Of lizards and peacocks Criticism of the princeps clausus in fourth- and fifth-century sources

This article explores how fourth-and fifth century orators and authors from both halves of the Empire criticized palace-based emperors through the topos of the prin-ceps clausus, the secluded ruler who stays invisible and inaccessible to his subjects. Although criticism of remote and aloof emperors such as Tiberius and Domitian went back to the early days of the principate, the princeps clausus only developed into a distinct type in the literature of late antiquity, when there was a tendency for emperors to stop leading armies in person and to spend much of their time at the centre of a highly ceremonious court, thus defying the expectations of traditional elites longing for military active leaders who were willing to interact with them in an open manner and on a more or less equal footing. Typical features of a princeps clausus include seclusion in the palace, motivated by arrogance and/or a disinterest in public affairs; corruption by eunuchs and other shady characters at court; a pref-erence for a life of luxury and indolence over the pursuit of military duties; and an inclination towards ‘Oriental’ pomp and ceremony, although not all of these are necessarily always present in combination. Criticism of secluded rulers usually does not have overt religious connotations and is uttered by pagan and Christian authors alike.