Encyclopedia of Society and Culture in the Ancient World

those who could trace their ancestry back to the fi rst Roman

Senate at the beginning of the republic. Th ey were the aris-

tocrats, the people who enjoyed wealth, status, and political

infl uence. Th e plebeians consisted of everyone else (excluding

slaves). During the early centuries of the republic, only patri-

cians could hold public offi ce. Intermarriage between patri-

cians and plebeians was against the law. In general, patricians

thought of plebeians as a mob, as the dregs of society who

in many respects were barely human. In fact, however, many

plebeians were themselves landowners, and some were fairly

wealthy in their own right.

Over a period of some 200 years, confl ict oft en erupted

between the patricians and the plebeians (oft en called plebs).

According to some historical accounts, this confl ict led to a

number of developments, including repeal of the laws bar-

ring plebs from holding public offi ce and intermarrying with

patricians. Further, the plebs frequently threatened, in eff ect,

to go on strike and secede from Rome. Th eir interests were

represented by the Plebeian Council (or Plebeian Assembly),

which claimed the power to pass laws, giving rise to the mod-

ern word plebiscite, referring to a measure voted on by the

population as a whole rather than its legislature. Collectively,

these developments and threats are referred to as the Con-

fl ict of the Orders; the primary source of information about

this confl ict is Livy and his history of Rome, Ab urbe condita

(From the Founding of the City).

Over time, the patrician class met many of the plebs’ de-

mands so that by the early third century b.c.e., the distinction

between the two classes was eroding. In fact, many members

of the patrician class were falling on hard times and peti-

tioned the government to be reclassifi ed as plebeians so they

could reduce their tax bill. (Patricians, because of their al-

leged wealth, paid far higher taxes.) Th ey also tried to reclaim

their fortunes by marrying into plebeian families that had

become affl uent through trade and commerce. Th e political

distinctions between the two classes diminished in the later

years of the republic, though the social distinction between

the two survived as a matter of prestige rather than law.

It should be noted that some historians dispute Livy’s

account of the Confl ict of the Orders. While they agree that

changes took place in the republic’s social order, they main-

tain that nothing like an organized “confl ict” took place and

that the plebs never threatened to secede from the republic.

Historians continue to dispute the exact nature of the events

that took place.

THE ROMAN EMPIRE (27 B.C.E.–476 C.E.)

During the period referred to as the Roman Empire, Roman

society remained exceptionally hierarchical, though histori-

ans know more about the lives of upper-class Romans than

they do about the lower classes. It is known that “Rome” was

a diverse entity diffi cult to defi ne. It included not only de-

scendants of Rome’s founders and earliest citizens but also

large numbers of people from conquered territories who

were granted citizenship, slaves and former slaves who had

been able to buy their freedom and gain citizenship, rural

immigrants who came to the cities for economic opportu-

nity, people in conquered territories who were granted some

citizenship rights, and large numbers of “easterners” from

Greece and elsewhere who made Rome a cosmopolitan city.

While aristocratic Romans looked down their noses at for-

eigners, former slaves, and rural immigrants, many Romans

welcomed the mix of people, seeing it as a source of strength

and vitality. Many of the legal distinctions between patricians

and plebeians had been eliminated, but this did not mean that

social distinctions ceased to exist.

Th e imperial court was the center of power and infl u-

ence during the empire. Senators and knights were among

the most important people at court. Historians estimate that

at any given time there were about 600 senators and perhaps

30,000 knights, oft en referred to as equestrians, or equites.

Numerous other people, including actors and astrologers,

hung around the court seeking patronage and infl uence. Th e

result was a kind of feudal system, where senators and knights

rewarded the loyalty of their followers and retainers with of-

fi ces and money, while the followers themselves oft en had a

train of dependents who relied on them for their living.

So rigid was this sense of hierarchy that the Roman census

actually divided people into six classes based on the amount of

property they owned. Th e senatorial class (which did not neces-

sarily mean that a person was a member of the Senate) required

ownership of at least a million sestertii, referring to a silver or

bronze coin. (A sesterti was equal in value to one-fourth of a

denarius. It is diffi cult to attach a modern value to a sesterti,

but using the price of bread as a standard of value, it was equal

roughly to $5.00.) Membership in this class was based on estate

ownership, and a person in this class was not allowed to engage

in trade or commercial activity. Th e next class included the eq-

uites, who could engage in business and had to be worth at least

400,000 sestertii. Th ese two were the most infl uential classes.

Below them were three additional classes of property owners,

followed by the proletarii, who owned no property. Th ese cen-

sus classes were important because they determined voting

rights, with more voting power, of course, going to the higher

classes than to the lower ones. Further, voting took place from

the top down, and as soon as a majority was attained, the result

was announced. Th erefore, the proletarii rarely got to vote.

Social relationships were oft en based on the concept of

patron and client. A patron (patronus) was typically a person

of higher wealth, rank, status, or talent. In return for special

attention and services from people of lower status, he pro-

vided them with benefi ts, which could include jobs or loans

at low rates of interest. Th ese patron-client relationships did

not involve a single patron and a single client. Th ese relation-

ships formed a network, so the same patron would have nu-

merous clients—a large retinue of clients was a sign of social

status—and an individual client could have more than one

patron. Th is social system emerged rooted in the belief that a

network of mutual obligations based on status created a stable

social order, one in which everyone knew their place.

social organization: Rome 1037

0895-1194_Soc&Culturev4(s-z).i1037 1037 10/10/07 2:30:50 PM