The roman emperor in the fourth century AD: between the theory

and practice of power

In this essay, I will sketch a brief overview of the position of the emperor in the Late
Roman Empire suggesting that his political power was succesfully contested by that of the
informal groups at the imperial court despite the official propagandistic discourse which
emphasized his unchallenged rulership. In Late Antiquity, the Roman Empire underwent
structural social, economical and political changes; it became a centralized, bureaucratic ruled
monarchy, having at its apex a ruler who was worshiped in flamboyant ceremonies (adventus,
consecratio etc) and panegyrics (basilikos logos) as a living deity (deus praesens). The imperial
propaganda focused in this period mainly on the image of the emperor whose absolute power
was legitimized by divinity.

The position of the emperor in the roman world evolved gradually since Augustus – who
laid the foundations of the roman monarchy, over the first three centuries AD, acquiring strong
Orientalized features – read claiming absolute power, only with the establishing of the Tetrarchy
(284-305). The propagandistic discourse of the period emphasized especially the military
qualities of the emperor (virtus), his moral and intellectual superiority (princeps bonus) and also
his privileged religious position (vicarius Dei) – as a divine ruler, no matter what his faith was,
pagan or Christian. In the fourth century, these themes will be used by the pagan or Christian
writers to praise the emperors. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea praised Constantine, the first
Christian emperor (306-337) in his eulogistic works De vita Constantini and De laudibus
Constantini as the legitimate ruler only because he was chosen by God. His physical appearance
and moral qualities even his military victories against Maxentius (312) and Licinius (324) were
stressed by the bishop as proofs of this divine choice. This type of discourse will prevail in the
fourth century. The historians who analyzed this topic emphasized in particular the role of the
classical cultural legacy in shaping this image of the imperial power; therefore, the political
theories of the Greek and roman philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Cicero were still highly
valued in Late Antiquity. Peter Brown, the highest authority for this period, stressed the role of
the classical educational system (paideia) in the preservation of the traditional values among the
imperial elite members.
 The flamboyant official propaganda which stressed the unchallenged power of the roman
emperor was only a mere ideal image of the monarchy in the Late Roman Empire. Christopher
Kelly argued that in reality the imperial power was exercised rather by the influential groups at
the imperial court: eunuchs, generals, clerks, members of the imperial council or even his
relatives (domus augusta) etc. Hence, the claims of the absolute power made by the roman
emperors in Late Antiquity must be viewed only in association with those of the Empire –
understood as a metahistorical agent. To be more specifically, the Empire – through its
administration, created the image of the absolute authority, power and divine status of the
emperor in order to maintain its structure and functioning: nihil sub sole novum!