THE SOCIAL HIERARCHY 145Social mobility
The oppressiveness of the social hierarchy depended in part on the limitations
in opportunities for individual and group mobility. Several factors infl uenced
the degree of mobility, including the chances of enrichment offered by the
economy, and demographic trends that could leave open to newcomers
more or fewer places in the higher orders from generation to generation. It
has been suggested that for a traditional, pre- industrial society imperial
Rome allowed upward movement to an unusual degree. Such a generalization
needs to be qualifi ed: mobility in certain sectors of the population may have
been common, while for others the prospects were virtually hopeless.
The scale of movement among the elite orders of the Roman empire was
remarkable. For reasons that are not clear senatorial families disappeared
at an average rate of 75 per cent per generation – a rate of turnover
well beyond that experienced by European aristocracies of the early
modern period. Among patricians, an exclusive circle of families within
the senate, of the 39 families known between AD 70 and 117, 22 left no
trace in the reign of Hadrian, and most of the other 17 families disappeared
in the Antonine era. The turnover of the great majority of senatorial
families from one generation to the next must have diluted the value of
lineage in claims to rank and status, as few imperial senators (unlike
their Republican predecessors) could profi t from the collective memory of
their ancestors’ achievements. The failure of senatorial families to have their
sons fi ll their places left hundreds of openings in each generation for the
wealthiest and most prominent members of the local elites to move into
the senate. The new members increasingly came from outside Italy, so that
the proportion of provincial senators rose from a tiny fraction under
Augustus to perhaps a quarter during the Flavian era to well over half by the
early third century.^50
Access to equestrian rank and honours was even more open than to the
senate. Simple membership in the equestrian order was not limited in
numbers nor especially competitive among those with the necessary wealth,
birth and citizenship. Equestrian offi ces, on the other hand, were relatively
few and available to only a minority of equestrians. But they came open to
new families in each generation, since very few sons of procurators followed
their fathers into equestrian offi ce. Demographic factors aside, they were
prime candidates for promotion into the senate.
Social mobility among local elites has yet to be systematically studied.
These groups, who provided the pool of recruits for the two highest orders,
are likely to have been more stable.^51 The relatively few curial families who
entered the imperial aristocracy already resembled senatorial and equestrian
families in their wealth and values, facilitating their change of geographical
focus. Movement into the local elites, in contrast, implied an increase in
wealth, and wealth was usually passed on within families. Nevertheless,
the smooth transmission of patrimony and rank could be disrupted for