SOCIAL RELATIONS 175and the right of tapping the water supply. The norms guiding the distribution
of these goods and services were openly particularistic, in contrast to the
universalistic rules associated with modern bureaucracies. They were treated
as personal favours granted to the loyal, not as governmental services and
positions to be distributed on the basis of impersonal competition and
universally available to all qualifi ed citizens or subjects. In return, devoted
service and gratitude were expected, one manifestation of which was the
naming of the emperor in the will. T. Marius Urbinas caused a scandal by
failing to acknowledge Augustus’ generosity to himself in this way (Valerius
Maximus 7.8.6). From more conscientious friends and clients Augustus
received 1.4 billion sesterces in bequests over the last twenty years of his
reign (Suetonius, Aug. 101).^5
The emperor also took on the role of benefactor of the plebs, in the cause
of order and the security of his regime. Augustus’ interest in the tribunate,
the prerogatives of which he gradually assumed between 36 and 23 BC , is to
be explained in these terms. The appeal of the tribune lay in its historic role
as the champion of the common people. More important, Augustus saw to
the material needs of the masses by tending to their supply of food, water
and housing, by providing public shows and by occasional distributions of
considerable sums of money to all male citizens of the city. The sums cited
in Res Gestae were the equivalent of at least several months’ rent for the
poor (15). Whatever their feelings about these handouts, later emperors felt
compelled to continue in this role. Though the plebs lost all semblance of
constitutional power with the transfer of elections to the senate in AD 14,
they still possessed means of making their discontent known and the
emperor’s position awkward, whether through protests at public spectacles
or riots in the streets.^6
Emperors did not and could not monopolize patronage. They did not
attempt to be universal patrons to all their subjects, since universality would
have undermined the incentive for personal gratitude on the part of the
subjects.^7 Far from contemplating the suppression of the patronal networks
of the aristocratic houses in Rome, emperors positively encouraged them by
providing some of the resources that helped aristocratic patrons like Pliny to
reward their clients. The letters of Pliny show Trajan granting offi ces and
citizenship at Pliny’s request, thus bolstering Pliny’s status as an effective
mediator. The successful emperors were the ones who kept the imperial
aristocrats content by allowing them to maintain their exalted social status,
and that implied a willingness to permit the great houses to display their
patronal infl uence in the traditional way.
Patrons and clients
Tacitus in writing of the ‘part of the populace... attached to the great
houses’ ( Hist. 1.4.) attests the patronal ties linking aristocrats and members