232 CONCLUSION
vertical and horizontal relationships, and by the ideological, legal and
coercive power of the state.
The historian can usefully employ the conceptual apparatuses of both
Marx and Weber in analysing social divisions in classical Rome. In class
analysis, the search for the precise membership of classes, conceived as
specifi c social entities, is a less fruitful approach than the identifi cation of
the processes by which social inequalities arose and were perpetuated. The
property system ensured that access to productive property (the means of
production) was limited and passed down within the family. The legal
system established property rights and in general underpinned the dominance
of the propertied classes. The social system was marked by the direct
personal dependence of workers (slave or free) on employers, a basis for
exploitation. In our period, the major developments are the appearance of
ex- soldiers in the ranks of the propertied under the sponsorship of the
imperial government, and the strengthening of the position of local elites
entailed in the (uneven) extension of the Roman legal system beyond Rome
and Italy. The colonate, involving the radical downgrading of the free
peasantry, was an innovation of the late empire.
Roman society was obsessed with status and rank; a Roman’s place in the
social hierarchy was advertised in the clothes he wore, the seat he occupied
at public entertainments, the number and social position of his clients and
followers, and his private expenditures on slaves, housing and banquets.
Hierarchies of status and rank were not precisely congruent; the one refl ected
values and outlook, the other legal or customary rules. There were signifi cant
status variations within the same ranks at all levels, even among slaves, a far
from homogeneous group in terms of occupation and economic resources.
These differentials led to ideological confl ict when they threatened to upset
the pyramid of rank, as when equestrians and especially freedmen attained
wealth and power that were thought to be incongruent with their station.
The Republican system of ranks (or orders) was taken over, extended and
given sharper defi nition by Augustus. The senate was rebuilt and its social
superiority emphasized through a property qualifi cation, special clothing,
and restrictive regulations governing marriage and behaviour. The
equestrians were established as a second aristocratic order with similar
criteria for membership (birth, wealth), and restrictions on conduct (but not
marriage). The military and administrative responsibilities given to
equestrians produced in time a hierarchy of rank within the order and at the
top honour deriving from rank rivalling that of leading senators. The
decurions, or members of local governments, formed a third aristocracy.
Below the three aristocratic orders came the humble free and the slaves. The
humble free were differentiated from one another from the viewpoint of the
law in terms of birth (whether slave or free) and rights (whether citizens or
aliens). An important development in our period for which the emperors
were responsible was the progressive overshadowing of this ancient juridical
distinction by a status distinction between honestiores and humiliores ,