Encyclopedia of Society and Culture in the Ancient World

(Sean Pound) #1
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

Free download pdf