Callistus, Terentius, Hyginus, Narcissus, Asiaticus, Neophytus, Phaon, Pallas… What do these names of historical figures from Ancient Rome have in common? All of them were freedmen, that is, slaves freed by their masters, and most of them prospered in their new lives, becoming esteemed literati or secretaries to emperors. A good example could be the case of Marcus Antonius Pallas, who, in addition to amassing a vast fortune—just like another, Callistus—held important positions during the reigns of Claudius and Nero until the latter killed him to seize his money.
Pallas was of Greek origin, as was often the case with slaves of a certain level; those who did not work in the hard agricultural labor but in domestic service, often as teachers and tutors of children. His date and place of birth are unknown, and the only thing we know about his origin is the information provided by Tacitus, who says that he descended from the kings of Arcadia (a region in central Peloponnesus, from which it is deduced that his ancestors were Pelasgians). We also know he had a brother, Felix, who, upon gaining his freedom, was appointed procurator of the Roman province of Judea.
The truth is that both appear in history as slaves of Antonia Minor, the daughter of the famous Mark Antony, from whom they would take their name upon being manumitted, following tradition. Pallas was soon embroiled in political intrigues when, according to Flavius Josephus, Antonia sent him to Tiberius to show him evidence of the murder of her son Drusus Minor at the hands of Lucius Aelius Sejanus, the Praetorian Prefect who ruled Rome despotically on behalf of the emperor. Fulfilling that risky mission and having reached the average age for his condition led the owner to grant him freedom sometime between the years 31 and 37 AD.
It was not a mere manumission; as payment for his services, he received a plot of land in Egypt, and shortly after, upon Antonia’s death, her son Claudius sponsored the freedman, as was customary. Four years later, Claudius ascended to the throne, proclaimed by the Praetorians in place of the ill-fated Caligula and with the Senate’s open distrust, which forced him to strip them of power and centralize authority in his hands. Overwhelmed by the immense task of governing, he decided to delegate it among several assistants, for whom he appointed some of his trusted freedmen.
Evidently, enjoying the sponsorship of the Julio-Claudian family was coupled with the good qualities Pallas displayed for administrative work, which led to his appointment as secretary of the imperial treasury. His management was excellent. So much so that Cornelius Scipio proposed to the Senate that he be rewarded, and the motion was approved. This, combined with his salary, the foreseeable transactions he could have carried out for his own benefit thanks to privileged information (although ancient historians assure that he never embezzled) and the influence he had with the emperor, led him to earn fifteen million sesterces.
Over time, he would greatly expand that wealth to reach the staggering figure of three hundred million, making him one of the richest men in Rome; suffice it to say that to be a senator, one had to prove ownership of one million sesterces. But having plenty of money was one thing, and having influence to match it was another. The status of a freedman, a step below a free citizen, weighed heavily like a tombstone, and, for example, Pallas could not prevent his brother Felix, summoned to the metropolis to appear before a court and convicted of corruption, from being exiled. Nor was he able to prevent his administrative colleague, Polybius, another freedman, from ending up in the hands of the executioner, accused of treason.
Often, in Roman history, freedmen played a decisive role in succession crises. This was not limited to the throne but extended to consorts as well. After Claudius ordered the execution of his wife Messalina due to her scandalous infidelity, Pallas supported the candidacy of Julia Agrippina the Younger, Caligula’s sister, to marry the emperor, in opposition to Lollia Paulina, who was proposed by another freedman, Callistus. Paulina had been forced to divorce her husband, Publius Memmius Regulus, to marry Caligula, who repudiated her after six months.
According to Tacitus, Pallas’ intention was strategic: to strengthen the ties between the Julian and Claudian families to prevent any future claim to the throne from Agrippina’s relatives (husband, son). Other contemporaries believed that, in reality, she and the freedman were in a romantic relationship, although there is no evidence of this, and it was more likely a mutually beneficial agreement. Again, it is Tacitus who provides another detail: Pallas praised Agrippina especially for the fact that she would bring with her the grandson of Germanicus. Germanicus was Claudius’ brother, and therefore Agrippina was his niece.
In the end, Pallas got his way and had to distribute his services and influence between both spouses. Since Paulina could still be a nuisance, Agrippina decided to eliminate her, and in 49 AD, she accused her of witchcraft, ordered the confiscation of her wealthy properties, and banished her from Italy; later, probably following the empress’s orders, a commander of the Praetorian Guard forced her to take her own life. As mentioned earlier, Agrippina’s closeness with Pallas was the subject of gossip. The responsibility for spreading this rumor fell to Tiberius Claudius Narcissus.
Narcissus, another Greek freedman, was the praepositus ab epistulis (in charge of correspondence). He had also amassed a fortune and was rumored to have been an accomplice in Messalina’s excesses, although documentary sources assert that he was very loyal to Claudius and was the one who denounced her after her bigamy. His idea was for the emperor to take back his first wife, Aelia Paetina, hoping that he would name his son-in-law, Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix, as heir instead of Britannicus, the son Claudius had with Messalina; when this failed, he made a Machiavellian turn, winning favor with Britannicus.
This made him an enemy of Agrippina, who aspired to place her own son, Nero, as the successor, and therefore of Pallas, hence the slanders against them. Eventually, Agrippina suspected that Narcissus was trying to turn the emperor against her and acted preemptively: first, she got the freedman out of the way by recommending he go to Campania to take baths to improve his health, and then, it is believed, she poisoned her husband; some say with Pallas’s help. In this way, she managed to place Nero at the head of the Empire; it was supposed to be temporary due to Britannicus’s minority, but things turned out very differently.
Narcissus had also ended up the same way after Claudio’s departure, while Pallas continued in the treasury at the service of the new emperor. However, it didn’t take long for him to get fed up with his mother’s continuous meddling in government affairs and, consequently, to doubt the loyalty of the freedman, whom he still associated with her. After all, the emperor already had his own advisers, Seneca and Afranius Burrus. As Tacitus recounts:
Nero, then, hostile to those who supported his mother’s arrogant pride, removed Pallas from the administration of the treasury, a position he had obtained from Claudius that made him almost an arbiter of the state. It was said that as Pallas left, followed by a multitude of parasites, Nero joked that Pallas was going to hand over his position. In reality, Pallas had agreed that no investigation would be conducted into his past management and that his dealings with the state were considered closed.
Nero threatened his mother with abdicating and going into exile in Rhodes. She responded by getting closer to Britannicus, which alarmed the emperor. The consequence was predictable: Claudius’s son died shortly after turning fourteen, allegedly from an epileptic attack, although most believe he was poisoned by Nero (helped by a slave named Locusta, as we saw in another article). This marked Agrippina’s final removal from the court and the death of her supposed lover, Aulus Plautius, whom Nero feared she might promote as an alternative to the throne, according to Suetonius.
Agrippina didn’t last much longer. Her son’s new wife, Poppaea Sabina, also saw her as a rival when it came to exerting influence over him, and after several failed assassination attempts, she convinced her husband to execute her in 59 AD by implicating her in an invented conspiracy. But that destructive whirlwind continued. Four years earlier, Nero, unwilling to keep around those he considered agents or supporters of Agrippina, had dismissed Pallas from his position as treasurer. And in 58 AD, he implicated him in a shady conspiracy that sought to overthrow him and replace him with Faustus Cornelius Sulla.
He was the son of Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix, a descendant of the famous dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla, and his wife Domitia Lepida, great-niece of Augustus, granddaughter of Mark Antony, mother of Messalina, and grandmother of Britannicus. The alleged candidate to usurp the throne, who was married to Claudia Antonia, Claudius’s daughter, was said to have had the complicity of Pallas and the praetorian prefect Sextus Afranius Burrus in his plans to be proclaimed emperor instead of Nero, which led to a legal process. Seneca was in charge of defending them and managed to get all three acquitted. But Nero, of course, was not at ease.
A year later, a second accusation arose, and this time Sulla was exiled to Massilia (Marseille), where he was assassinated in 62 AD by two hitmen sent by Ofonius Tigellinus, Nero’s right-hand man. Tacitus notes that Sulla’s character was timid and despicable making it impossible for him to lead any plot. In any case, if a consul like him had come out badly, someone of lower social standing, like a mere freedman, was not going to escape unscathed. Pallas ended up being poisoned in 63 AD, not only to eliminate any loose ends but also to seize his coveted fortune. Tacitus says:
…it is believed that Nero had his most powerful freedmen killed with poison: Doryphorus, accused of opposing his marriage to Poppaea; Pallas, because he was too old and immensely rich.
By way of an epilogue, two curiosities should be added. The first is that in 167 AD, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, a descendant of Pallas reached the consulship, which means that the freedman must have managed to save part of his wealth and maintain his family’s status. The other is that his brother, Marcus Antonius Felix, regained his position in Judea and in 58 AD was the one who saved Paul of Tarsus from the death penalty to which the Sanhedrin had condemned him, transferring him to another city for his safety… in exchange for a substantial sum of money.
This article was first published on our Spanish Edition on September 9, 2024: Marco Antonio Palas, el tesorero de dos emperadores romanos que se hizo rico sin malversar nunca fondos públicos
SOURCES
Tácito, Anales
Suetonio, Vidas de los doce césares
Dion Casio, Historia romana
Flavio Josefo, Antigüedades de los judíos
Plinio el Joven, Cartas
Sergei I. Kovaliov, Historia de Roma
Wikipedia, Marco Antonio Palas
Discover more from LBV Magazine English Edition
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.