THE SOCIAL HIERARCHY 141and outlook rather than legal regulations, distinctions are less precise than in
the case of orders. The principal ingredients of rank – birth and wealth –
were not always in step with each other; a few of the very wealthiest came
from very humble backgrounds, and some with the best pedigrees fell into
poverty. Other factors, such as power, education and perceived moral stature,
lent prestige to their holders and were not the exclusive possession of men of
high rank. Contradictions between status and rank gave rise to tensions,
which sometimes rose to the surface, as in the resentment felt among senators
at the immense power exercised by Sejanus, Tiberius’ praetorian prefect and
a man of the second rank.^34
Each order accommodated fi ne gradations of status. Within the senatorial
order, which experienced a high turnover of families, those who could boast
of consular ancestors, nobiles , stood out from the mass of newcomers.^35 The
minority of equestrians appointed to high offi ce in the emperor’s service
were described as belonging to the ‘equestrian nobility’ ( equestris nobilitas )
long before the hierarchy of formal epithets emerged (Tacitus, Agr. 4.1). The
wealthiest and most powerful of the decurions came to be known as the
‘fi rst men’ ( primores viri ).^36 This internal stratifi cation generally caused little
diffi culty.
The freeborn outside the elite orders constituted by far the largest single
group in the hierarchy of ranks, and varied much in status according to
occupation and resources. The lack of detailed information, however, makes
it diffi cult to penetrate the complexity of what has been called the ‘fi nely
stratifi ed sequence of status between eques and slave’ for the empire outside
Egypt.^37 One major division, however, is clear: that between urban and rural
workers. Roman civilization was an urban phenomenon, built on the
agricultural surplus from the countryside. Not only did the cities exploit the
countryside to feed and clothe their residents, but the urban dwellers, a
small minority of the whole population, were also contemptuous of the
masses as ‘rustics’, who were unacquainted with the sophisticated culture of
urban life and often literally spoke a different language.^38
Even at the bottom of the hierarchy of ranks, there was a wide range of
conditions. The lot of many slaves condemned to manual labour in harsh
conditions, in particular, in the mines, was wretched. Apuleius offers a vivid
glimpse of the condition of slaves working in a fl our mill in his novel, The
Golden Ass :
Their skins were seamed all over with the marks of old fl oggings, as you
could see through the holes in their ragged shirts that shaded rather than
covered their scarred backs; but some wore only loin- cloths. They had
letters marked on their foreheads, and half- shaved heads and irons on
their legs.^39In contrast, urban household slaves generally lived in incomparably better
physical conditions and often were allowed a de facto family life.^40 Slaves