Roman Social History

A Sourcebook

Tim Parkin, Arthur Pomeroy, Tim Parkin, Arthur Pomeroy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2007
• Print ISBN: 9780415426756
• eBook ISBN: 9781134091249
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

This Sourcebook contains a comprehensive collection of sources on the topic of the social history of the Roman world during the late Republic and the first two centuries AD.

Designed to form the basis for courses in Roman social history, this excellent resource covers original translations from sources such as inscriptions, papyri, and legal texts. Topics include:

• social inequality and class
• games, gladiators and attitudes to violence
• the role of slaves in Roman society
• economy and taxation
• the Roman legal system
• the Roman family and gender roles.

Including extensive explanatory notes, maps and bibliographies, this Sourcebook is the ideal resource for all students and teachers embarking on a course in Roman social history.

1 SOCIAL CLASSES

An essential feature of the Roman world is the importance of hierarchies: as there was no strong governmental intervention in daily life, it was essential to fit in to a social group in order to gain assistance from one’s peers and to facilitate patronage connections with those more powerful. The Roman senate and equestrian order were the most powerful groupings, and outside Rome the members of the upper classes, such as town councillors or even tribal chiefs, were assimilated to a similar status. These privileged few – probably less than 0.1 per cent of the population – dominated the vast majority beneath them. Yet all were subject to the power of the emperor. Traditionally, the Roman constitution was believed to be a mixture of the three main types (kingship, oligarchy, and democracy), avoiding the perils of each (1.1). In the empire, however, it is clear that rule by the best man (optimus princeps) dominated other sectors of the community. The imperial system of government served to protect the prestige of the higher ranked, both at Rome and in the provinces (1.2).

After the establishment of the principate by Augustus, the emperor (princeps) could be viewed as positioned somewhere between two poles: he could be viewed as a mediator, who ensured the stability of the empire but did not encroach on traditional rights (1.3); or as a Hellenistic monarch, assisted by courtiers, but with essentially autocratic powers, as can be shown by a personal oath of allegiance by subjects (1.4) and direct action by the sovereign to benefit his people (1.5). Certainly, the prospect of divinisation clearly indicated that the emperor was someone who surpassed all other mortals in his age (1.6). Associates of the emperor also flourished: there were informal groups of advisers who could be referred to as the ruler’s ‘friends’ (amici) (1.7), while the female members of the emperor’s family also gained reflected prestige and possible power (1.8).

The senate, traditionally the preserve of the male members of upper-class families who devoted their lives to public service and its rewards (1.9), now was expanded to include people from throughout Italy (1.10) and other areas of the empire who would support the ruler, undertake traditional administrative tasks, and offer advice on areas of their expertise (1.11, 1.12). Barred from economic activity in the public sector (1.13), senators were in return rewarded with highly visible public privileges (1.14, 1.15, 1.16). Their public appearances were, however, regulated to ensure that there was no reduction in the dignity of the order (1.17). Their prestige extended also to other members of their families, including females (1.18, 1.19); imperial women were also required not to bring shame upon their status group (1.20). The power of the upper classes usually protected them against any attacks from those beneath their status, even if their inferiors tried to enlist the authority of the emperor on their side (1.21) or the collective opinion of provincial subjects (1.22). Indeed travel by such high-status persons might readily turn into an exemplary procession, illustrating the power and wealth of the persons making their way through the common crowd (1.23).

Associated with this group, but not bound to a life of state service and attendance at senatorial meetings, were the equestrians (equites). Originally derived from the group of wealthy non-senators who were privileged to guarantee the upkeep of a horse for state service (1.24), their obligations and rights were codified under the early emperors (1.25, 1.26) and the rank became a lower-level entry into the ruling class (1.27). The possibility of serving the emperor in postings outside those traditionally held by the senators also increased their status (1.28, 1.29). In a particularly interesting development, a female status title equivalent to eques was created in the second and third centuries AD (1.30).

Decurions, the councillors of Romanised towns (1.28, 1.31, 1.32, 1.33), and bouleutai, their Greek equivalents, performed administrative functions similar to those of senators and equestrians in their local areas. The regulations listing those who were eligible for selection as decurions also indicate the importance of fulfilment of military service, while revealing how some well-regarded professions might also lead to social embarrassment (1.34).

The group of public servants referred to as apparitores, the secretaries, heralds, and messengers who were listed on panels at Rome, gained prestige from their close association with power (1.35, 1.36), although many were only nominally available for public service and used their enrolment on the panels purely for social distinction. Some ex-slaves might even rise to become the patrons of their towns (1.37). Horace’s depiction of Philippus’ amusement at Vulteius’ expense offers a striking depiction of the relations between the upper classes and the aspiring members of the populace, particularly the hopes of the latter to move into more reputable agricultural investments (1.38).

The rest of the free populace were viewed by their superiors as an amorphous mass who gained what little status they might possess from their relationship to the more powerful. Some within this group suffered from marked negative prestige, with resulting social disabilities. Cicero’s well-known remarks on occupations and trade (1.39) illustrate this pattern well, while suggesting that some at the upper echelons of the general populace might move up into a higher status category. The shrewd would hide their wealth in a veneer of respectability (1.40), while obvious get-rich-quick schemes might end disastrously (1.41). Funerary inscriptions suggest that many were not as successful as they may have wished to be (1.42), although some clearly prospered (1.43). Most urban dwellers would simply have got on with their lives, celebrating their trade as an indication of some continuity of employment (1.44, 1.45). Some engaged in fixed-term employment for regular wages, although this arrangement seems particularly suited to those employed in state monopolies, such as the mines throughout the empire (1.46). Ex-slaves (often working as tradespeople (1.47, 1.48)) and slaves, although superficially at the bottom of the status ladder, tended to draw their prestige from their masters and patrons, as is indicated in Chapter 5. The indigent sought whatever food and shelter they might obtain (for their lives, see Chapter 6). The predictions of the dream-interpreter Artemidorus suggest that there was a common concern about the preservation or improvement of status in all sections of the community (1.49).

Given the relatively undeveloped nature of the Roman economy, the majority of the populace would have been engaged in agriculture. While some would have been freeholders, it is likely that most would have been tenants (coloni) or similarly tied labourers, or agrarian slaves. Some may have achieved spectacular success and moved from dependent to dominating status, such as the North African example of the harvester from Mactar (1.50), but most would have left very little trace in either written or archaeological sources. On rare occasions, notice was taken, as when the imperial government intervened on behalf of its tenants in North Africa (1.51).

1.1 Cicero’s defence of a mixed constitution and a warning against the perils of democracy, as adapted from Plato

In the late 50s BC, Cicero wrote a dialogue, based on Plato’s Republic and with a historical setting of 129 BC, in which he sought to uphold what he saw as the traditional values of Roman society. In the following passages, Scipio Aemilianus is depicted as explaining that a society and its rules develop naturally, but that some forms of government fail to correspond to communal needs. In a properly organised community all have legal rights (ius) and the right to participate in decisions that affect the group as a whole, but there will need to be a hierarchical system of honour and office (gradus dignitatis). This corresponds approximately to the Roman governmental system of the republican period where the assembly of male citizens made decisions on legislation and matters of war and peace (the Res Publica is defined by Cicero as affairs affecting the general populace), but high offices were restricted to those of good birth (that is, to those from a senatorial background). In the first passage, rule of only one man or a few is rejected as leaving out the people, and rule of the people as undermining social structure. Cicero chooses what he considers to be the best historical examples of each type of rule: Cyrus the Great of Persia for kingship; Marseilles (a longtime Roman ally) for aristocracy; and Athens in the fifth century BC for democracy.

In the second passage, Scipio reminds his friend Laelius of Plato’s description of the perils of democracy in his Republic (8.562d–563d: translated in modified form by Cicero): popular rule is portrayed as harmful to any sense of social order. The view that freedom in the community will also have effects within the family structure is one still commonly voiced in conservative circles today.

Cicero, On the Republic 1.43, 67

But under kingship the rest of the people are excessively deprived of legal rights and of participation in decision-making that affects all. And under the command of the top citizens, the masses can hardly participate in freedom, since they lack a share in power and decision-making. And when everything is controlled by the people, however justly and moderately, still that very equality is inequitable, since it has no levels of distinction. So, even if Cyrus the Persian was the most just and wise of kings, it seems to me that that organisation of the populace (this is, as I said before, its political organisation) should not be particularly sought after since this rule is by one man’s wish and inclination. And although our allies from Marseilles are ruled perfectly justly by an elect of top men, still in the position of the populace there is something similar to slavery. If the Athenians at one time, after removing the Areopagus, did nothing except by popular laws and decrees, then, as they did not have clear-cut forms of distinction, the state had lost its political orderliness . . .

Well then, this passage follows: ‘Whoever obeys the leaders is hounded by the populace and called a voluntary slave. But they praise to the skies and heap offices of state on anyone in any magistracy who wants to be like the private citizens and on those private citizens who ensure that there is no difference between a magistrate and a private citizen. So, in a state of this type, everything has to be full of independence – even private households are free of all authority (and this evil extends even down to the animals). To cap it off, the result is that father fears his son, son ignores his father, and there is no sense of shame at all. They are all obviously free: there is no difference between citizen and foreigner. The teacher fears his pupils and butters them up, while the pupils scorn their teachers. The young take upon themselves the authority of age; the old sink down to the pastimes of the young to avoid being a hateful burden to them. The result is that slaves act quite like the free; that women enjoy the same rights as men. And in this picture of freedom even the dogs and horses, right down to the asses, go around so liberated that you have to make way for them on the street. So from this limitless lack of control comes this upshot: the minds of the citizens become so flabby and finicky that, if the least power of restraint is applied, they get angry and can’t bear it. As a result they also start to ignore the laws, so that they are truly without a master.’

1.2 How a governor should act with regard to status distinctions among the governed

By the start of the second century AD, there was no longer any thought of ‘mixed government’ at Rome. The emperor controlled policy and military force; beneath him, the senators acted as administrators in conjunction with the upper classes of the empire. Pliny the Younger here advises his friend Tiro (governor of Baetica (Spain) in 108) to act with due deference to the sensitivities of the locals, particularly those with influence. He should not disregard social hierarchies in a bid for popularity, nor act boorishly because he possesses absolute power.

Pliny, Letters 9.5

Pliny to Tiro.

I’ve been making inquiries. You are doing very well – keep it up! – in advancing the cause of justice that you are imposing on the provincials through plenty of courtesy. The greatest part of that is to draw in all the particularly worthy and to be liked by those beneath them in such a way as to hold the affection of their leaders at the same time. Many, while being afraid that they might give the impression of being too much concerned for the support of the powerful, gain a reputation for lack of manners and irritability. I know you’re a long way from that mistake, but I cannot restrain myself from ...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• CHRONOLOGY AND ROMAN EMPERORS
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• MAPS
• INTRODUCTION
• 1. SOCIAL CLASSES
• 2. DEMOGRAPHY
• 3. FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD
• 4. EDUCATION
• 5. SLAVERY
• 6. POVERTY
• 7. THE ECONOMY
• 8. THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND COURTS
• 9. LEISURE AND GAMES
• APPENDIX A: LIFE EXPECTANCY
• APPENDIX B: THE ROMAN STATUS HIERARCHY
• APPENDIX C: GREEK AND ROMAN WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND COINAGE