their names could not be found upon the authorised rolls.  Though several emperors did their best to stop this practice, the endeavour was for the most part fruitless.  Once in England the “esquires” were a class with certain recognised claims, but nothing could stop the polite tendency to add “Esq.” to the name of a person on a private letter.  The case was somewhat similar at Rome, although the practice did not proceed quite so far.

Nevertheless there was a distinct and official roll of “Roman knights,” whom the head of the state had honoured with a public present of “the gold ring,” a ceremony corresponding to the royal sword-stroke of modern times.  This body, mounted on horses nominally presented by the public, and riding in procession through the streets, was reviewed and revised every year.  Their roll was called, and if a name was omitted from its proper place, it meant—­without explanation necessary—­that by the pleasure of the emperor the person in question had ceased to be a knight.  Every member of the already-mentioned higher or senatorial order was by right a knight until he actually became a senator, from which time he ceased to enjoy the privileges of a knight because he was enjoying those of the higher order rank.  For there were privileges as well as disabilities in each case.  As a senator could govern large provinces and command armies, but could not engage in purely financial business; so the knight could—­and almost alone did—­conduct the large financial enterprises of the Roman world, but could not command armies nor hold any of the great public offices or higher provincial appointments, except the governorship of Egypt.  Relatively to the senators the emperor was technically only “first among equals”; he was the first senator, as well as the first man of the state.  At this date a senator would hold a truly public office, civil or military, with or under this “superior equal,” but he would not act as his personal agent or assistant.  The Roman aristocrat had not yet learned to serve in that capacity, still less on the “household” staff of the autocrat.  There were as yet no highly placed Romans serving as Lord High Chamberlain, much less as Private Secretary.  The “knights” stood in a different position.  They were prepared to be the emperor’s personal agents, just as they were prepared to be the agents of any one else, if sufficiently remunerated.  They would take his personal orders, whether in managing his estates, collecting his provincial revenues, or relieving him of some routine portion of his own official labour.

It follows that it was often more lucrative to be a knight than a senator, and a number of senators were not unwilling to give up their rank, for the same reasons which induce a modern peer to serve on companies or a peeress to open a shop.  On the other hand many a knight would have declined to become a senator, at least until he had sufficiently feathered his nest.  The inducement to become or remain a senator was the social rank, the honour and dignity, with their outward insignia and the deference paid to them, the front seat, and the reception at court.  In these the wives also shared, and at Rome the influence of the wife could not be disregarded.