In the previous section, the society of Corinth was explored from the perspective of the cultural frame. It was shown that Greek-Roman relationships differed in the colonization periods of rebuilding, stabilization and integration, and freedpersons were greatly involved in the unique Greek-Roman dynamics of each stage. Having in mind the picture of the city’s development, this section aims to investigate further from the economic point of view. The economic situation of freedpersons as well as their contribution to the city’s development will be the focus of this section.
First, before exploring the local situation of Corinth, it is important to have a general understanding of the economic situation in the first-century Mediterranean world. This will not only provide a basic view of the ancient economy, but also enable us to highlight the distinctiveness of the economic situation in Corinth. Questions such as the extent to which people possessed a surplus will be surveyed by referring to the views of recent New Testament scholars and historians of antiquity. After investigating some of the key views of the economic situation of the Mediterranean world, the study will next turn to the unique context of Roman Corinth that brought wealth to the city, and this
230 It is generally thought that Acts 16:16-40 reflects this view. It is also important to bear in mind that
the situation in Philippi was different from Pompeii, where people became indistinguishably Roman. Oakes discusses this in detail; he argues that the number of veterans was of the order of one hundred, and the majority of the population of the town were not Roman citizens. Oakes, Philippians, pp. 2, 40-50, 54.
231 Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 11.
232 According to James Walters, a ‘mini-Rome’ is guaranteed by a Roman population who shared the
values and tastes of Roman citizens. James Walters, ‘Civic Identity in Roman Corinth and Its Impact on Early Christians’, in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth, pp. 397-417 (402).
will be explained in relation to freedpersons in the colony. The ways in which they played vital roles in the economic growth in Corinth will be discussed.
2.2.1 Ancient economy of the Graeco-Roman world
A key debate among New Testament scholars in recent years is that between Gerd Theissen and Justin Meggitt.233 Meggitt challenges the existence of an economic middle group,234 the view represented by Theissen and Wayne Meeks, and widely accepted among New Testament scholars. Meggitt claims that the majority of the people in the first-century Mediterranean world were suffering from
destitution and indigence, and were exploited by a small number (1%) of elites. This claim is seen as returning to older views such as that of Deissman in the early twentieth century,235 as some reviews point out.236 Following Meggitt’s rather dichotomous view, Steven J. Friesen’s study offers a detailed scale of poverty, with seven categories, for a large city in the Roman Empire.237 According to his observation, the proportion with ‘moderate surplus resources (PS4)’ (between elites and people of near subsistence level) is 7% of the population. Bruce Longenecker, on the other hand, argues that it needs to be raised to 17%.238 In the course of this debate, it has become clear that there are some
233 For example, J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998); G. Theissen,
‘The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival’, JSNT 84 (2001), pp. 65-84; J.J. Meggitt, ‘Response to Martin and Theissen’, JSNT 84 (2001), pp. 85-94; G. Theissen, ‘Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival’, JSNT 25.3 (2003), pp. 371-391.
234 The phrase ‘economic middle group’ will be employed in this thesis in order to define a group of
people whose economic level is in between elites and people of near subsistence level.
235 A. Deissmann, Das Urchristentum und die unteren Schichten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1908).
236 For example, D.B. Martin, ‘Review Essay: Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival’, JSNT 84
(2001), pp. 51-64. Gerd Theissen also refutes Meggitt’s so-called ‘New Consensus’ by reviewing the history of research. G. Theissen, ‘The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival’, JSNT 84 (2001), pp. 65-84 (66-8).
237 S.J. Friesen, ‘Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus’, JSNT 26 (2004),
pp. 323-61; S.J. Friesen, ‘Injustice or God’s Will: Explanations of Poverty in Proto-Christian Communities’, in
Christian Origins (ed. Richard A. Horsley; A People’s History of Christianity, 1; Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2005), pp. 240-60; S.J. Friesen, ‘Injustice or God’s Will? Early Christian Explanations of Poverty’ in Wealth
and Poverty in Early Church and Society (ed. Susan R. Holman; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), pp.
17-36.
238 Friesen, ‘Early Christian Explanations of Poverty’, p. 20; B.W. Longenecker, ‘Exposing the
Economic Middle: A Revised Economy Scale for the Study of Early Urban Christianity’, JSNT 31.3 (2009), pp. 243-278 (263).
difficulties in using biblical texts in terms of methodology, since criteria for evaluating biblical characters seem to be rather difficult to assess.239 The approach of looking into Graeco-Roman literature also has a difficulty in that the terminology of the economic scale is relative; the meaning of ‘the poor’ or related terms depends on their context.240 However, as Longenecker points out,241 more fundamentally, the different views of the New Testament scholars are possibly attributed to
Graeco-Roman historians’ and archaeologists’ views of the ancient Roman economy.
Classical historian, Moses Finley, summarizes four variables of the economic capacity of ancient cities: (1) agricultural production, (2) presence or absence of special resources (metals, wines or oil-bearing plants), (3) invisible exports of trade and tourism, and (4) landowners’ rents, taxes and tributes.242 Thus the economy of ancient cities, including Corinth, can be analysed according to these categories. However, it is important to note that Finley does not include the category of
manufacturing as an economic factor. After listing these four elements, Finley states that ‘the contribution of manufacture was negligible’.243 He considers that technology was primitive and had no significance. Recently, Finley’s view has been challenged; it seems that the trend among many archaeologists is to oppose this view. For example, in 2000, Kevin Greene stressed the technological innovation and economic progress in antiquity, and stated that Finley dismissed archaeological
239 Theissen states: ‘Meggitt is right when he states that all the individual criteria for a rather elevated
social status are ambiguous.’ Theissen, ‘Social Structure’, p. 75.
240 Appian appears to identify freedpersons with ‘the poor (a)pori/a)’. Appian writes of Caesar sending
freedpersons to Corinth: ‘Returning to Rome not long after, and the poor asking him for land, he arranged to send some of them to Carthage and some to Corinth’ (History 8:136). However, as O’Connor rightly points out, when a)pori/a is used for persons, it can also mean ‘hard to deal with, impracticable, unmanageable’ (Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (GNS 6; Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1983), p. 120; Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (8th edn; Oxford: Clarendon Press 1897), p.
195). In addition, even if Appian used the word to mean ‘without resources’ (Liddell and Scott, Greek-English
Lexicon, p. 195; A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (BDAG;
3rd edn, 2000), p. 119), it needs to be read carefully since authors of Graeco-Roman literature often call all the
poorer people ‘the poor’ indiscriminately. Neville Morley explains that their language reflects an elites’
world-view that distinguishes them from the non-elites in a stereotyped manner. Neville Morley, ‘The poor in the city of Rome’, in Poverty in the Roman World (eds. Margaret Atkins and Robin Osborne; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 25-30; cf. Longenecker, ‘Exposing’, p. 248.
241 Longenecker, ‘Exposing’, pp. 254-259.
242 M.I. Finley, The Ancient Economy (2nd edn; London: The Hogarth Press, 1985[1973]), p. 139. 243 Finley, The Ancient Economy, p. 139.
evidence and that his view on the ancient economy was misleading.244 Andrew Wilson, in 2002, also commented that Finley’s studies had been so influential that they discouraged later researchers, and added that the view that there was little economic progress needed to be reconsidered.245 These studies questioned ‘Finley’s orthodoxy’,246 and demonstrated the importance of exploring the economic abilities of non-agricultural production, especially of manufacturing. The study will now turn to investigate the characteristics of the Corinthian economy.
2.2.2 Economic characteristics of Corinth
When we consider the situation in Corinth, two unique characteristics of the city’s past can be pointed out. Ancient Corinth was well known for its Isthmian Games. Thus, during the colonization period, Romans naturally utilized the world-renowned games to demonstrate their power to surrounding regions. The list of the victors clearly shows that it attracted participants from across the
Mediterranean world.247 Corinth was also well known for its crafts, such as Corinthian bronze. In the archaic period, it is said, artisans in Corinth were proud of their occupations, and there was less social stigma towards artisans than in other Greek cities.248 Corinthian bronze was even favoured among the Roman connoisseurs. The fact that products can be found from the Roman period, as stated in the previous section, suggests that the tradition was continued.249 Thus, it is legitimate to explore the two areas, namely tourism and manufacturing, which are the third and the fifth variables in Finley’s useful
244 K. Greene, ‘Technological innovation and economic progress in the ancient world: M. I. Finley
re-considered’, Economic History Review LIII, 1 (2000), pp. 29-59 (29).
245 A. Wilson, ‘Machines, Power and the Ancient Economy’, JRS 92 (2002), pp. 1-32 (1-2). For one
example of technological innovation, recent studies have shown developments in the construction industry such as standardization of the materials of bricks and mortar. J. DeLaine, ‘Bricks and mortar: exploring the
economics of building techniques at Rome and Ostia’, in Economies Beyond Agriculture in the Classical World (eds. D.J. Mattingly and J. Salmon; London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 230-268.
246 Longenecker calls this view ‘Finley’s orthodoxy’; Longenecker, Exposing, p. 254.
247 Meritt nos. 14-16; B.D. Benjamin Dean Meritt, Greek Inscriptions 1896-1927: Corinth, VIII, 1
(Cambridge and MA: Harvard University Press [Published for The American School of Classical Studies of Athens], 1931), p. 24. For example, in 3 CE, the victors of three boxing contests were Alexandrians.
248 J.B. Salmon, Wealthy Corinth: a history of the city to 338 B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon 1984), p.163. Cf.
Hdt., ii. 167.2: ‘It is in Corinth that artisans are held in least contempt’ (trans. A.D. Godley; LCL).
categories,250 in order to investigate their economic abilities. This might help to elucidate the question as to whether an economic middle group existed. It is true that Romans generally controlled the economy rigidly to keep the economic divide between the elites and the populace.251 However, it is worth investigating whether the local situation allowed opportunities for individuals to attain personal wealth. The place of freedpersons in the economic situation will also be discussed.
Manufacturing
Donald Engels confirms that agricultural production alone would not be sufficient to support the Corinthian economy. His calculation reveals that the land of Corinth and its periphery was capable of yielding products for 10,000 people at the maximum.252 Assuming the urban population to be 80,000 (or even less),253 it is improbable that the agricultural production for 10,000 people, whether directly or indirectly, could support the rest of the population unless there were other means of production. It can be deduced thus from this quantitative study that there were other means of production in Corinth.
Engels considers that, although records of the majority have not survived, many residents in Corinth worked in manufacturing.254 This is because manufacturing required processing of materials that usually came from many regions, and they were easily collected in Corinth because of its ideal location with two harbours. The evidence that has survived points to lamp and pottery manufacture, work in bronze, and marble sculptures.255 Among these, bronze manufacture deserves a special
250 However, Finley does not count the fifth factor of manufacturing as a variable of economic ability,
as stated.
251 Friesen, Wealth and Poverty, pp. 18-19. Garnsey and Saller conclude their chapter ‘The Social
Hierarchy’ by emphasizing the notion of the ‘Roman system of inequality’; P. Garnsey and R. Saller, The
Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1990[1987]).
252 This estimation was calculated carefully by taking into account the surplus products for
maintenance, the geographical factor, and the rural farmers’ mobility to the city.
253 The urban population is estimated at 80,000; Engels, Roman Corinth, p. 84. 254 Engels, Roman Corinth, p. 33.
255 E.g, for lamps and pottery, O. Broneer, Terracotta Lamps: Corinth IV, 2 (Cambridge and MA:
Harvard University Press [Published for The American School of Classical Studies of Athens], 1930), pp. 70-121; for Corinthian bronze, E.G. Pemberton, ‘The Attribution of Corinthian Bronze’, Hesperia 50 (1981), pp. 101-11; for marble sculpture, B.S. Ridgeway, ‘Sculpture from Corinth’, Hesperia 50 (1981), pp. 422-48; cf. Engels, Roman Corinth, pp. 33-37.
mention as it is said that ‘Corinthian Bronze’ was highly esteemed by Roman connoisseurs. The Corinthians produced high-tin bronze that had a distinctive hardness and colour which required a special process.256 The water was possibly piped to the foundry from the fountain located about one mile away, which suggests the scale of the production was large. This kind of production is one example among many of the fact that labour was highly specialized.
Plutarch’s statement in Pericles (12.6-7) concerning the workers in Athens demonstrates how labour was specialized in first-century Greece. He lists nearly thirty kinds of workers related to building programmes, such as architects, contractors, engineers, and specialized workmen.257 The division of labour of this kind also occurred in manufacturing. Ramsay MacMullen, although he is careful not to overemphasize this phenomenon, points out the ‘atomization’ by referring to examples such as the evidence of the manufacture of slippers by more than 300 people in Rome, and of dealings in iron by over 300 traders in Noricum.258 In addition, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (8.2.5) reveals the difference between labour in a small town and in a large city:
In small towns the same man makes couches, doors, ploughs and tables, and often he even builds houses. … In large cities, however, because many make demands on each trade … for instance one man makes shoes for men, another for women, there are places even where one man earns a living just by mending shoes, another by cutting them out, another just by sewing the uppers together, while there is another who performs none of these operations but
assembles the parts. Of necessity he who pursues a very specialized task will do it best.
It is noteworthy to refer to Finley’s comment here: ‘This is the most important ancient text on division of labour.’259 It is highly likely that the situation of labour in Corinth was similar. Considering the fact that the sectors of artisans and commerce were in effect monopolized by freedpersons in Roman society, as discussed in Chapter 1, it is most likely that this was particularly the case in Corinth. The Augustan colonial programme that sent freedpersons to Corinth, of whom a large number were
256 Engels, Roman Corinth, pp. 36-37.
257 Plutarch’s list includes smiths, carpenters, moulders, founders, braziers, stonecutters, dyers,
goldsmiths, ivory workers, painters, embroiderers, turners, merchants, mariners, shipmasters, cartwrights, cattle-breeders, waggoners, leather-dressers, road makers, flax workers, shoemakers, rope makers, and miners.
258 MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, p. 184, n. 2, and p. 188, n. 24. 259 Finley, Ancient Economy, p. 135.
Greeks returning home,260 and the historical Corinthian tradition of manufacturing261 worked in favour of freedpersons seeking to gain wealth in Corinth.
Professional associations
As the population of the city increased, a number of guilds might have been created during the re-foundation period through practical professional connections. It is generally thought that voluntary associations, whether they are religious or professional, grow in order to meet the needs which political institutions and kinship fail to provide,262 and Corinth, the city that experienced a break in the traditional life of its society, was not an exception. People sought a place for personal affirmation by a larger whole and a sense of belonging in a community.263 Just as in other cities and villages, they might have given their guilds names such as ‘The Bakers’, ‘The Poulterers’, and ‘The
Crafts-Fellowship of ...’.264 As it is said that more than 60% of the members of professional collegia in Rome and Italy were freedpersons, as was discussed in section 1.1.2,265 it can be conjectured that their percentage was much higher in collegia in Corinth. The places for crafts and trades were usually clustered close together and the streets and squares were named after them,266 and these were the areas where one might have seen freedpersons working actively in everyday life. It is worth