Civiles Principes and Persian Despots: Alexander Severus’ Admission Ritual in the Historia Augusta

Abstract

This article argues that the Historia Augusta retrojected fourth-century rituals of the imperial court into its presentation of the reign of Severus Alexander in order to criticise the “oriental” and un-Roman practices of the contemporary emperors of the fourth century. The Historia Augusta’s two descriptions of Alexander Severus’ admission ritual (salutatio) are suffused with fourth-century ritual elements which have no place in the early third century. A simplistic reading might interpret these anachronisms as evidence of the HA’s sloppiness and incompetence. However, I argue instead that they are conscious and deliberate. These two descriptions highlight a contrast between the adoratio of the fourth century and the restrained and moderate civilitas of the traditional princeps, and the descriptions also innovatively present the adoratio as Persian. This article thus demonstrates the contemporary political argument of the Historia Augusta, which sought to contribute to wider intellectual debates about the ideal emperor and the importance of civilitas in the fourth century.

Introduction

The ritual of admission, often called salutatio in the Principate and adoratio in the late Roman Empire, was a regular, often daily, greeting ritual during which the emperor received and greeted the elite.¹ While the imperial salutatio in the Principate remains an understudied area, it has received increasing attention in recent years: its details have been reconstructed and its wider importance has to some extent been underlined.² However, the literary use of the admission rituals, to challenge or support imperial self-presentation and to further authorial agendas more broadly, has received virtually no attention. This contrasts with scholarship on other rituals, as Pierre Dufraigne, for example, explored the literary exploitation of the adventus, while Sabine MacCormack before him had examined how panegyrics tied into imperial rituals to support imperial self-presentation.³ Essentially, there has been an increasing appreciation of how literary representations of ritual are not mere reflections of reality, but also act as a vehicle for an author’s wider commentary on (or critique of) political practices and political culture.⁴ However, this appreciation has not extended to the admission ritual. In this article, I propose to use two unusually long and elaborate descriptions of the admission of Alexander Severus in the Historia Augusta as a case study, in order to explore how the admission could be employed by writers for their own agendas. These descriptions generally receive limited attention, but I will argue that they play an important interpretative role.⁵

A brief introduction of the Historia Augusta and the biography of Alexander is in order: the Historia Augusta professes to have been written by six authors from Diocletian to Constantine but the communis opinio today is that the work was actually written by a single author in the later fourth century.⁶ The main focus of this article, the biography of Alexander Severus, is by far the longest in this collection of lives, and it is the first biography to be largely fictitious.⁷ The anonymous author uses the freedom afforded by this fictitiousness to create a marked contrast between an Alexander who is thoroughly idealised, a portrayal that is in fact unique in the source tradition, and an Elagabalus who is demonised.⁸

As far back as the Julio-Claudians, writers began to portray the admission highly negatively with patrons depicted as arrogant and the salutatores as fawning parasites. This portrayal of the admission is especially evident in Seneca and Martial, and continues unabated in the fourth century, as exemplified in Ammianus.⁹ Fundamentally, this critique of the admission was a literary topos that included a number of stock elements and was employed by Greek and Latin writers, both Christian and non-Christian.¹⁰ On the other hand, when the emperor’s admission was mentioned, it was not criticised in the same manner and was instead generally treated as merely a backdrop to revealing anecdotes about the ruler.¹¹

The article consists of three sections: the first argues that most of the ritual elements mentioned in the descriptions of Alexander’s admission, such as the adoratio or bejewelled attire, have no place in the early third century but are instead elements from the late Roman Empire. The Historia Augusta’s idealised Alexander consistently rejects these, which would have been perceived as a critique of the fourth-century admission.¹² The second section explores how the Historia Augusta portrays adoratio and bejewelled clothes, two key elements of the late Roman admission, as Persian, thereby presenting the admission as an “oriental” ritual and adding another layer to the criticism of this ritual explored in the first section. The final section takes a step back and explores the wider importance of this critique for our understanding of the conception of the ideal emperor in the late Roman Empire. The section shows that civilitas was less widely idealised in the fourth century than often supposed. By contrast, Alexander’s admission presents him as a civilis princeps which is a central part of a wider insistence on the importance of civilitas for good government in the Historia Augusta.¹³ This, in turn, constitutes a sophisticated and distinctive engagement with a debate current in the fourth century where civilitas had come under attack.

This article thus reveals the argumentative thrust of the Historia Augusta as a contemporary political critique: one scholarly position holds that deception and entertainment were the Historia Augusta’s central purposes in an allusive game, potentially for a small, educated circle of individuals with literary interests.¹⁴ However, the multi-layered critique of the late Roman admission and the connected engagement with the debate about ideal rule in the fourth century show that the Historia Augusta is not devoid of independent and sometimes sophisticated political engagement and interpretations.¹⁵ The article also adds further texture and depth to the intellectual debates about the ideal emperor in the fourth century, both by challenging the common view that civilitas remained a widespread ideal in this period and by showing the Historia Augusta to be a stout, sophisticated and distinctive defender of this virtue. Lastly, the Historia Augusta’s noteworthy presentation of the admission as a Persian ritual underlines the power of literary representations of ritual and that such representations could challenge or support imperial self-presentation.

Alexander’s admission

The Historia Augusta’s focus on the imperial salutatio in Alexander’s biography is evident from the very beginning. The biography starts with a short description of Alexander’s background and adolescence and an explanation of why this ruler had accepted many honours already upon his accession.¹⁶ Hereafter, the anonymous author includes the first idealising depiction of Alexander’s general rule:

Dominum se appellari vetuit. epistulas ad se quasi ad privatum scribi iussit servato tantum nomine imperatoris. gemmas de calciamentis et vestibus tulit, quibus usus fuerat Heliogabalus. veste, ut et pingitur, alba usus est nec aurata, paenulis togisque communibus. cum amicis tam familiariter vixit ut communis esset ei saepe consessus, iret ad convivia eorum, aliquos autem haberet cotidianos etiam non vocatos, salutaretur vero quasi unus e senatoribus patente velo admissionalibus remotis aut solis iis qui ministri ad fores fuerant, cum antea salutare principem non liceret, quod eos videre non poterat.

“He forbade men to call him dominus, and he gave orders that people should write to him as they would to a commoner, retaining only the title “Imperator”. He removed from the imperial footwear and garments all the jewels that had been used by Elagabalus, and he wore a plain white robe without any gold, just as he is always depicted, and ordinary cloaks and togas. He associated with his friends on such familiar terms that he would sit with them as equals, attend their banquets, receive some of them daily, even when they were not formally summoned, and be greeted like any senator with open curtains and without the presence of ushers, or, at least, with none but those who acted as attendants at the doors, whereas previously it was not possible to greet the emperor for the reason that he could not see them.”¹⁷

This appears quite clearly to refer to the ritual of salutatio since the passage describes a repeated and formalised greeting of the emperor by large groups, seemingly irrespective of personal connections.

After this passage, the idealisation of Alexander continues: Alexander is severe towards dishonest judges, purges the palace of Elagabalus’ courtiers and uses well-suited and experienced advisors.¹⁸ About one quarter through the biography, another lengthy description of Alexander’s admission is included:

Salutabatur autem nomine, hoc est “Ave, Alexander.” si quis caput flexisset aut blandius aliquid dixisset, ut adulator, vel abiciebatur, si loci eius qualitas pateretur, vel ridebatur ingenti cachino, si eius dignitas graviori subiacere non posset iniuriae. salutatus consessum obtulit omnibus senatoribus atque adeo nisi honestos et bonae famae homines ad salutationem non admisit, iussitque – quemadmodum in Eleusinis sacris dicitur, ut nemo ingrediatur nisi qui se innocentem novit – per praeconem edici, ut nemo salutaret principem, qui se furem esse nosset, ne aliquando detectus capitali supplicio subderetur. idem adorari se vetuit, cum iam coepisset Heliogabalus adorari regum more Persarum.

“In greeting him it was customary to address him by his name only, that is, “ave, Alexander”. And if any man bowed his head or said anything that was over-polite as a flatterer, he was either ejected, in case the degree of his station permitted it, or else, if his rank could not be subjected to graver affront, he was ridiculed with loud laughter. After being greeted, he offered all senators to sit down, but even so he admitted to his admission none but the honest and those of good report; and – according to the custom said to be observed in the Eleusinian mysteries, where none may enter save those who know themselves to be guiltless – he gave orders that the herald should proclaim that no one who knew himself to be a thief should come to greet the emperor, lest he might in some way be discovered and receive capital punishment. Also, he forbade any one to adore him, whereas Elagabalus had begun to receive adoration in the manner of the king of the Persians.”¹⁹

There is little doubt that this refers to the admission, since nouns originating from salutare are almost exclusively used for this ritual and it is indeed difficult to read ad salutationem non admisit as referring to anything but the admission ritual.²⁰ It is striking that the admission is used as one of a select group of aspects which are supposed to support the Historia Augusta’s presentation of Alexander as an ideal emperor and all the more so since the Historia Augusta’s literary predecessors had approached the admission very differently with negligible attention to the imperial admission except as a backdrop to noteworthy events. The Historia Augusta’s positive and lengthy descriptions of Alexander Severus’ admission break decisively with this rather uniform tradition.²¹

However, the most striking feature of the passages is, as this section will show, that they are riddled with elements of the fourth-century admission which have no place in the Severan Age.²² The clearest example is arguably the statement that Alexander forbade anyone to “adore (adorari)” him, a praxis which, according to the Historia Augusta, was introduced by Elagabalus. Andreas Alföldi argued that the adoratio was indeed institutionalised in or just before the Severan Age but Henri Stern long ago pointed out that Alföldi’s evidence essentially consists of individuals occasionally performing adoratio (kneeling) in front of the emperor.²³ Such instances of individuals performing adoratio date back to Augustus and cannot assist in determining whether the adoratio had become institutionalised and an obligatory part of court ceremonial in the Severan Age.²⁴ Furthermore, the assertion above that Elagabalus introduced the adoratio cannot function as evidence independently, since the biography of Alexander, as mentioned, is largely fictitious. Essentially, then, there is no evidence to suggest that the adoratio was introduced during the Severan Age.²⁵

However, more importantly for my purposes, all fourth-century sources treating the “introduction of the adoratio” are unanimous that this was a Diocletianic innovation.²⁶ For example, Eutropius writes that Diocletian “was the first who introduced into the Roman empire a ceremony suited rather to royal usages than to Roman liberty, giving orders that he should be adored, whereas all emperors before him were only saluted (qui imperio Romano primus regiae consuetudinis formam magis quam Romanae libertatis invexerit adorarique se iussit, cum ante eum cuncti salutarentur).”²⁷ Aurelius Victor, Jerome and Ammianus Marcellinus all agree. Regardless of whether this was strictly true, the anachronism in Alexander’s portrayal would therefore have been evident to a fourth-century reader when Alexander is said to have forbidden anybody to adore him.²⁸ This, in turn, evoked by contrast the contemporary admission ritual. As mentioned, Alexander is one of the ideal rulers in the Historia Augusta, whereas Elagabalus is consistently demonised. Consequently, the Historia Augusta’s attribution of adoratio to Elagabalus and its rejection by Alexander would have struck readers as a critique of current ceremonial.²⁹

The fourth-century admission may have been further criticised by the claim that Alexander ejected or ridiculed any man who “bowed his head (caput flexisset) or said anything that was over-polite as a flatterer (adulator)”.³⁰ Our sources for the admission ritual in the Severan and pre-Severan periods make no mention of bowing; later, in contrast, bowing was the defining feature of the admission of the late Roman Empire compared to the Principate.³¹ Thus, Alexander not only is depicted as rejecting the kneeling inherent in Elagabalus’ adoratio but even refused the less obsequious bowing of the head and in fact generally rejected all adulatio.³² This arguably underlines the critique of the fourth-century admission, and it contributes to presenting Alexander as a civilis princeps since he does not allow flattery that emphasises the distance between ruler and subject. This presentation of Alexander is further accentuated in the Historia Augusta through a contrast to the admission of the son of Alexander’s successor, Maximinus Thrax: the son “was exceedingly haughty at admissions (in salutationibus superbissimus erat) – he stretched out his hand, and suffered his knees to be kissed, and sometimes even his feet.”³³ Essentially, while Maximinus Thrax’s son insisted on demeaning kisses on knees and feet at the admission, Alexander’s rejected all adulatio and his admission was characterised by equality between emperor and senators.

Another parallel with fourth-century ceremonial is the statement that Alexander used simple and traditional clothes instead of the luxurious and bejewelled attire supposedly introduced by Elagabalus.³⁴ This is not explicitly connected to Alexander’s admission by the Historia Augusta. However, luxurious, bejewelled attire became common from the later third century onwards, and Victor, Eutropius and Jerome all assert that it was Diocletian who broke with imperial tradition and introduced these innovations. Importantly, they all mention this in the context of Diocletian’s transformed admission: for example, Jerome asserts that “Diocletian was the first to order that he should be adored as a god (adorari se ut Deum) and that gems should be inserted in his clothes and shoes (gemmas vestibus calceamentisque inseri), whereas before him all emperors were saluted (salutarentur) like magistrates and only had a purple chlamys in addition to their normal dress (chlamydem tantum purpuream a privato habitu plus haberent).”³⁵ At least from the second half of the fourth century, then, there was a widespread perception that imperial ceremonial had changed decisively from Diocletian onwards and that the introduction of bejewelled attire was attributable to him and part of this process. The rejection of bejewelled attire by the Historia Augusta’s idealised Alexander would thus likely have been understood as another criticism of the fourth-century admission, especially since this innovation is again attributed to the Historia Augusta’s demonised Elagabalus.

In the first passage (describing Alexander’s admission), the assertion that Alexander refused to be called dominus likely functions along similar lines: this is not clearly connected to the admission but should probably be understood in this context, since it is seemingly elaborated upon in the second passage which posits that Alexander was greeted only with “ave, Alexander” at his admission.³⁶ More importantly, while dominus was not used generally at the admission in the Principate, this appellation was probably incorporated in the admission from Diocletian onwards.³⁷ Indeed, Aurelius Victor presents the appellation dominus as an innovation introduced by Diocletian and mentions it in connection with his critique of Diocletian’s new admission.³⁸ Scholars often view Alexander’s rejection of dominus as a literary allusion to Suetonius’ description of either Augustus or Tiberius, but the late Roman admission constitutes an additional and, presumably for most readers, more obvious reference point.³⁹

The rejection of dominus also presents Alexander as a civilis princeps who refused to distance himself from his subjects in the manner of the late Roman emperors. It is worth noting that long before the emperor began to be called dominus at his admission, patrons in the traditional literary depiction of the salutatio were criticised for demanding to be addressed in this way. This is evidenced repeatedly in Martial, and continues in the fourth century as exemplified by Pelagius who condemns the unworthy (indignus) client at admissions who bows down to the ground and says dominus to a man he loathes.⁴⁰ The contrast between Alexander’s admission and the arrogant patrons who demanded to be called dominus in the literary salutatio tradition would further have highlighted the former’s civilis behaviour.

Another noteworthy element in Alexander’s admission is ceremonial curtains that supposedly cover up the emperor so that no one could see and greet him. There is no evidence to suggest that covering vela were used at the admission during the Principate.⁴¹ However, vela were likely introduced in the fourth-century admission, as indicated by the following passage from Lucifer of Cagliari who was received by Constantius in the 350s as part of an ongoing controversy about the Arian doctrine: “In your palace, although you were standing within the curtain, you received my response (in tuo palatio intra velum licet stans tulisti responsum a me)”.⁴² Athanasius also mentions the use of curtains veiling Constantius’ brother, Constans, during an audience, and the earliest depiction of an emperor with a velum is the images of Constantius II and his Caesar, Constantius Gallus, in the Chronography of 354 in which curtains are drawn aside to reveal the emperors.⁴³ Overall, then, it is likely that vela were used in the late Roman admission, and the Historia Augusta criticises this element as the author has connected it to Alexander’s predecessors, perhaps with the thoroughly vilified Elagabalus in mind again, while the thoroughly idealised Alexander wisely rejects the velum.⁴⁴

According to the Historia Augusta, Alexander was greeted “without the presence of admissionales, or, at least, with none but those who acted as ministri at the doors.” This contrast between the ministri who merely stand at the doors and the admissionales implies that the latter have far wider responsibilities, but this is out of place in the Severan Age: our knowledge of officials at the imperial admission is scanty, but during the Principate such officials are generally portrayed as doormen of lowly status, which fits excellently with the Historia Augusta’s ministri ad fores.⁴⁵ On the other hand, it would not be surprising if the attendants at the fourth-century admission played a more significant role as mediators of access to the emperor. This suggestion may be supported by the fact that officials termed admissionales are not attested during the Principate but are first mentioned under Valentinian I, in 367.⁴⁶ Furthermore, the contrast between the ministri ad fores of Alexander and the admissionales of other emperors may likewise suggest an increased role for the imperial staff at the fourth-century admission. Overall, then, it seems likely that Alexander’s rejection of admissionales and use of only a few doormen should be viewed as yet another attack on the late Roman admission. It is important to note the Historia Augusta’s assertion that Alexander’s rejection of admissionales and of a covering velum meant that he was greeted “like any senator (quasi unus e senatoribus)”. It appears that the anonymous author is here underlining how to interpret the descriptions of Alexander’s admission, namely as a presentation of this emperor as a primus inter pares. This comment also functions as a forceful critique of the late Roman emperor, whose velum and admissionales distanced him from his subjects and showed that he was not “like any senator”.

Lastly, it is also noteworthy that the Historia Augusta portrays Alexander as inviting all senators to sit down after having greeted the emperor (salutatus consessum obtulit omnibus senatoribus). It was traditionally perceived as arrogant for the emperor to remain seated while high-ranking visitors were standing.⁴⁷ This is manifested in the salutatio where the emperor seemingly received a small group of the highest-ranking salutatores in his cubiculum where all reclined or sat.⁴⁸ The rest of the senators were received while the emperor was standing.⁴⁹ The more informal posture adopted in the cubiculum was likely meant to signal close amicitia, while the standing was a sign of respect for the rest of the distinguished salutatores. By contrast, in the late Roman Empire, no participants at the admission are portrayed as sitting with the emperor and instead probably stand, while the emperor remains seated.⁵⁰ This emphasised the participants’ inferiority in relation to the emperor. Thus, when the Historia Augusta’s Alexander offered all senators to sit, the emperor is portrayed as underlining the equality and amicitia between himself and the senators, which in turn continues the critique of the late Roman admission and presents Alexander as a civilis princeps.

Reframing the admission as Persian

The Historia Augusta thus critiques the contemporary admission by having Alexander Severus, who is thoroughly idealised in the work, consistently reject ceremonial elements from this ritual and by portraying some of these elements as introductions by Elagabalus, a wholly vilified figure in the Historia Augusta. Alexander, instead, conducts a more traditional admission akin to that of the emperors of the Principate. This section builds on the previous one by showing that the Historia Augusta adds another layer to this criticism: for the first time in surviving Latin literature, adoratio is presented as a Persian custom, and the Historia Augusta likewise portrays bejewelled clothes as eastern. These elements, especially the adoratio, were central to the late Roman admission, and the insistence on their eastern nature therefore presents the imperial admission too as originating from eastern practices. Thus, the Historia Augusta presents the introduction of adoratio as paramount to transforming the emperor into the eastern “other”. This distinctive reframing of the admission also reminds us that the elite was not simply a passive consumer of imperial self-presentation through the admission. Rather, the Historia Augusta’s engagement with the admission can be seen as an attempt to undermine the image of the emperor presented in the in the contemporary admission.

As we have already discussed, our sources from the Principate typically use salutare to refer to the admission ritual while post-Tetrarchic writers use adorare.⁵¹ Προσκυνεῖν, the Greek equivalent of adorare, was traditionally viewed as a quintessentially Persian gesture. The Latin adorare, on the other hand, did not have the same “oriental” connotations and had instead been used to refer to gestures of subservience, mainly towards gods but also towards rulers and powerful individuals, as mentioned above.⁵² However, while the word adorare in and of itself did not have the same orientalising connotations as the Greek προσκυνεῖν, it is evident that the physical gestures associated with adoratio had long been perceived as typical modes of greeting a Persian or eastern despot. This is exemplified by Seneca: when Caligula demanded that a prominent senator prostrate himself (supplex sibi […] iacuisset),⁵³ Seneca comments that this emperor was “born for the express purpose of changing the manners of a free state into a servitude like Persia’s (ut mores liberae civitatis Persica servitute mutaret)”.⁵⁴

Against this background, the introduction of kneeling in the late Roman admission prompted the literary elite to question whether such innovations were compatible with Roman traditions. Incipient attempts are visible in Eutropius, who says that the transformed admission was “suited rather to royal customs than to Roman liberty (regiae consuetudinis […] magis quam Romanae libertatis)”,⁵⁵ and in Ammianus who terms it a “foreign and royal (externo et regio)”⁵⁶ ritual, which was probably a veiled reference to Persia. However, “veiled” is the key word here, and one of the most striking aspects of the critique of Diocletian’s admission in Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Jerome and Ammianus is exactly that none of them mentions Persia explicitly. Rather, it is in the Historia Augusta that we see the clearest attempt to vilify the fourth-century admission as Persian and thereby undermine imperial self-presentation in this ritual: the Historia Augusta describes how Alexander Severus “forbade anyone to adore (adorari) him, whereas Elagabalus had begun to receive adoration in the manner of the king of the Persians (adorari regum more Persarum).”⁵⁷ This presentation of adorare is not only evident in the biography of Alexander but recurs later in the description of Zenobia who “was adored in the manner of the Persians (more magis Persico adorata est)”.⁵⁸ Adoratio is here again presented as Persian.

This is not merely a reproduction of a long-standing association; in fact, in the surviving Latin literature of the first five centuries, there is only one other instance, found in Justin, where adorare is presented as Persian and as an eastern custom.⁵⁹ Thus, earlier writers did not use adorare in connection with the Persians: for example, Curtius Rufus, describes the Persian προσκύνησις demanded by Alexander as venerari uti deum, while Valerius Maximus writes that Hephaestion, being mistaken for Alexander, was more Persarum adulata.⁶⁰ Furthermore, Seneca, when describing Caligula as a Persian monarch above, writes that a senator supplex sibi […] iacuisset and Martial depicts Parthian kings as receiving kisses on the soles of the feet (pictorum sola basiate regum).⁶¹ Lastly, we may note Claudian, a contemporary of the Historia Augusta, who presents the Persians as “venerating (venerandus)” the tiara of the Arsacid dynasty.⁶² Thus, it appears that the anonymous author of the Historia Augusta has drawn on the well-established Persian connotations of kneeling and προσκυνεῖν to break with the traditional use of adorare and present this as Persian as well. Adoratio, through kneeling, was the central act of the late Roman admission, and the fourth-century critique of Diocletian shows that it figured prominently in the minds of contemporaries. Consequently, by presenting adorare as Persian, the Historia Augusta portrays the admission as a foreign and eastern ritual that has no place in Rome, and the emperor becomes a Persian despot.

This critique of the fourth-century admission is further supported by Alexander’s rejection of Elagabalus’ bejewelled clothes and shoes. Just like adoratio, such attire is presented as un-Roman and eastern: in the biography of Elagabalus, which functions as a contrast to that of Alexander, it is written that this eastern, Syrian emperor “would wear a tunic made wholly of cloth of gold, or one made of purple, or a Persian one studded with jewels (usus et de gemmis Persica) […]. He even wore jewels on his shoes”.⁶³ Bejewelled attire had long been viewed as Persian and eastern, which continued in the fourth century, and the Historia Augusta is drawing on this cultural perception.⁶⁴ Thus, a noteworthy intertextual relationship is developed here as bejewelled attire is first portrayed as Persian in the biography of Elagabalus, and the anonymous author then reminds his readers of this by mentioning Elagabalus when Alexander rejects bejewelled clothes. This rejection, in turn, is a critique of the fourth-century use of bejewelled attire at the admission, and the anonymous author thus presents this ritual element as a Persian innovation. This presentation is further strengthened as the “oriental monarch” Elagabalus is consistently depicted as using jewels for various purposes, whereas Alexander Severus maintained “that jewels were for women and that they should not be given to a soldier or be worn by a man.”⁶⁵

The cultural construction according to which jewels were typical of the effeminate east and antithetical to true Romans, permeates the Historia Augusta more widely: for example, the idealised emperor, Tacitus, “did not permit his wife to use jewels”,⁶⁶ thereby setting an example of correct Roman comportment. By contrast, Zenobia is portrayed as banqueting “in the manner of the Persian kings”, which entailed “vessels of gold and jewels”; she had a chariot made by the Persians which was encrusted with jewels; and her step-son, who was “wholly oriental (prorsus orientalis)”, is likewise given jewels.⁶⁷ In fact, this eastern queen, who “was adored in the manner of the Persians”, is repeatedly portrayed as using jewels.⁶⁸ Jewels, and by extension the bejewelled clothes of the fourth-century admission, are thus consistently presented as “oriental” and un-Roman in the Historia Augusta.

Lastly, an anecdote (surely invented) from the biography of Aurelian may be pertinent here: we are told that the Persian king gifted Aurelian a cloak “from the farthest Indies (Indis interioribus)”⁶⁹ of exceptionally bright purple, and that Aurelian, Probus and, importantly, Diocletian hereafter diligently searched for the source of this purple colour. Firstly, it is noteworthy that another key aspect of the fourth-century admission, namely purple clothes, is here connected to the Persian king and to “the farthest Indies”. Furthermore, it may be no coincidence that Diocletian is here portrayed as yearning for a Persian symbol of kingship. In other words, the Historia Augusta may be attempting to support its critique of the admission by portraying its supposed transformer as eager to imitate the Persian king.

The self-presentation of the fourth-century emperor in the actual ritual was highly complex but, fundamentally, it rejected the role of primus inter pares of the Principate, and underlined the monarchical and religious elements of the imperial figure, for example through the purple, bejewelled clothes and the use of kneeling.⁷⁰ On the other hand, while there were certainly similarities in the self-presentation of Roman and Persian rulers, it seems unlikely that the Roman emperor wished to be seen as a Persian monarch per se.⁷¹ Persia was, after all, the traditional arch-enemy, an enemy that had inflicted significant defeats on Rome in the fourth century and continued to be vilified in imperial propaganda from this period.⁷² This suggests that the Historia Augusta’s presentation of the imperial admission as Persian challenged imperial self-presentation by depicting him as an eastern despot who had rejected the Roman ideal of civilitas – a key ingredient of stable rule according to our anonymous author, as the next section will show. In other words, the Historia Augusta uses the long-standing trope and rhetoric of Persia as “the other”, a contrast to Rome, in a distinctive way to present the introduction of adoratio as constituting a loss of Roman identity and a transformation into this “oriental” alterity. Importantly, this reframing of the admission also challenged the view, surely widespread among the elite, that participation in the adoratio was a privilege and an honour.⁷³ Essentially, if adoratio and thereby the imperial admission was a Persian ritual, the participants ceased to be a privileged group honoured by a magnificent Roman emperor and instead became slaves of an eastern despot.

When criticising Diocletian for the transformed admission, writers consistently focus on the adoratio and on bejewelled attire.⁷⁴ The anonymous author, then, seems to have chosen carefully when presenting his new image of the admission, since it is exactly these two elements which are presented as Persian and explicitly connected to the “oriental” Elagabalus and the eastern queen, Zenobia. Essentially, while the fourth-century admission was probably not heavily influenced by Persian rituals, it is key to appreciate that aspects such as kneeling and bejewelled attire allowed the Historia Augusta to characterise the supposedly new form of admission as Persian and foreign.⁷⁵ This presentation of the fourth-century emperor as a Persian despot was strengthened by other elements in the life of Alexander, such as his rejection of eunuchs in officials positions: “For they wish for emperors to live in the manner of foreign nations or as the kings of the Persians (more gentium aut regum Persarum)”.⁷⁶ In the fourth century, eunuchs were often portrayed as wicked advisors controlling the emperor, and it is inviting to see this passage as another reference to the Historia Augusta’s own time and an attempt to frame the emperor as a Persian king.⁷⁷

Civilitas and good rule in the fourth century

Overall, then, the Historia Augusta’s critique of the admission contains two connected thrusts: on the one hand, there is a consistent rejection of the fourth-century ceremonial elements by Alexander Severus and, on the other, the Historia Augusta presents adorare and bejewelled clothes as Persian. Collectively, these elements present an innovative critique of the late Roman admission but they also point the way forward: a return to a ritual self-presentation more akin to that of the Principate, which Alexander consistently adopts after his rejection of fourth-century ceremonial norms. Indeed, as set out in the first section, Alexander’s admission repeatedly emphasises equality between himself and the senators and presents the emperor as a primus inter pares. Essentially, it presents him as a civilis princeps. In this section, I will contextualise this emphasis on the importance of civilitas with a view to deepening our understanding of debates about ideal rule in the fourth century: first I will examine the view of civilitas in fourth-century literature and show that writers in this period were not as uniformly positive towards this quality as often supposed. By contrast, I will show that the Historia Augusta’s praise of Alexander’s civilis behaviour in the admission is part of a broader presentation of civilitas as central to good government, which thus constitutes a distinctive defence of this quality and a contribution to contemporary debates about ideal rule.⁷⁸

It is not infrequently asserted, and with some justification, that civilitas remained central to the fourth-century conception of the good emperor.⁷⁹ However, the picture in this century is still significantly more complex and varied than under the Principate where authors consistently present civilitas as an unquestioned ideal to which rulers should aspire.⁸⁰ Aurelius Victor for example, does not mention civilitas often: Augustus is civilis and Macrinus incivilis, while Diocletian’s adoratio went beyond civilitas (plus quam civilia).⁸¹ Likewise, the Epitome de Caesaribus only mentions civilitas and its cognates once, as it calls Augustus civilis.⁸² On the other hand, Eutropius mentions civilitas very often and consistently uses it to characterise his “good emperors”: Augustus (who is civilissimus), Claudius, Titus, Nerva (likewise civilissimus), Trajan, Quintillus, Probus, Constantius Chlorus, Vetranio, Jovian and Julian are all portrayed as civiles.⁸³ On the other hand, Herculius and Gallus are inciviles, while Verus and Maximian lack civilitas.⁸⁴

By contrast, Ammianus has an ambiguous view of civilitas.⁸⁵ He thrice portrays Julian as civilis, and this emperor’s general, Procopius, as well as the general Ursicinus, much lauded by Ammianus, are likewise civiles.⁸⁶On the other hand, Constantius claimed to be modelling his life on the civiles emperors of the past but his use of dominus in reference to himself in letters suggested otherwise, according to Ammianus.⁸⁷ This could appear a conventional use of civilitas to characterise “good” emperors and individuals, but Ammianus’ Julian is a complex character. Indeed, Ammianus was less than enthused about some of Julian’s shows of civilitas, which he characterises as “undignified (indecore)” and “affected and cheap (affectatum et vile)”. Furthermore, they showed Julian to be “an excessive seeker of empty fame (nimius captator inanis gloriae)”, according to Ammianus.⁸⁸ On the other hand, he commends the supposedly incivilis emperor Constantius since “he always maintained the dignity of imperial majesty (Imperatoriae auctoritatis cothurnum)”.⁸⁹ Lastly, Ammianus pours acidic scorn on civilitas as part of his critique of Rome’s senatorial elite: “the height of civilitas with these men at present is (civilitatis autem hoc apud eos est nunc summum) that it is better for a stranger to kill any man’s brother than to decline his invitation to dinner.”⁹⁰ Thus, civilitas is treated in a variety of different ways in these historical writers.

Importantly, aside from these writers, civilitas and its cognates are seemingly only mentioned in two other works of the fourth century, namely two panegyrics from the Panegyrici Latini.⁹¹ Mamertinus’ panegyric of Julian focuses on this quality extensively due to this emperor’s atypical and reactionary self-presentation as an emperor in the mould of the Principate, and Pacatus once portrays Theodosius as civilis, but otherwise civilitas is absent from Latin literature of this century.⁹² Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Pacatus only calls Theodosius civilis in the context of his visit to Rome where he made “frequent and civiles public appearances (crebro civilique progressu)”.⁹³ Importantly, when visiting Rome, such behaviour was expected from the emperor as a sign of respect for the history of the hallowed city and its senators. This is exemplified by Constantius who, after an adventus in which pomp and majesty predominated, afterwards acted civiliter by speaking in the Senate and showed regard for the traditional libertas of the Roman plebs, according to Ammianus.⁹⁴ Pacatus is seemingly praising Theodosius for living up to this tradition, and he thus views civilitas as mainly appropriate to Rome. This is a very narrow view of the importance and appropriateness of civilitas and John Matthews has even labelled this civilis behaviour in Rome as “relics of the past”.⁹⁵

Thus, the outlook on civilitas in fourth-century literature is less monolithic than sometimes supposed: Aurelius Victor and the Epitome de Caesaribus mention civilitas rarely and do not attach particular importance to it; Pacatus briefly praises civilis behaviour but only does so in the context of Rome; Mamertinus aligns himself with the self-presentation of Julian in his extensive focus on civilitas; Ammianus Marcellinus mentions civilitas often but views it as a quality that could become problematic in excessive measures; while Eutropius focuses on civilitas consistently and views it as a key ingredient in the figure of the good emperor. Furthermore, this overview also highlights the relative rarity of civilitas in fourth-century literature, as only Ammianus and Eutropius, aside from the Historia Augusta, repeatedly engage with the topos of civilitas, albeit in markedly different ways.⁹⁶

It is against this background that we must understand the significance and distinctiveness of the Historia Augusta’s focus on Alexander Severus’ admission and the connected engagement with the theme of civilitas. As already mentioned, this ritual presented Alexander Severus as a civilis princeps, which is part of a broader focus on this quality in the Historia Augusta in general. For example, Antoninus Pius, Verus and Marcus Aurelius are all called civiles, while Hadrian is civilissimus.⁹⁷ Furthermore, Pertinax is praised for always acting civiliter at the admission, which underlines the importance of civilitas in this ritual for the anonymous author.⁹⁸ So far, the Historia Augusta’s use of civilitas parallels Eutropius in the sense that good emperors are described as civiles. In other words, civilitas becomes a moral quality characterising good rulers.

However, the Historia Augusta takes a step further and ties civilitas directly to stable government. Firstly, it is worth noting the Historia Augusta’s description of Hadrian: “Civilissimus in his conversations, even with the very humble, he denounced all who, in the belief that they were thereby maintaining the imperial dignity, begrudged him the pleasure of such friendliness (In conloquiis etiam humillimorum civilissimus fuit, detestans eos qui sibi hanc voluptatem humanitatis quasi servantes fastigium principis inviderent).”⁹⁹ It is striking that Hadrian emphasises that civilitas did not undermine the dignity (fastigium) of imperial rule. In other words, this virtue did not affect imperial rule and its authority negatively. This was even the case when the emperor was civilissimus; in contrast to Ammianus, emperors could not be too civiles in the Historia Augusta.

The link between civilitas and stable, constructive rule becomes even clearer in the biography of Antoninus Pius: he “reduced the imperial pomp to the utmost civilitas (imperatorium fastigium ad summam civilitatem deduxit) and thereby gained the greater esteem (plus crevit), though the palace-attendants opposed this course, for they found that since he made no use of go-betweens, they could in no wise terrorise men or take money for decisions about which there was no concealment.”¹⁰⁰ Thus, civilitas caused Antoninus to obtain “greater esteem (plus crevit)”, but it also prevented imperial underlings from selling favours, which is a persistent problem in the Historia Augusta.¹⁰¹

In the life of Alexander, civilitas is also presented not merely as a moral quality but as a key ingredient to good rule: Alexander’s female family members “would often upbraid him for excessive civilitas (nimiam civilitatem), saying, ‘You have made your rule too gentle and the authority of the empire less respected’. He would reply: ‘But I have made it more secure and more lasting’ (dicerent, ‘molliorem tibi potestatem et contemptibiliorem imperii fecisti,’ ille respondit, ‘sed securiorem atque diuturniorem’). In short, he never allowed a day to pass without doing some kind, some generous, or some righteous deed (aliquid mansuetum, civile pium fecit), and yet he never ruined the public treasury.”¹⁰² Firstly, civilitas is presented as securing Alexander’s imperium and potestas, thereby ensuring the longevity of his reign. Secondly, we again see an emperor rejecting accusations of excessive civilitas, just as in the biography of Hadrian. Thirdly, the anonymous author also underlines that Alexander’s daily shows of civilitas did not ruin the public treasury. The author here seems to anticipate potential objections, explaining that civilitas did not entail emptying the treasury to gain popularity or please one’s subjects. The emperor could be civilis, and thereby obtain the positive effects of this virtue, without ruining the public treasury.¹⁰³

Alexander is thoroughly idealised by the Historia Augusta and Alexander’s response above therefore cannot be rejected as the ramblings of a naïve youth. More significantly, incivilitas is elsewhere tied to the loss of legitimacy and death of the emperor: the anonymous author asserts that the murder of Macrinus and his son was directly attributable to the former’s “harsh and incivilis rule (incivilem […] atque asperum principatum).”¹⁰⁴ Likewise, Aurelian is described as incivilius since he used too severe punishments for the defeated leaders of revolts and he even “killed some senators of noble birth, though the charges against them were trivial”.¹⁰⁵ Consequently, “men ceased to love and began to fear an excellent princeps (princeps optimus), some asserting that such an emperor should be hated and not desired, others that he was a good physician indeed, but the methods he used for healing were bad.”¹⁰⁶ Thus, although Aurelian was a princeps optimus, his incivilitas undermined his legitimacy as emperor in the eyes of his elite subjects.

Against this background, the fictitious descriptions of the admission in the biography of Alexander become more than just a narrow critique of fourth-century ritual praxis: Alexander’s admission is fundamentally an expression of and emphasis on this emperor’s civilitas, and it is diametrically opposed to the late Roman admission. By extension, then, the late Roman admission is an expression of incivilitas, a characterisation that would have resonated with fourth-century readers given the kneeling, use of dominus and bejewelled clothes at the admission in this period. Indeed, Aurelius Victor describes Diocletian’s admission as plus quam civilia, as mentioned above. Thus, the Historia Augusta arguably portrays the fourth-century adoratio not merely as a break with tradition and a moral failing to be castigated, but as prohibiting civilitas in the emperor. This becomes highly significant when combined with the Historia Augusta’s presentation of civilitas as an essential ingredient of stable and constructive rule: against this background, the incivilitas of the adoratio can be seen as undermining imperial rule more broadly. As the biographies of Macrinus and Aurelian show, such incivilitas resulted in the hatred of one’s subjects and, ultimately, the murder of the emperor.

This conception of civilitas as a key ingredient of stable imperial rule is highly distinctive: it contrasts sharply with Ammianus who views Julian’s attempts at civilis behaviour as excessive and as undermining the dignity of imperial rule. It also deviates from the seemingly common view of civilis comportment as something mainly appropriate to Rome, a “relic” in the words of Matthews. Rather, the anonymous author underlines the necessity of making the anomalously civilis imperial behaviour in Rome universal, of making it a cornerstone of imperial rule. The Historia Augusta does evince some parallels with Eutropius who likewise defends the importance of the traditional virtue of civilitas. However, Eutropius portrays civilitas mainly as a moral quality that characterises numerous rulers, and he never explores practical consequences or effects on imperial legitimacy and power deriving from civilitas. By contrast, the Historia Augusta ties (in)civilitas directly to the stability of imperial rule and the fall and survival of emperors.

The Historia Augusta’s critique of the fourth-century admission and the lack of imperial civilitas may appear out of place in the late fourth or early fifth century. However, as pointed out by Christopher Kelly, “the construction, presentation and perception of imperial power [in the later Roman Empire] remained disputed territory. The fourth century, in particular, was marked by an unresolved tension between traditional moralizing views of imperial power, which stressed the close relationship between citizen and king, and other, more ceremonial versions which emphasized the distance between subject and ruler.”¹⁰⁷ Indeed, Eutropius focused extensively on the virtue of civilitas. Likewise, despite Ammianus’ ambiguous view of civilitas, he does praise several individuals for this quality and he criticises the adoratio as a “foreign and royal (externo et regio)” custom.¹⁰⁸ Furthermore, the critique of Diocletian’s admission for breaking with tradition was not limited to a conservative, Rome-based senatorial elite, as evidenced by the criticism in Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Jerome and Ammianus, four writers with very different backgrounds.¹⁰⁹

Furthermore, a few decades before the Historia Augusta, Julian’s reign had sparked a renewed focus on civilitas, and at least once he had conducted an admission that stressed civilitas along the lines of the Principate.¹¹⁰ Both Mamertinus and Eutropius praise Julian’s civilitas and the latter incorporated civilitas as a key element of his evaluation of emperors. On the other hand, Pacatus in his panegyric of Theodosius from 389 was significantly more reserved, viewing civilitas as mainly appropriate for Rome. Shortly hereafter, what was perceived as Julian’s civilis behaviour came under attack from Ammianus who thought that his civilitas at times was excessive and therefore undignified.¹¹¹The Historia Augusta’s Alexander Severus was likewise upbraided for “excessive civilitas (nimiam civilitatem)”, but his answer quoted above and the Historia Augusta’s presentation of civilitas more broadly underline that this quality, in the anonymous author’s eyes, could never come in excessive quantities. The Historia Augusta’s praise of civilitas as key to imperial government can thus be viewed partly as a response to criticisms of Julian and his civilitas, and perhaps as a response to Ammianus’ critique specifically given that the two were likely roughly contemporary.¹¹²

The Historia Augusta’s distinctive view of civilitas raises the question of audience. It is generally assumed that the anonymous author was based in Rome, for example because authorial self-references place the scriptores there and because anecdotes and digressions frequently focus on this city as well.¹¹³ Furthermore, traditional senatorial values permeate the work, as exemplified by Alexander’s admission. Consequently, it is often assumed that the intended audience was Rome’s senatorial aristocracy or a part thereof, and it has indeed recently been asserted that “it is beyond question […] that the author primarily focused precisely on the […] aristocracy of the city of Rome.”¹¹⁴ Moreover, the biographies of Marius Maximus were seemingly in vogue in Rome in this period, and the Historia Augusta would therefore have fit excellently with elite tastes.¹¹⁵ A senatorial audience, and an author sympathetic to their views (perhaps even senatorial himself), may contribute to explain the Historia Augusta’s distinctive view of the importance of civilitas: Rome’s senatorial elite would have been especially receptive to this view since civilitas entailed an emperor who acted as a primus inter pares in relation to the senators and, as set out above, emperors did in fact routinely show Rome’s senators respect by acting civiliter when visiting the capital. Thus, just like Ammianus’ somewhat ambiguous view of civilitas was probably influenced by his background as a military man from the east, the Historia Augusta’s emphasis on the importance of civilitas may be viewed as fundamentally coloured by Rome’s senatorial culture.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the admission of Alexander Severus as described in the Historia Augusta is suffused with ritual elements from the fourth-century admission, which functions as a critique of this ritual and an attempt to challenge imperial self-presentation in the late Roman admission by reframing it, and thereby the emperor, as Persian. The descriptions of the admission of Alexander are also part of a wider emphasis on the importance of civilitas to sound and stable government in the Historia Augusta, which engages with contemporary debates about ideal rule.

These conclusions elucidate the wider nature and aims of the Historia Augusta: as mentioned in the Introduction, one scholarly position excludes any serious engagement with politics or religion, and entertainment and deception are instead viewed as the central preoccupations. The Historia Augusta is a complex work with many layers at work simultaneously, and the descriptions of Alexander’s admission might indeed include humour and erudite literary allusions. However, for the majority of ancient readers, the most immediately discernible function of these descriptions was to criticise the late Roman admission. The Historia Augusta presents the hitherto most developed critique of this ritual, reframing it as a mos persicus and challenging imperial self-presentation. This shows that, while the Historia Augusta is no doubt entertaining and even if one accepts that an all-encompassing political or religious purpose is difficult to discern, this enigmatic work also includes distinctive political points and engagement with contemporary debates, which were taken seriously by the readers.

Lastly, this article also aimed to illustrate, through the case study of the Historia Augusta, the wider importance of literary representations of the admission and rituals more broadly. Numerous ancient writers incorporate rituals in their works but this is not merely a reflection of reality; rather, emperors presented certain images of themselves through ritual, and literary representations of ritual could then support and strengthen or challenge this imperial self-presentation. Essentially, the enactment of rituals and their literary representations are inextricably interlinked and constitute a struggle over the meaning of ritual which is continuously being configured and reconfigured. In order to understand the significance of ritual, it is thus central to explore both sides of this two-way communication, focusing not only on the rituals themselves but recognising the complexity and fluidity of meaning that literary representations of ritual entail.