46 THE ROMAN EMPIRE
part of the background. The communities were not and could not afford to
be passive. Their fortunes depended upon the ability of their leadership to
mobilize support in high places or if necessary argue their cases in person
before a governor or an emperor. The documents cited above from the East
show the kind of arguments that weighed with the Roman authorities. In
the West the Romans were looking in addition for concrete evidence from
pacifi ed barbarian tribal communities of a reorientation of their political
loyalties and culture. Empire- wide, the broad objective was the same, to
build up a structure of centres of local government that could render
practical services to the imperial power.
Functions of cities
The primary goals of the imperial administration were the collection of
taxes, the recruitment of soldiers and the maintenance of law and order, but
the cities from time to time were required in addition to respond to requests
for animals for transport, hospitality for visiting offi cials, or shelter and
equipment for soldiers. In addition to these state- imposed burdens, local
governments had to shoulder the regular ‘parish pump’ jobs of city
administration: supervision of aqueducts, repair of buildings, provision of
fuel for public baths, preservation of public order (a local responsibility
especially in provinces where no soldiers were stationed), staging of religious
festivals and games, furnishing of embassies and legal representation.^32
The key institution that enabled the cities to meet the demands of the
government and their own needs was the liturgical system. This was a system
by which the more well- to-do members of a community saw to the
performance of essential services and responsibilities by payment in cash or
kind or by personal service. The wealthy also gave of their time and money
in performing the regular magistracies of their city, and some, a small
minority, made benefactions over and above what was expected of them as
liturgists and magistrates.
The phenomenon of public expenditure by individuals has economic,
political and social implications.^33 Private munifi cence was necessitated by
the weakness of city fi nance. But it suited the rich that city fi nances should
be weak. The alternative of regular taxation was unattractive, because it did
not carry political, social and perhaps economic rewards. The system of
liturgies rendered legitimate the domination of local society and politics by
the rich: if local politicians are required to be benefactors, whether by
custom or by law, then political offi ce is effectively restricted to the rich. At
another level, the system enabled the rich to compete with each other for
prestige, honour and offi ce. To put it in another way, there was a close
relationship between the liturgical system and public munifi cence in general
and social differentiation within the local aristocracy. The legal sources of
the second century AD reveal the existence of men whose wealth and social
standing placed them above other local aristocrats as civic leaders. Moreover,