ABSTRACT
The materials for constructing the theory of Claudian 'centralization' as an attack on senatorial power and prestige are of three kinds: allusions in the ancient sources to the Emperor's proneness to intervene in matters that might have been left to take their own course; recognition of his political difficulties with the Senate, and of tussles for power with them; and minor administrative changes made for diverse reasons. Together the materials are mutually supportive. Looked at more closely, however, the changes seem scrappy and even inconsistent. Sometimes the knights are favoured, sometimes they are attacked with the Senate. They were becoming functionaries who took their orders from freedmen, or were being paralyzed by the concentration of wealth, and so of trade, in the hands of the Emperor. Gaps in the construction have to be papered over or excused. Neither together nor separately do they provide reasons for believing that Claudius had any policy that could be called by a name so comprehensive and so modern. 3
The Emperor's indubitable taste for doing things himself is attested by the ancient writers and provides a core for this version of 'centralization' in impeccable Latin: Tacitus accuses him of concentrating all legal and magisterial functions on himself. But this refers specifically to his passion for sitting in court; Tacitus happens to apply a very similar expression to Augustus, with a far clearer reference to the concentration of political power in the hands of an individual.4
