This chapter presents a selection of images of the emperor in the presence of members of his court, as depicted in reliefs, statue groups, coins, medallions, and frescos. It also includes a number of texts that discuss now-lost depictions of the emperor and his court. It is suggested that such images were important to constituting and reinforcing public perceptions of who was part of the imperial court, and of the hierarchy of the court at a particular moment. The destruction or defacement of images of courtiers who had fallen from grace – known today as damnatio memoriae – illustrated to contemporaries (and illustrates to us) specific changes in court hierarchy, and the general instability of that hierarchy. A number of the sources in the chapter come from provincial contexts, which also illustrates that the image of the imperial court had an impact on the peripheries of the Roman empire.

The selection of literary, epigraphic, and papyrological sources presented in this chapter illustrates the key categories of courtier at the Roman imperial court, and the relationships of courtiers with each other and with the emperor. Categories of courtier include: the emperor’s friends (amici principis); his advisors; poets, writers, and other cultural figures; members of the imperial family; domestic workers; astrologers; the emperor’s sexual partners; and foreign royals. Various themes relating to the emperor’s relationships run through the sources, including: the tensions between ideals and realities; the competing claims of independence and subservience; the instability of court hierarchy; the operation of influence, brokerage, and patronage; the existence of power groups and factions at court; and the consequences of relationship breakdowns between emperors and courtiers.

This chapter focuses on the interactions that took place in the homes of the leading families of the late Republic, with particular emphasis on those that continued, albeit in changed form, at the imperial court. In exploring this theme, priority is given to written and archaeological evidence from the late Republic and early Augustan era, rather than later evidence, which may be suspected of anachronism. Topics covered include the personnel of the aristocratic household, the social rituals that took place there, the role of the household as a node of patronage, and the development of Republican houses as physical spaces. The chapter also argues that the rise of the great dynasts of the late Republic provoked anxieties similar to those that existed in the court culture of the Principate regarding the asymmetrical relationship between emperor and courtiers, and the outsized power of particular freedmen.

This chapter traces the architectural development of the imperial palaces in Rome, with emphasis on the Flavian palace. The imperial residences in Rome show us how power and stratification were embodied in architecture; they also tell us something about social practices within the imperial court. The chapter sets the background by examining the residence of Augustus, which was an assemblage of aristocratic houses adjacent to a sacred area, and Nero’s Domus Aurea, which sought to create spaces for leisure (otium) reminiscent of villas and suburban gardens (horti). With the Flavian palace, an enduring model for the Roman imperial palace was defined. It offered a flexible assemblage of spaces, some of them suited to the social rituals of court life, including the salutatio and banquets, and others providing spaces for otium. The success of the model was such that elements were imitated in the palaces of the Tetrarchic period.

Is the periodization of the Principate according to dynasties also valid for the history of the court? Was there continuous development of court life – such as increasing institutionalization – or were certain elements of court life linked to certain styles of rule, recurring occasionally but then disappearing again? In answering these questions, this chapter focuses on elements that are central in this book: place; composition; activity; and the institutionalization or ritualization of court life. The chapter finds that there were few neatly defined chronological developments of the court, other than changes which were directly related to the increasing absence of the emperors from Rome. There was, however, a consistent moralistic discourse, often created and perpetuated by courtiers, surrounding the emperor’s behaviour at court. This meant that the expectations of members of the Roman court could influence emperors just as they could influence life at their court.

Sex offered intimate access to the emperor; imperial sex partners therefore were potentially amongst the most influential members of court, even if they lacked official positions or were of low social status. This chapter begins by discussing and explaining an historical anomaly: the absence at Rome of a ‘harem’ – an institutionalized reserve of women attached to the court as exclusive sexual partners for the emperor. It then examines the access to the emperor that sexual partners like concubines had, and the influence of these partners on court dynamics. Finally, it considers the role of sex, sexuality, and gender expression in the performance of imperial power at court. Underlying the analysis are the often outrageous tales told by the sources about emperors’ sex lives; the chapter argues that these cannot be simply taken at face value but are useful in reconstructing patterns of thinking about how sex intersected with imperial power.

This chapter discusses the members of foreign royal families who moved in court circles at Rome. In general, these fell into two groups: princely children who were raised at the Roman court and spent time there as adults; and members of royal houses from semi-independent states who found refuge at the Roman court. The chapter suggests that the Roman court was a ‘contact zone’ – a social space in which disparate cultures met and interacted. The argument develops chronologically, highlighting how Republican practices were adapted under the Julio-Claudians, how a new phase of integration started under the Flavians, and how the phenomenon developed in the second and third centuries. Two functions of the court emerge: the court as a meeting place where foreign royals were integrated into transnational networks; and the court as a platform for the pursuit of power, where foreign royals attempted to gain the emperor’s favour.

Close relatives of the emperor were assumed to be members of his court, unless he took conscious steps to exclude or expel them. A male relative’s position at court could be bolstered with traditional markers of authority including magistracies; female relatives relied on their access to, and relationship with, the emperor to build influence. The scandalous accounts of imperial women in the literary sources attest to the resentment their high status provoked, at least among the elite men who produced such narratives. For the emperor, his relatives were both living symbols of his rule and valuable aides in governing the empire. To wider court circles, Roman society as a whole, and even Rome’s foreign neighbours, members of the imperial family were intermediaries between ruler and subject, sources of patronage and protection, but also active participants in court intrigue. They could secure the dynasty – but they could also destroy it.

Ancient and modern observers of the Roman court have often characterized it as a fundamentally theatrical space. Court ‘performances’ therefore included senators flattering the imperial family, imperial family members costumed as deities, conspirators disguising their intentions, and the emperor himself, who could play a variety of roles. But performance in the formal sense was also central to court culture, so this chapter explores the sorts of performances occurring in court contexts (tragedy, comedy, pantomime, storytelling, etc.). It also examines the wider role in the court of the (often low-status) performers, including actors, pantomime dancers, storytellers, and jesters. They fundamentally shaped the court’s cultural life, and could themselves be powerful, popular, and wealthy. But they were also disposable court bodies with precarious court positions, since their performances could incite political controversy, and they stood in the place of others who wanted closer access to the emperor.

Unlike many other monarchical courts in history, the Roman imperial court had no distinctive form of dress for courtiers. But dress, jewellery, and the presentation of the body were still important in the world of the court. The clothed, adorned, and groomed body was a crucial instrument of communication within court society. In the case of the emperor and his family especially, the clothed body and its presentation also communicated with the rest of society; the considerable inscriptional evidence for staff in the imperial household with tasks involving clothing, jewellery, or grooming hints at the message of magnificence often being conveyed. Magnificence was, however, a two-edged sword. The ancient literary sources display clear traces of moralizing discourses that sought to pressure the emperor into what were considered to be appropriate sartorial decisions.

This chapter focuses on the interactions of the Roman aristocracy – the members of the senatorial and equestrian orders – with the court, taking as its theme the interplay between routine and disruption. The scale of these interactions fluctuated over time, as did the methods by which emperors signalled their favour for particular aristocrats, thereby creating an (unstable) hierarchy of aristocrats at court. The amici principis (‘friends of the emperor’) formed their own subgroup, with an internal hierarchy; the emperor’s relationship with them was shaped by cultural expectations about amicitia. Some aristocrats were important advisers to the emperor, so the chapter examines advisers and the role of advisory councils (consilia). The chapter reflects on whether the relationship between the emperor and aristocratic courtiers should be characterized as one of ‘domestication’, arguing for an often-volatile situation in which attempts by emperors to control aristocrats (and vice versa) were ad hoc and short-lived.

There were several Latin and Greek terms that roughly correlated with our concept of ‘court’, including aula, palatium, and (from the late third century) comitatus. Roman authors were also capable of making generalizations about their court as an entity, many of them moralizing and negative, but some of them panegyrical. This conceptual framework regarding the court was partly inherited from the Hellenistic world. This chapter presents a selection of literary and epigraphic sources that illustrate the Romans’ conception of their own court as a distinct entity.