SOCIAL RELATIONS 183the East had magistrates, irenarchs, charged with the maintenance of order,
but they had only small forces at their disposal and no power to punish. In
addition, sources as diverse as the New Testament (Acts 18.12–17) and
Apuleius’ Golden Ass ( Met. 10.28) testify to initiatives taken by ordinary
local men to capture criminals and troublemakers and bring them before
Roman offi cials for imprisonment and punishment. The local or imperial
authorities (away from military zones) established full control only in and
around the cities. In the countryside, especially in rough terrains, banditry
was a constant problem.^24
ADDENDUM
The nature of the fabric of Roman imperial society, its network of friendships and
patronal connections have been investigated in depth and debated over the past
twently- fi ve years. Garnsey (2010) places the evolution of patronage in its many
manifestations within the context of the great political shifts from the Republic to
the late empire; see also Wallace-Hadrill (1989a) and Winterling (2009) on the
change of political setting. Wallace-Hadrill (1989b) comprises a collection of essays
on various aspects on patronage in Greek and Roman societies; Saller (2000)
discusses status, patronage and social mobility.
After the publication of Saller (1982) debate centred on the appropriate
defi nition of patronage and the distinction between patronage and friendship. Some
scholars argue for a clear distinction between patronage and friendship, and
emphasize the non- utilitarian and/or horizontal quality of Roman friendships:
see above all Griffi n (2003, 2013), also D’Arms (1990). Inwood (2005) offers a
careful interpretation of Seneca’s De Benefi ciis , especially its preoccupation with
ingratitude (the absence of which from contemporary moral philosophy is indicative
of the differences between Roman and modern value systems). Konstan (1995,
1997) emphasizes the affective and egalitarian qualities of ancient friendships.
Other scholars have written in detail about the reciprocity ethic and the substantive
content of exchange: Dixon (1993), de Blois (2001a), and Verboven (2002). On
the semantics of patronus, cliens, amicitia , and so on, see Verboven (2011), Lowe
(2013), and Lavan (2013). Lendon (1997) describes the broader value system
based on honor. For the relevance of the concept of patronage in the Greek East,
Eilers (2002).
In addition to Garnsey (2010) and Wallace-Hadrill (1989b), Woolf (1990) and
Roller (2001) discuss the emperor as patron. For municipal and provincial patronage,
see Nicols (1990), Eilers (2002), and Lomas and Cornell (2003); for women as
patrons, Forbis (1990) and Hemelrijk (2004 a and b).
Literary patronage has been explored by Gold (1987), White (1993), Bowditch
(2001), and Nauta (2002). Cloud (1989) cautions against taking the poets’
descriptions of patronage at face value. Damon (1997) explores the caricature of the
lowly parasitic cliens. Hemelrijk (1999) discusses women as literary patrons.
Leunissen (1993) and Eck (2002) emphasize the career structure, norms and rules
regulating imperial appointments to senatorial and equestrian posts, within which
patrons could exercise infl uence.