involved in the political programme of Attalus108 The new regime formed what was essentially a Roman government109 The main civilian appointments included the praeto-rian prefect Lampadius, the urban prefect Marcianus, and the magister officiorum Iohannes, all experienced politicians who had occupied positions in the court of Honorius110 We do not have any information about the earlier career of Tertullus, who was appointed consul for 410; however, if the information recorded by Paul the Deacon that he entertained the ambition of being an emperor is to be believed111, then he must have been a man of some standing

We should not forget that the generation living be-tween 380 and 410 had already experienced two impor-tant usurpations, that of Magnus Maximus in 383–388 and of Eugenius in 392–394 Aristocrats like Symma-chus and Flavianus were deeply involved in these up-risings, just as they had been connected to the regimes against which they rebelled Whether in Rome or Ra-venna, these were men who were familiar with the kinds of opportunities and risks that followed political upheaval When Stilicho was executed and Alaric en-tered Italy in 408, senators and courtiers were able to make the most of their positions of power and of their

100 Zos 5, 44, 1–2 101 Matthews 1990, 292 calls olympius’ policy inconsist-

ent Paschoud 1986, 294, in his note 102, p 244 to the book 5 of Zosimus, suggests a distancing between the emperor and olympius

102 Zos 5, 43, 1–2 103 Zos 5, 44, 2 104 Zos 5, 46, 1 (saying that the conspiracy was led by eu-

nuchs) The fate of olympius is not clear: Zosimus says that olympius fled to Dalmatia, and Philostorgius 12, 1 says that he was executed at a later date

105 PLRE II, Jovius 3 106 Zos 5, 46, 1, for the promotion of Attalus Pompeianus

had been killed by a mob during the famine: Vita Mel-aniae Gr 19

107 For Attalus’ career, see PLRE II, Attalus 2 and Cecconi (forthcoming)

108 As demonstrated by Cecconi (forthcoming) and Lizzi Testa 2012

109 Issuing its own coinage: López Sánchez 2003 110 As noted by Delmaire 1997, 125 111 Paul Hist Rom 13, 1


personal relationships In any case, such political ruth-lessness paid off When Alaric deprived Attalus of the imperial power, in 410, Honorius granted pardon to all of those involved in the usurpation, and officially recog-nized the rank and office occupied by them112

The fifth century settlement

It is very difficult to assess the impact of the crisis of 408–410 on the Roman aristocracy and the imperial government113 Scholars are now more sensitive to the problems posed by contemporary accounts Jerome, for example, presents a dramatic picture, mentioning sen-ators killed during the Sack and the arrival of impover-ished aristocrats to Palestine114 At the same time, he complains of the Romans who spent huge sums of mon-ey on selfish works115, even after the crisis Different au-thors, in fact, report that Romans insisted on behaving as if the sieges and the Sack of the city had never hap-pened116 Just as striking as the apparent contradiction between catastrophe and continuity were the efforts to restore normality117 In 414, the urban prefect Albinus observed to the court that the resources for the Roman annona were not enough for the city’s growing popula-tion118 Two years earlier, possibly at the request of the urban prefect Palmatus, an imperial law determined that members of corporations that were essential to the service of the city were to return to Rome119

As Matthews observed, the restoration efforts led to a closer association between imperial court and sen-atorial elite This is suggested by the number of those involved in public service of the 40 male aristocrats known to have been active after 410 (see Appendix), 31 held office That is 77, 5%, up from 72% in the previous period of these 31 office holders, 13 served at the court, approximately 32, 5% (from 24% in the previous period) This proportion grows to 65%, if we consider those ap-pointed to the urban prefecture as ‘court officials’, since they were appointed by the emperor (it was ca 42, 7% between 380–410) The Roman aristocracy and the court seem to have grown more integrated in the years following the crisis of 408–410

Perhaps more importantly, the Roman aristocracy of the fifth century was a very different social group from what it had been a few decades earlier It is symptomat-ic that we have information about so few senators ac-tive in this period in Rome This is explained, in part, by the nature of our evidence (mainly the Theodosian Code and public inscriptions), which is more concerned with officials of the rank of illustres This is perhaps the greatest difficulty for anyone studying the Roman aris-tocracy in the fifth century

However, if we consider the limited character of the information as an expression of a hierarchical socie-ty dominated by a few powerful men, there are a few elements that become discernible As the list in the Appendix suggests, the Roman aristocracy was less in-ternational and less diverse only five out of the 47 aris-tocrats known for this period (10, 6%) had internation-al links, less than half of what we found for the earlier period (24, 3%) This is in contrast with what Rutilius Namatianus says in his praise of the Roman Senate – that it was open to foreigners of merit120 The comments of Rutilius cannot be dismissed, but we should not for-get that he was only partly foreign: his father Lachanius had occupied important positions in the court, probably even the urban prefecture of Rome itself121 It is not just that Roman aristocrats were less international in their origins or careers, but also in their political connec-tions and experiences only two out of the 31 aristocrats known to have held office occupied positions outside the Italian peninsula

These changes in the character of the Roman aris-tocracy should be considered in the context of develop-ments in the composition of the government (Table 3) The identities of comites rei privatae between 411–420 are not of much help, since we know so little about them In 411, the post was occupied by Macedonius, possibly an aristocratic friend of Symmachus, but this cannot be proven122 Nothing is known about Ursacius, although he remained in office for three years The case of comites sacrarum largitionum is more revealing in this respect, as we are better informed about them Between 412 and 414 the position was occupied by Probus, a member of the Anician family and possibly the consul of 406, son

112 Soz hist 9, 8, 10 113 Courcelle 1948, 35–37 collects the literary evidence for

this 114 In the prefaces to books 1, 3, and 7 to Hier comm in

Ez ; see also his epist 127 115 Hier epist 128, 5 116 E g , Aug C D #de civitate dei?#1, 32–33, for Romans

in Carthage; oros hist 7, 40, 1–2 The Sack of August 410 does not appear in the fifth century calendar of Po-

lemius Silvius, but the Gallic Sack of 390 B C does 117 See discussion in Matthews 1990, 354–355 118 olymp frag 25; see Chastagnol 1960, 292 119 Cod Theod 14, 2, 4 (from 29 March 412) 120 Rut Nam 1, 13–14 121 PLRE I, Lachanius 122 Delmaire 1989, 182 thinks so, suggesting that this Mac-

edonius was the same as PLRE I, Macedonius 5 For an alternative view, see PLRE II, Macedonius 2

gutomachado

Sticky Note

Correct

60 Carlos Machado

of Sextus Petronius Probus123 We cannot be certain about when Petronius Maximus, the next comes known, took office Whether from 415 or 416, he remained in charge for three years, from the age of 19124 Is it possible that, after the turmoil of 408–410, the court opted for longer terms in office and greater stability, incorporat-ing members of powerful Roman families?

Unfortunately nothing is known about quaestores sacri palatii, and the only magister officiorum known is Rutilius Namatianus, who was in office in 412 We are much better informed, however, in the case of the prefecture of Rome In fact, we are fortunate to know the prefects for every year between 411 and 420, and only two out of the 15 holders of office attested are not otherwise documented (Bonosianus and Epiphanius) Bonosianus must have been a trusted official of Hono-rius, in order to be appointed soon after the deposition of Attalus in early 410125 All other prefects came from prestigious Roman families, with the possible exception of Namatianus, whose father had probably already oc-cupied this same prestigious position Namatianus was, furthermore, closely connected to important members of the local aristocracy, as his poem shows

We are also well informed about holders of the prae-torian prefecture, an office that had played a major role during the crisis In this case, we can see a combination of appointments of what seems to be representatives of the court with members of the Roman aristocracy Melitius is not previously attested anywhere else, but the fact that he came to office in 410 and remained until 412 suggests that he was a close associate of Honorius, presiding over the first efforts of political reconstruc-tion The same can be seen with the case of Hadrianus, who had already occupied the prefecture between 401 and 405 He was probably reappointed for his experi-ence and contacts in Roman and Italian circles Se-leucus had been praetorian prefect of Africa in 412, and his experience must have counted for his appointment for the Italian prefecture in the following year

Between 416 and 421, the prefecture was occupied by a Roman aristocrat, Flavius Iunius Quartus Palladius, who combined offices in the court with an active life as a member of the Roman Senate (he was chosen as ambassador on behalf of the Senate on four different oc-casions)126 However, the most revealing case of all is the appointment of Iohannes, who is attested to as being in office from June 412 until June 413 Iohannes played an active part in the crisis of 408–410 As a friend of Alaric

123 See PLRE II, Probus 1 and Probus 11; the identification is favoured by Delmaire 1989, 182–184

124 See comments to Table 3 for the different possibilities

and a high ranking official, he was chosen to take part in the senatorial embassy sent to the Visigoths during the first siege of Rome In 409, during the usurpation of Attalus, he was appointed magister officiorum, possibly staying in office until 410 In a way, it is not surprising to find him as Honorius’ praetorian prefect a mere two years later, as the efforts for political restoration must have demanded the reconciliation of the Roman elites The appointment of Iohannes is a good illustration of the degree to which court and senators were forced to compromise in order to rebuild the political settlement that had been broken with the fall of Stilicho in 408 As the analysis of the Roman aristocracy and of the pattern of appointments to important offices shows, these two groups could not survive without each other

Conclusion

The Sack of Rome plays a powerful role in historical narratives of Late Antiquity And yet, at the same time, the breech of the city’s defenses on 24 August 410 has a much smaller role in explaining the developments that marked the period As I argued in this chapter, the processes that re-shaped the Roman aristocracy and the imperial government can only be understood within a much broader chronological framework The administrative and political reforms that opened up the clarissimate and re-defined the late Roman hierarchy of rank and status led, during the course of the fourth century, to an unprecedented degree of integration of different imperial elites By the end of the century, the city of Rome was home to an aristocracy that was both international and imperial in character A core group of members of the Senate interacted on a daily basis with clarissimi from different parts of the Empire, pursuing different career strategies Roman aristocrats occupied positions in different parts of the Empire, from the im-perial court in Milan to Asia Furthermore, geograph-ical proximity, social networks, and political circum-stances favoured the close collaboration of aristocrats and the imperial government

Political collaboration between Rome and Milan (lat-er Ravenna) was based on a fragile arrangement involv-ing two power-blocks with interests and agendas that did not always coincide The events of the early fifth century brought about an increased pressure on this re-lationship When Stilicho’s regime was overthrown and

125 Chastagnol 1962, 269 suggests that he was already in office during the Sack

126 PLRE II, Palladius 19


Alaric invaded Italy, in 408, the equilibrium between aristocrats and courtiers was shaken The political divi-sions that existed within the aristocracy, as well as those that associated aristocrats and courtiers into different groups, became more visible The financial strain felt by the imperial government also meant more difficul-ties for at least part of the senators, especially those who could not pay the taxes levied at the time, those who had been associated with Stilicho and had their properties confiscated, and those who could not use their political connections to secure exemptions

What we have, therefore, is a period of political and economic troubles for at least part of the Roman elite; for some, however, this was a time of opportunities, when instability opened up possibilities for those who were ambitious and rich enough to pay for the risks As the discussion of these elements showed, the crisis of 408–410 did not mean a break in the relationship be-tween the aristocracy and the court It was, in fact, a period in which their deep integration became more evident than ever It is probable, furthermore, that the political confinement of Honorius to Italy and North Africa, having lost Gaul, Britain and the Hispaniae to the usurper Constantine III, helped to enhance this in-terdependence between his court and the aristocracy

The first half of the fifth century was a period of re-construction Not just in terms of repairing the physical structures damaged during the travails of the first dec-ade, but also in terms of reconstructing a political set-tlement between senators and courtiers that, although fragile, had been carefully devised by Honorius and his associates between 395 and 408 However, by focusing on a specific group – the aristocracy of Rome – and its relationship with the court in Ravenna, we are able to appreciate the connection between them Although necessarily limited, our discussion of the Roman aris-tocracy and its social composition highlighted the fact that the senators for whom we have evidence were in the vast majority of cases closely linked to the imperi-al service Perhaps more than before (although in this case the lack of available sources represents a serious difficulty), the court and the imperial government had

become an essential element for the social and political reproduction of the Roman elite and for the strategies they pursued to maintain their power and influence The degree of compromise required of the court with regards to individuals and groups that had been directly associated with the troubles of 408-410 shows, on the other hand, that the imperial government also came to rely more and more on the aristocracy It is proba-ble that this intimate relationship, a political symbiosis, was one of the key factors for the relocation of the court from Ravenna to Rome in the 420s

AppendixRoman Aristocrats, 380–440

This list compiles the identities and basic information about all known Roman aristocrats The three criteria for inclusion in this list are: a) to have held the rank of clarissimus or higher (I have tried to include those who are known to have occupied an office that led to promo-tion to this rank); b) to have owned a house, been buried, or occupied a function in the city; c) to have been active between the years 380 and 440 There is much debate concerning the criteria for identifying the ‘Roman elite’ or the ‘Roman aristocracy’127 Here, I have followed the simple but efficient definition of Michelle Salzman, i e any man or woman with the rank of clarissimus128 This should make our picture of this specific social group as diverse as possible, thereby building up a basis for fur-ther work

The information presented here is strictly relevant for the argument of this chapter The identity given refers to the respective entry in volumes 1 and 2 of the “Proso-pography of the Later Roman Empire”, unless otherwise unstated The date refers to the period for which an in-dividual is recorded or, in some cases, when he or she is thought to have lived I have recorded the cases of aristocrats known to have been born or to have spent some time outside Italy, as well as of those who occu-pied public offices, whether in the court (including the urban prefecture), outside Italy, or unknown129

127 See for example Matthews 2000 128 Salzman 2002, 4 129 The information presented here was collected pri-

marily in PLRE I and II The following addenda were useful: Martindale 1974; Baldwin 1976; Roda 1980;

Martindale 1980; Baldwin 1982; Mathisen 1982; Barnes 1983; Krautschick 1986; Mathisen 1986; Mathisen 1987; Woods 1993; Laniado 1995; Frakes 1998 and Handley 2005 orlandi 2004 also contains crucial prosopo-graphic information

gutomachado

Sticky Note

stated, and not unstated

62 Carlos Machado

Identity Date Gender Period out-side Italy

Public office Court/PUR Office out-

side Italy

I, Proba 3 300–400 F Yes

I, Melania 1 340–410 F Yes

I, Paula 1 347–404 F Yes

I, Paulina 4 350–390 F

I, Albina 2 350–431 F Yes

I, Scopius 360–390 M Yes

I, Albinus 8 364–385 M Yes Yes

I, Praetextatus 1 370–384 M Yes PPo/PUR Yes

I, Laeta 1 370–410 F

I, Arborius 3 380 M Yes PUR/CSL

I, Arsenius 4 380 M Yes Yes Yes

I, Paulinus 12 380 M Yes PUR

I, Titianus 5 380 M Yes Yes

I, Toxotius 2 380 M

I, Anthidius 381 M Yes

I, Asterius 5 381 M Yes Agens in Rebus

I, Iulianus 25 381 M Yes Yes

I, Syagrius 381 M Yes Yes PUR/PPo/CoS Yes

I, Valerianus 8 381 M Yes PUR

I, Anonymus 15 381 M Yes PUR

I, Anonymus 75 381 M Yes

I, Severus 29 382 M Yes PUR Yes

I, Bassus 11 382–383 M Yes PUR

I, Aventius 383 M Yes PUR

I, Flavianus 7 383 M Yes

I, Herculius 383 M Yes

I, Marinianus 2 383 M Yes Yes Yes

I, u 383 F

I, Auxentius 5 384 M Yes Yes

I, Campanus 384 M

I, Cattianilla 384 F

I, Celsus 4 384 M Yes Yes

I, …a 384 F

I, Valerius 4 384 M




side Italy



I, Concordia 385 F F

I, Anonymus 165 385–386 M

I, Pinianus 1 385–387 M Yes PUR

I, Hellenius 2 386 M Yes

I, Stemmatius 384/387 M

I, Cyriades 384–387 M Yes

I, Iulianus 37 387 M Yes PUR/Mag Mem Yes

I, Salustius 4 387 M Yes PUR

I, Albina 1 388 F

I, Victor 13 389 M Yes Yes PUR Yes

I, Severianus 6 388/391 M Yes

I, Albinus 15 389–391 M Yes PUR Yes

I, Anonyma 13 389–394 F

I, Flavianus 15 390–394 M Yes PPo/CoS Yes

I, Melania 2 370–420 F Yes

I, Ampelius 3 371–397 M Yes PUR Yes


I, Ambrosius 3 374–397 M Yes

I, olybrius 3 378–395 M Yes PUR/PPo/CoS Yes


I, Potitus 1 380–381 M Yes

I, Anonymus 141 380–384 M Yes CSL Italiae

I, Blesilla 2 380–390 F

I, Celsus 9 380–390 M Yes

I, Furia 380–390 F

I, Naucellius 380–390 M Yes


I, Dysarius 380–400 M Yes

I, Helpidius 10 380–400 M

I, Honorata 3 380–400 F

I, Magnus 10 380–400 M Yes

I, Rufina 2 380–400 F

64 Carlos Machado



side Italy

I, Rusticiana 380–400 F

I, Sabina 3 380–400 F

I, Scipio 380–400 M

I, Secundus 4 380–400 M

I, Proiecta 380–400 F

I, Toxotius 1 380–400 M

I, Vindicianus 4 380–400 M Yes

I, Anonymus 158 380–400 M Yes



I, Anonyma 15 380–400 F

I, Anonyma 18 380–400 F Yes

I, Anonyma 21 380–400 F

II, Galla 1 380–400 F

I, orientius 390 M Yes

I, Venustus 3 390 M Yes

I, Volusianus 3 390 M Yes Yes

I, Anonymus 168 390 M

I, Alypius 13 391 M Yes PUR Yes

I, Philippus 8 391 M Yes PUR

I, Bassus 9 383–392 M Yes

I, Maximus 34 384–397 M Yes PPo/Cos

Anonymus (Mathi-sen 1986, 126–127) 392–394 M

I, Flavianus 14 392–432 M Yes PUR/PPo Yes

II, Anonymus 12 394–402 M Yes PUR

I, Iohannes 2 394–413 M Yes Mag off /PPo

II, Paulinus 2 395–396 M

I, Florentinus 2 395–397 M Yes Yes PUR/CSL/QSP

I, Faustinus 4 394 M

I, Pasiphilus 2 394 M Yes PUR/agens PPo

I, Titiana 394 F

II, Anonymus 88 395 M

I, Cynegius 396 M




side Italy

I, Paulina 3 396 F

I, Postumianus 3 396 M

I, Evangelus 397 M

II, Arcentius 397 M

II, Macharius 1 397 M

II, Anonymus 89 397 M

II, Felix 2 398 M Yes PUR/QSP

II, Herculius 1 398 M Yes

II, Lampadius 1 398 M Yes PUR

II, Maximilianus 3 398 M Yes PUR

I, epus 399 M

I, (Roma)nilla 399 F

II, Eusebius 27 399 M Yes

II, Anonymus 47 399 M Yes

II, Anonyma 4 399 F

II, Contucius 400 M Yes


I, Publicola 380–406 M

I, Lachanius 380–410 M Yes Yes PUR/CSL/QSP

I, Laeta 2 380–410 F

I, Marcella 2 380–410 F

I, Marcellina 1 380–410 F

I, Pinianus 2 380–410 M Yes

I, Proba 1 380–410 F

I, Anonymus 43 380–410 M Yes Yes

I, Salutia 380–410 F

I, Iuliana 2 380–420 F

I, octaviana 380–420 F

I, Anonymus 19 380–420 M Yes PUR

I, Ianuarius 6 384–402 M Yes

I, Symmachus 4 384–402 M Yes PUR/CoS Yes

I, Serena 384–408 F

I, Fabiola 390–400 F Yes

II, Proserius 390–401 M

66 Carlos Machado



side Italy

II, Strategius 2 390–403 M Yes Yes

I, Antiochus 7 390–405 M Yes Yes

I, Albinus 10 390–410 M Yes PUR/QSP Yes

I, Baebianus 390–410 M

I, Donatianus 1 390–410 M

I, Italica 390–410 F

I, olybrius 2 390–410 M Yes Cos

II, Severus 2 390–410 M

I, Andromachus 3 395–401 M Yes PUR/CRP Yes

I, Basilius 3 395–408 M Yes Yes PUR/CSL

I, Pammachius 395–410 M Yes Yes

I, Probinus 1 395–410 M Yes CoS Yes

II, Pompeianus 1 396/398 M

II, Anonyma 2 396–397 F

II, Varus 397–398 M Yes

I, Laetus 2 398–399 M Yes PUR

II, Benignus 399–400 M Yes Agens PPo

II, Messalla Avienus 399–400 M Yes PPo

I, Sibidius 399–401 M Yes Yes

I, Protadius 1 400–401 M Yes Yes PUR

II, Anonymus 13 400–401 M Yes PUR

II, Symmachus 10 401 M Yes

II, Anonymus 14 401 M Yes PUR


II, Anonymus 91 401/402 M

II, Nemesius 1 402 M

II, Vitalis 1 403 M Yes

I, Apronianus 8 405 M

I, Romulus 5 406 M Yes Yes PUR/CSL East Yes

II, Licentius 2 406 M

II, Probus 11 406 M Yes CoS

II, Senator 1 407 M Yes PUR

II, Longinianus 400–406 M Yes PUR/PPo

II, Eventius 1 400–407 M Yes Yes



side Italy

I, Hilarius 11 408 M Yes PUR/PPo

II, Bassus 7 408 M Yes CoS

II, Hilarius 2 408 M Yes PUR

II, Iustinianus 2 408 M Yes Assessor

II, Lampadius 2 408 M

II, Arsacius 2 408–409 M Yes PSC

II, Heliocrates 1 408–409 M Yes CRP

II, Pompeianus 2 408–409 M Yes PUR Yes

II, Lampadius 7 403–409 M Yes PUR/PPo

I, Marcianus 14 409 M Yes PUR Yes

II, Attalus 2 409 M Yes Yes CSL/PUR/Aug

II, Caecilianus 1 409 M Yes PPo Yes

II, Demetrius 1 409 M Yes CSL

II, Gaudentius 3 409 M Yes Yes

II, Maximianus 2 409 M

II, Sophronia 390–413 F

II, Castricius 410 M

II, Tertullus 1 410 M Yes CoS

II, Faustus 8 408–430 M Yes PUR/PPo/CoS

II, Faustina 2 407–420 F

II, Bonosianus 410–411 M Yes PUR

II, Palmatus 1 412 M Yes PUR

II, Epiphanius 7 412–414 M Yes PUR

II, Albinus 7 414 M Yes PUR

II, Furia 14 414 F

II, Namatianus 414 M Yes Yes PUR

II, Gracchus 415 M Yes PUR

II, Probianus 1 416 M Yes PUR

II, Constantius 3 418 M Yes

II, Aphrodisius 1 419 M Yes Tribun et not

II, Aphothonius 1 419 M Yes Palace official

I, Eustochium 390–419 F Yes

II, Clementianus 390–420 M

II, Dynamius 1 390–420 M

68 Carlos Machado



side Italy

II, Gaudentius 4 390–420 M

II, Lampridius 1 390–428 M

II, Victorianus 2 399–430 M

I, Paula 2 400–440 F

II, Ampelius 1 400–440 M

II, Anastasia 1 400–440 F

II, Gaudiosa 407–447 F

II, Bellicius 408–423 M Yes PUR

II, Theodulus 6 408–423 M Yes

II, Palladius 19 416–421 M Yes PPo/CoS

II, Volusianus 6 417–429 M Yes PUR/PPO/QSP Yes

II, Serenianus 418–419 M Yes Tribunus

II, Symmachus 6 418–420 M Yes PUR Yes

II, Dexter 3 420–432 M Yes PUR

II, Maximus 22 420–455 M Yes PUR/PPo/CoS

II, Marinianus 3 422–423 M Yes PPo/CoS

II, Ioannes 6 423–425 M Yes Aug

II, Trygetius 1 423–455 M Yes PUR/CRP

II, Probus 2 424/425 M Yes

II, Bassus 8 426–435 M Yes PPo/CoS

II, Albinus 10 426–449 M Yes PUR/PPo/CoS

II, Eusthatius 7 430 M Yes PUR

II, Theodosius 20 430 M

II, Diom(edes) 3 433 M Yes

II, Apollodorus 4 440 M

II, Arcontia 430–441 F Yes

II, Auxentius 6 441 M Yes PUR

II, Auxentius 9 425/450 M Yes PUR

II, Cresconius 4 425/450 M Yes


Bibliography

Baldwin 1976 B Baldwin, Some Addenda to the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Historia 25, 1976, 118–121

Baldwin 1982 B Baldwin, Some Addenda to the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Historia 31, 1982, 97–111

Barnes 1983 T Barnes, Late Roman Prosopography Between Theodosius and Justinian, Phoenix 37, 1983, 248–270

Blockley 1998 R C Blockley, The Dynasty of Theodosius, in: A Cameron – P Garnsey (ed ), CHA 13 The Late Empire, A D 337–425 (Cambridge 1998) 111–137

Brown 1971 P Brown, The World of Late Antiquity (London 1971) Cameron 1970 A Cameron, Claudian Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius (ox-

ford 1970) Cameron 2011 A Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome (oxford 2011) Cecconi 1994 G A Cecconi, Governo imperiale e élites dirigenti nell’Italia tardoantica

(Como 1994) Cecconi (forthcoming) G A Cecconi, Gruppi di potere, indirizzi politici, rapporti tra goti e romani

La vicenda di Prisco Attalo, in: S Cosentino (ed ), Potere e politica nell’età teodosiana (395–455) I linguaggi dell’impero, le identità dei barbari Roma-nia-Gothica I Atti del convegno internazionale di Ravenna, 24 e 25 settembre 2010 (forthcoming)

Chastagnol 1960 A Chastagnol, La préfecture urbaine a Rome sous le Bas-Empire (Paris 1960) Chastagnol 1962 A Chastagnol, Les fastes de la préfecture de Rome au Bas-Empire (Paris 1962) Chastagnol 1970 A Chastagnol, La prosopographie, méthode de recherche sur l’histoire du bas

Empire, AnnEconSocCiv 25, 1970, 1229–1235 Chastagnol 1992 A Chastagnol, Le Sénat romain à l’époque impériale (Paris 1992) Courcelle 1948 P Courcelle, Histoire littéraire des grandes invasions (Paris 1948) Delmaire 1989 R Delmaire, Les responsables des finances impériales au Bas-Empire romain

(IVe–VIe s ) Études prosopographiques (Brussels 1989) Delmaire 1997 R Delmaire, Les usurpateurs du Bas-Empire et le recrutement des fonction-

naires, in: F Paschoud – J Szidat (ed ), Usurpationen in der Spätantike Kollo-quium “Staatsstreich und Staatlichkeit”, Solothurn, 6 –10 März 1996, Historia Einzelschriften 111 (Stuttgart 1997) 111–126

Frakes 1998 R Frakes, Some Late Antique People Addenda to PLRE I, Historia 47, 1998, 379–381

Gillett 2001 A Gillett, Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors, PBSR 69, 2001, 131–167

Handley 2005 M Handley, one Hundred and Fifty-Two Addenda to PLRE from Gaul, Spain and Britain, Historia 54, 2005, 93–105

Heather 1994 P Heather, New Men for New Constantines? Creating an Imperial Elite in the Eastern Mediterranean, in: P Magdalino (ed ), New Constantines The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th–13th Centuries Papers from the Twenty-Sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St Andrews, March 1992 (Aldershot 1994) 11–33

Heather 1998 P Heather, Senators and Senates, in: A Cameron – P Garnsey (ed ), CAH 13 The Late Empire, A D 337–425 (Cambridge 1998) 184–210

Jones 1964 A H M Jones, The Later Roman Empire (oxford 1964)

Menzel

Notiz

(("f" ist noch fett))

70 Carlos Machado

Krautschick 1986 S Krautschick, Bemerkungen zu PLRE II, Historia 35, 1986, 121–124 Laniado 1995 A Laniado, Some Addenda to the “Prosopography of the Later Roman Em-

pire” (vol II, 395–527), Historia 44, 1995, 121–128 Lizzi Testa 2004 R Lizzi Testa, Senatori, popolo, papi Il governo di Roma al tempo dei Valen-

tiniani (Bari 2004) Lizzi Testa 2012 R Lizzi Testa, Il sacco di Roma e l’aristocrazia romana, tra crisi politica e

turbamento religioso, in: A Di Berardino – G Pilara – L Spera (ed ), Roma e il sacco del 410 Realtà, interpretazione, mito Giornata di studio, Roma, 6 dicembre 2010, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum (Rome 2012) 1–32

López Sánchez 2003 F López Sánchez, Le monnayage de Priscus Attalus et l’émergence de By-zance comme unique puissance, RItNum 104, 2003, 269–286

Marcone 2008 A Marcone, Il sacco di Roma del 410 nella riflessione di Agostino e di orosio, in: A Marcone, Di Tarda Antichità Scritti scelti (Udine 2008) 140–154

Martindale 1974 J Martindale, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire Addenda et corri-genda to volume I, Historia 23, 1974, 246-252

Martindale 1980 J Martindale, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire Addenda et corri-genda to volume I, Historia 29, 1980, 474-497

Mathisen 1982 R Mathisen, PLRE II Suggested Addenda et Corrigenda, Historia 31, 1982, 364–386

Mathisen 1986 R Mathisen, Ten office Holders. A Few Addenda and Corrigenda to PLRE, Historia 35, 1986, 125–127

Mathisen 1987 R Mathisen, Some Hagiographical Addenda to PLRE, Historia 36, 1987, 448-461

Mathisen 2002 R Mathisen, The Christianization of the Late Roman Senatorial order Cir-cumstances and Scholarship, IntJClTrad 9, 2002, 257-278

Mathisen 2007 R Mathisen, The Christianization of the Late Roman Aristocracy bis A Re-sponse to Michele Salzman, IntJClTrad 14, 2007, 233–247

Matthews 1970 J Matthews, olympiodorus of Thebes and the History of the West (A D 407–425), JRS 60, 1970, 79–97

Matthews 1990 J Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 364–425 (oxford 1990, new edition; first published 1975)

Matthews 2000 J Matthews, The Roman Empire and the Proliferation of Elites, in: M Salz-man – C Rapp (ed ), Elites in Late Antiquity, Arethusa 33 (Baltimore 2000) 429–446

Nicolet 1970 C Nicolet, Prosopographie et Histoire Sociale Rome et l’Italie, AnnEconSoc-Civ 25, 1970, 1209–1228

orlandi 2004 S orlandi, Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’occidente romano VI Roma Anfiteatri e strutture annesse con una nuova edizione e commento delle iscrizioni del Colosseo (Rome 2004)

Panciera 1996 S Panciera Il precettore di Valentiniano III, in: C Stella – A Valvo (ed ), Studi in onore di Albino Garzetti (Brescia 1996) 277–297

Paschoud 1986 F Paschoud (ed ), Zosime Histoire Nouvelle 3, 1 (Livre V) (Paris 1986) PLRE I A H M Jones – J R Martindale – J Morris (ed ), The Prosopography of the

Later Roman Empire I, A D 260–395 (Cambridge 1971) PLRE II J R Martindale (ed ), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire II, A D

395–527 (Cambridge 1980)

Menzel

Eingefügter Text

Atti della


Roda 1980 S Roda, Supplementi e correzioni alla PLRE, Vol I, Historia 29, 1980, 96–105 Salzman 2002 M Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy (Cambridge, Ma 2002) Salzman 2005 M Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy A response to Ralph Ma-

thisen’s Review Article, IntJClTrad 12, 2005, 123–137 Stone 1987 L Stone, Prosopography, in: L Stone, The Past and the Present Revisited

(London 1987) 45–73 Wormald 1976 P Wormald, Review The Decline of the Western Empire and the Survival of

Its Aristocracy, JRS 66, 1976, 217–226 Woods 1993 D Woods, Some Addenda to PLRE, Historia 42, 1993, 122–125

Address

Dr Carlos MachadoUniversidade de São PauloDepartamento de HistóriaAv Prof Luciano Gualberto, 315São Paulo05508-900Brazilcarmachado@gmail com

Roman Aristocrats and the Imperial Court, before and after the sack

Documents

Transcript of Roman Aristocrats and the Imperial Court, before and after the sack