174 THE ROMAN EMPIRE
in time of the benefactor’s need ( Ben. 6.43.3), and the language of debt and
repayment regularly appeared in discussions of exchange between friends or
patrons and clients.^3
Just as a loan created a relationship between creditor and debtor, so a
favour or service gave rise to a social relationship between Romans. Because
benefaction and requital were matters of honour, the dynamics of the
exchange partially determined the relative social standing of the men
involved. Very little pretence was made about egalitarianism in friendships.
A man might have ‘superior friends’, ‘equal friends’, ‘lesser friends’ and
humble ‘clients’, and the categorization of others into one or another of
these depended on their resources (Pliny, Ep. 7.3.2, 2.6.2; Seneca, Ep. 94.14).
Those who could exchange comparable benefi ts were friends of equal social
standing, whilst most stood higher or lower in the hierarchy by virtue of
their capacity to provide superior or inferior services in return. Some
Romans tried to conceal the favours done for them precisely to avoid the
implication of social inferiority arising from the fact that they had to turn to
someone else for help. The proper conduct of a recipient was to acknowledge
and advertise his benefactor’s generosity and power.
Three rough categories of exchange relationships can be distinguished for
analytical purposes according to the relative social statuses of the men
involved (though the dividing lines between them were not clear and were
sometimes intentionally obscured by the Romans themselves): patrons and
clients, superior and inferior friends (or patrons and protégés), and equal
friends.
The emperor as patron
Augustus sought to establish his legitimacy not only by restoring the social
order, but also by demonstrating his own supremacy in it through the
traditional modes of patronage and benefi cence. Much of the Res Gestae ,
his own account of his reign, was an elaboration of the staggering scale of
his benefi ts and services to the Roman people (15–18). In Pliny’s Panegyric
(e.g., 2, 21), the ideology of the good emperor was one not so much of an
effi cient administrator as of a paternal protector and benefactor.^4 Since
subjects could not repay imperial benefactions in kind, the reciprocity ethic
dictated that they make a return in the form of deference, respect and loyalty.
Consequently, as Seneca pointed out, the emperor who played the role of
great patron well had no need of guards because he was ‘protected by his
benefi ts’ ( Clem. 1.13.5).
The emperor distributed his benefi ts individually to those who had access
to him and, more broadly, to favoured groups, notably the Roman plebs and
the army. Proximity to the emperor opened up to a privileged circle, including
friends of high rank, relatives, and servile members of his household, a wide
range of benefi ts from offi ces and honours to fi nancial assistance to citizenship