72 J. A. Crook, Legal Advocacy in the Roman World (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1995), 85.
society constantly changed based upon situations and personal relationships in a variety of contexts.74 The ordines helped construct ordo in ancient Roman society.
Senators found privilege in respect to Roman law.75 Small in number, this was an “exclusive ordo,”76 one of prestige, which, although not primarily a reward for hereditary aristocracy, Augustus did later promote a “hereditary principle” encouraging their sons to follow their fathers up to three generations.77 Visual distinction was given to senators as they openly wore “the broad purple stripe” on their togas, along with sons who often began their political careers in military assignments.78
Equestrians formed the second group on the descending scale. They outnumbered senators by the thousands and the majority were marked publicly by “a golden ring and a narrow purple stripe on the toga (angustus clavus)”19 Equestrians were generally the wealthiest citizens in their respective cities across the Roman empire, while, like
O A
senators, they maintained special legal privileges obliged to the office. Powerful definition of “the strong” was advertised to the masses as equites rode horses through Rome and its surrounding cities. Valerius Maximus describes this public display, “The younger members of the equestrian order filled Rome twice annually with a showing
0 1
(spectaculum) of themselves, for which they had high authority.” The equestrian order possessed an “aristocratic ethos” with membership criteria of “high birth, excellence and wealth.”82 Like senators, equestrians differentiated between themselves internally, “the
74 Cicero, On Duties 1.60.
75 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 112-13. See also Cicero, On Duties 1.60 where he implied each individual has particular duties as those who must calculate their duty based on their place in society. 76 Alfoldy, The Social History, 115.
77 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 113.
78 Suetonius, Deified Augustus, 38; Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 113. 79 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 113-114.
80 Gamsey, Social Status, 240-242.
81 Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings 2.2.9. 82 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 113.
rank conscious Romans would not allow the vast social gap between the greatest and humblest equestrian to go unmarked.”83
Decurions marked the third order. Gamsey and Sailer also refer to this order as an aristocratic one, with entrance also requiring the possession of “respectable birth, wealth and moral worth.”84 Nippel refers to this order as an auxiliary, a magisterial staff of “well-paid public servants (apparitores) organized in corporations (decuriae) of scribes, lictors, criers and summoners.”85 Petit says, “Their strength comes from their wealth and their feeling of solidarity, which we must not contuse with ‘class consciousness’: they had yet no feeling of being victimized, but were proud to be the ornaments and benefactors [of Rome]...”86 Decurions also incorporated an internal stratification
87
system.
The upper strata comprised of the emperor, senators, equestrians, and decurions, while the plebs formed the lower strata. The plebs population was widely diverse “even more heterogeneous than that of the upper strata.”88 Yavetz sketches a mosaic of manumitted slaves, freedmen, Latins, Italians, Greeks, Asians (especially Syrians), Egyptians, Illyrians, and Gauls.89 The diversity accentuates the complexity of mixed ethnicity, customs, and the challenge of social control. It also communicated the need for an understood plan for conserving social relationships and conflict resolution.
The plebs worked mostly in rural areas in agriculture, although a minority worked in the urban areas as craftsmen and traders.90Often the upper strata entered into legally
83 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 114. 84 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire,114. 85 Nippel, Public Order, 12.
86 Paul Petit, Pax Romana (trans. James Willis; London: B.T Batsford, 1976), 95. 87 Alfoldy, Social History, 129.
88 Alfoldy, Social History, 133. 89 Yavetz, Plebs and Princeps, 8. 90 Yavetz, Plebs and Princeps, 99.
binding relationships with the plebs 91 Gamsey and Sailer say, “A plethora of informal relationships between individual neighbours and work associates have largely gone unrecorded.”92 The sophistication of the web of relationships and emanating obligations appear innumerable. Tacitus speaks of the condition of Rome, mentioning elements of strength and weakness, then proceeding to discuss the response of senators and
equestrians to the death of Nero.93 In his discourse, he specifies “the common people and those attached to the great houses [of the upper strata].”94 He continues, “The lowest classes (plebs sordida), addicted to the circus and theatre, and with them the basest slaves, as well as those men who had wasted their property, and to their shame, were wont to depend on Nero’s bounty, were cast down and grasped at every rumour.”95
Three elements of Roman society stand out in Tacitus’ words: a division between the strong and the weak; a system of relationships requiring obligations; and a
condescending tone toward the plebs. This might also explain why Tacitus sometimes referred to the plebeian crowd or masses as vulgar (vulgus).96 Their dependence did not mean they played an insignificant role in society. Lendon refers to the urban plebs as “not just a beast to be placated, but an important prop to imperial rule.”97 Lendon adds, “It was
commonplace to rank it, alongside the army and aristocracy as an essential imperial constituent.”98 Alfoldy says, “Nor should the low social status of the plebs of the city be misjudged, although the plebs occasionally appeared a political power factor as late as the beginning of the Empire.”99
91 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 156. 92 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 156. 93 Tacitus, Histories 1.4.
94 Tacitus, Histories 1.4. 95 Tacitus, Histories 1.4.
96 Tacitus, Histories 2.90; Tacitus, Annals 15.44. 97 Lendon, Empire o f Honour, 120.
98 Lendon, Empire o f Honour, 120; Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 1.28-30. 99 Alfoldy, Social History, 106.
Visual aspects in Rome communicated the low standing of the plebs. They lived in Rome in the slums, often in insula, “large apartment buildings with no water or sanitary facilities, always in danger of fire and occasionally of collapse.” 100 The urban
plebs could be described because of writings from Cicero who lived in Rome, but “the
conditions of rural society are much less well known.”101
Two important components to the plebs role in Roman society are slavery and the
collegia. Boren talks about slavery saying,
The most important impulse for continuing change in the cities population related to one institution-slavery-and to a liberal policy of the Romans connected with it: slaves were often freed, and freed slaves were made Roman citizens. The first generation of freedmen retained legal obligations to their former masters and could not stand for office; in the next generation they had full privileges of citizenship. They were viewed as social inferiors by citizens of freebom ancestry. 02
Slavery reinforced social distinction as they generally represented the lower strata “bottom heap” of the weak in society.103
The collegia or associations form a most interesting picture of obligation with their stratification. The collegia were “made up of a few score or few hundred urban residents” and “were essentially mutual aid societies formed to meet basic needs of their members.”104 These involved licensed bakers, guilds of miners, shippers, merchants, craftsmen and the most common association, the burial associations organized around cult deities which provided for proper burial of its members upon death.105 Crook says that they were subject to “much controversy in the right of free association in Rome,” while explaining that membership often involved fees, obligations to each other, and social
100 Henry C. Boren, Roman Society: A Social, Economic, and Cultural History (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Co., 1977), 128.
101 Boren, Roman Society, 132. 102 Boren, Roman Society, 127.
103 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 117. 104 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 156. 105 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 156-57.
gatherings.106 Gamsey and Sailer add, “Though these collegia were associations of humble men, they still exhibit some of the hierarchical features so characteristic of Roman society.”107 Clearly, the tangled web of relationships developed into a more complex tangled web. The collegia, in their weak social status, succumbed to those of higher status, namely, the strong.108
There are other ways to describe the hierarchical differences: the inferior and the superior, or the humiliores and the honestiores. Every person in Rome knew his or her place in society, the strong “paraded” their superiority and the weak “humble masses” on the bottom of the social scale daily found their inferiority reinforced.109
4. Reciprocal Relations and Patronage
The Roman law of obligations, the mores of those laws, and the social practice of hierarchical status which lead to inequality, all worked in concert to produce reciprocal relationships in social management. Relationships by their very nature in Roman society “set up a chain of obligations.” 110 When first-century Christians became a part of a local church body, this did not preclude their external obligations in the wider Roman
society.111 In reality, the relationships of hierarchy, status, and the obligations inbred from those could potentially create conflict within the church.112 Plato (429-347 BC) in
Gorgias saw the relationships clearly marked as between the inferior weak and the
superior strong with the advantage going to the strong.113 The Greek historian Dionysius
106 Crook, Law and Life, 266-67.
107 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 157.
108 Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, 51-2. He discusses collegia in regard to the weak, adding,
“.. .Roman law codified an earlier label in the Roman social world that designated certain groups o f people as weak” (p. 52). This is one o f the rare mentions o f Roman law in Reasoner’s monograph.
109 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 115-18. 110 Winter, Seek the Welfare, 46.
111 Winter, Seek the Welfare, 47. 112 Winter, Seek the Welfare, 47.
113 Plato, Gorgias 484B. He says “that the great states attack the little ones in accordance with natural right, because they are superior and stronger...,” adding, “Then the ordinances o f the many are those o f the superior” (488.C-D).
of Halicarnassus (c. 60-7 BC) and Philo, the Jewish philosopher from Alexandria, Egypt (20 BC-AD 20), discussed these relationships under moral, social, civic, commercial, financial, familial, religious, and even those according to nature.114 Winter discussed these relationships in terms of obligation: honour, civic obligations in the politeia, benefactions, patronage, and patron-clients relationships.115 Gamsey and Sailer consider some of these obligations in terms “proper conduct” for both givers and receivers in an exchange of services.116 Obligations in their social structure were hierarchical depending on the time and place of social setting, including church.
Foundational to Roman society was the ideology of patronage.117 No principle influenced relationships and obligations among people in Rome more than patronage.
1 i o
Crook says that patronage is that by which the “wheels of Roman society were oiled.” Sailer appeals to the hierarchical structure of Roman society with its clearly defined categories of strength and weakness when he speaks of patronage, “...it must be asymmetrical, in the sense that the two parties are of unequal status and offer different kinds of goods and services in the exchange - a quality which set patronage off from friendship between equals.”119 The key to patronage is that a person of lesser status obligates him or herself to one of greater status. Consequently, there was no one in Roman society who was not obligated to another person in one way or another. Even the emperor maintained obligations as the chief protector and provider of Rome and its inhabitants. Sailer says, “Patrons supply protection and special access to certain goods and services to all citizens on the basis of universal, impersonal criteria, the clients’ needs 114 Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 4.9.4.6; 4.9.6.2; Philo, Special Laws 1.54.3; 2.69.5; 2.113.3; 3.26.5; 3.59.4; 4.56.4; Philo, On the Virtues 1-19; 125.1.
115 Winter, Seek the Welfare, 21, 184,25-195. Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 4.9.4.6; 4.9.6.2.
116 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 149.
117 Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, 181-86. He sees “obligation as the dynamic behind patronage” (p. 181). One weakness o f his discussion on patronage is the legal force and implications o f patronage. 118 Crook, Law and Life, 93.
for the patrons declines.” 120 Patronage influenced first-century Rome heavily, further widening the gap between the strong and the weak of society.
Patronage may also be discussed under numerous other headings, or synonymous terms, as the emperor used patronage throughout Rome. Sailer lists these as seniority, equestrian career, and merit.121 He indicates the definite role of hierarchy in political roles
1
and rank. Sailer also follows up with an important point not to dismiss concerning
reciprocal relations with an advantage toward the strong, “The pace of advancement [in political careers] always varied greatly and was thus in the emperor’s discretion, just as with senatorial careers.”123 The hint of an understood code of ethics or obligations as a means of political advancement appears warranted. The emperor’s role as ideally the strongest of strong in Roman society designated him as superior under the concept of patronage.
Sailer communicates the attempt of leaders to climb the hierarchical ladder in Roman political life in his discussion on merit. His most important discussion on merit involves his explanation on the concomitant virtues that must infiltrate the leader’s life.124 These virtues are vital links in the relationships of patronage (see Chapter 2): obligation, loyalty, gratitude, and justice.125 In fact, Sailer asserts that the “dispensation of justice in the provinces was thought to require good character more than legal expertise.”126 Still, Sailer questions whether one can have a complete understanding of the extent of merit’s role in political promotion.127 He concludes, “While the emperor no doubt considered merit, the Roman conception of merit was not such as to encourage impartial
120 Sailer, Personal Patronage, 3. 121 Sailer, Personal Patronage, 94. 122 Sailer, Personal Patronage, 94. 123 Sailer, Personal Patronage, 94. 124 Sailer, Personal Patronage, 94. 125 Sailer, Personal Patronage, 101-3 126 Sailer, Personal Patronage, 102. 127 Sailer, Personal Patronage, 110.
evaluation.’128 One sees the critical virtues as an indigenous part of patronage, yet with inequality and subjectivity often accompanying it.
Three components were necessary for patronage: a patron (strong)-client (weak) relationship; an exchange of services (reciprocal relationships); a set of obligations relating to both the relationship and the exchange.129 Carcopino indicates the primary impact of obligatory relations by noting that “from the parasite do-nothing up to the great aristocrat there was no man in Rome who did not feel himself bound more powerful above him by the same obligations of respect, or, to use the technical term, the same
obsequim...”130
Several relationships flowed from the ideology of patronage, each respectively, ascending from the weak obligating themselves to the strong: citizen to emperor; clients to patrons; wife to husband; children/heirs to father (paterfamilias); slaves to masters. Again, one sees the complexity of a tangled web of social relationships and the
understood, yet unwritten obligations that formed a code of conduct on a descending scale for Romans in the first century. As will be discussed in Chapters 5 and 8, the apostle Paul did not treat this concept casually in Romans 14:1-15:13 and neither did the Romans in their eyes or conduct in their daily lives. The relationship of citizen to emperor has already been discussed.
It is interesting to note, however, that while all persons in Rome were obligated to the emperor, “there was a specific, defined group of amid and clientes who enjoyed the personal favour of the emperor and were personally bound to him.” 131 They created competition, envy, greed, deceit, a quest for power, tense competition, and even caused some to commit terrible acts in an effort to achieve their personal ambitions regarding 128 Sailer, Personal Patronage, 110.
129 Sailer, Personal Patronage, 1.
130 Jerome Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, 171. 131 Sailer, Personal Patronage, 73.
political aspirations. In fact, “the operation of patronage rather than the application of formal procedures and rules determined the promotion of administrators.” 132 The emperor also maintained his own household, wherein a “clearly defined hierarchy of posts can be discerned.” 133 In Caesar’s household both his staff and slaves positioned themselves for promotion and freedom.134 One cannot imagine the constant competition and gaming that went on in the realm of reciprocal relationships. Epictetus, the Stoic philosopher,
describes this competition as a “contest” (dywva) between the inferior and superior.135 Obligations invoked duty and fulfilling them also became a means of ascending the hierarchical scale of power.
The patronus-cliens relationship, suggesting a reciprocal obligation from the patron to the client and from the client to the patron in business, was not an exchange among equals. Sailer points out that the terminology of patronus-cliens in classical literature “was not freely used by authors with reference to any member of an exchange relationship of inferior status,” because “social inferiority and degradation [are] implied by the words.”136 By no means, however, does this imply that such social inferiority did not exist. With reference, though, to cliens, “It was usually reserved for humble members of the lower classes.”137 Dionysius of Halicarnassus undoubtedly differentiates the superior (strong) from the inferior (weak) when he states,
After Romulus had distinguished those of superior rank from the inferiors, he established laws by which the duties of each were prescribed. The patricians were to be priests, magistrates and judges, and were to assist him in the management of public affairs, devoting themselves to the business of the city. The plebeians were excused from these duties, as being unacquainted with them and because of their
132 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 20. 133 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 25. 134 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 25.
135 Epictetus, Discourses 3.101-23. He speaks o f moral purpose with the inferior being overcome by the superior, adding that “he never enters a contest where he can be beaten, but immediately gives up what is not his own.”
136 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 9 137 Gamsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 9.
small means wanting leisure to attend them, but were to apply themselves to agriculture and the exercise of gainful trades. This was to prevent them from engaging in seditions, as happens in other cities when either the magistrates mistreat the lowly, or the common people and the needy envy those in authority. He placed the plebeians in the hands of the patricians by allowing every plebeian to choose for his patron any patrician whom he himself wished. ...Romulus recommended the relationship by handsome designation, calling this protection of the poor and lowly ‘patronage,’ but he also assigned friendly offices to both parties, thus making the connection between them a bond of kindness befitting fellow citizens.138
In essence, patronage “yoked together” the parties in a near blood relationship that went beyond generations. Patrons had duties to care for them, to protect them, and to advise them in a court of law.139 Clients had duties: to provide dowries for their daughters; to share costs of ransom, law suits, fines, and costs incurred in their magistracies and dignities, aiming in every act to promote good will among their patronage.140 Patronage produced an “invisible rope” of obligation from the client to the patron that was not easily undone. More importantly, it was a “laudable feature” of Rome’s development as a “central instrument of Roman socio-political control.”141
Visually, this relationship of patronage reproduced itself each day in Roman society beginning in the early morning when clients visited the homes of their patrons. Carcopino sets the stage for how the patronus-cliens relationship appeared on an average day in Rome:
The patronus for his part was in honour bound to welcome his client into his house, to invite him from time to time to his table, to come to his assistance, and