Roman Civilization

CMS 206 /History 206

Earning a Living - Rich Guys

Lecture

Part 1: On Roman Wealth / Part 2: Gentlemen Farmers / Part 3: Equites / Part 4: Status and Wealth and Patronage / Part 5: The New Man

Related Sites

The Catilinarian Revolution / Atticus, Cicero, and Crassus / Atticus, Cicero, and Crassus / Horace and Maecenas / Patronage / The Roman Economy / Suggested Readings
Elaine Fantham, NPR's correspondent to the Ancient World, on Roman elections [you'll need RealPlayer - which,if you don't have, you can download for free ]

On Roman Wealth

To speak of "earning a living" with respect to the Roman elite is to misspeak. To qualify for census classification as an equite or senator, a Roman citizen had to be worth 400,000 or 1 million sesterces. This kind of net worth freed Romans of the elite economic classes from the need to earn a living that ordinary people experienced. This is not to say that members of the elite class didn't suffer economic difficulties. As we'll see, at least in theory, the wealth of Roman magnates was tied up in land. To the extent that his income depended on rents from farms, even a wealthy Roman could experience short term squeezes. If you needed to pay your daughter's dowry (which in the late Republican period could be enormous), you borrowed the money. As long as credit was available, the practice of borrowing short-term didn't affect the average, wealthy Roman too much. When bankers stopped lending because of political or military crises, however, even the rich could feel the pinch. Revolutionaries like Catiline appealed to the cash strapped among the elite by calling for an abolition of exisitng debts (tabula nova). This terrified not only the bankers, but also the optimates, or politically conservative defenders of Senatorial privilege in Rome. Similarly, if you needed to fund the games you held as aedile (whose costs could be staggering) you borrowed funds, and paid your debts as much in political loyalty as in cash.
Not being able to pay debts as they came due was the indicia of bankruptcy for Romans ( a criteria still used in American bankruptcy law). It this fear that haunted members of Rome's land -rich elite. Bankruptcy meant social disgrace and the censor's nota, with the possible loss of legal and political rights the nota entailed.

return to top

Gentlemen Farmers

Nevertheless, for members of the Roman elite, land was both the safest and the most idealized investment. Remember the hero, Cincinnatus, the ideal Roman who farmed until his country called him to battle? Members of the Roman elite claimed for themselves this ideal of citizenship long after any of them every dirtied his hands at the plow. In fact, as early as 218 BCE, the Romans passed a law, the lex Claudia, which prevented Romans who met the wealth qualifications for Senatorial status from running for office if they earned their income from a source other than land investments.
This limitation was less of an obstacle than it might appear. First, many Romans set their freedmen up in business, operating like "silent partners." The freedmen did the physically and socially dirty work, and their patrons took a cut of the proftis. Thus, Romans of the senatorial class could enjoy the financial benefits of investment in the more speculative but lucrative field of trade, while keeping up the appearance of a proper gentlemen farmer. Secondly, members of the Roman elite essentially got the first pick of land which Rome aquired in its wars of conquest, first on the Italian peninsula, and then through out the Mediterranean Basin.

In theory, all land that Rome aquired in its wars became part of the ager publicus (public land), owned by the state. Unlike a lot of ancient states, Rome rarely took possession of all the land belonging to an enemy. Instead, it would take a portion (admittedly as high as a third or half or more), and leave the local inhabitants the rest. Roman citizens then could bid to rent portions of the ager publicus. By now, you should not be surprised to learn that the best land was leased either to members of the senatorial class at ridiculously low prices, or to publicani (who may not have had the bluest blood, but did have a lot of cash) [think of mineral rights in the western U.S., and robber-baron capitalism in the 19th century). In theory, title to the land remained in the name of the state, but in practice, Rome's wealthiest citizens were able to buy up leases and begin farming latifundia (plantations). This was farming in a new style and on a far grander scale than anything old Cincinnatus could have imagined.

Wealthy Romans were able to farm on this scale for several reasons. First, they were able to aquire leases for large tracts of land. Second, Rome acquired in its expansion throughout the Mediterranean not only land, but wealth (all that war booty) and slaves (the fall of Carthage in 146 BCE, for example, saw 50,000 slaves enter the market in a single day). The wealth meant Romans could buy great numbers of slaves and use them to farm great tracts of land.

Conversely, the traditional small-scale farmer who fought for Rome, was wiped out by the expansion of the Roman empire. On the one hand, the sheer size of the empire meant that soldiers were now required to serve for far great lengths of time than the traditional campaigining season. It was a lot harder to protect your home, farm and family when stationed in Syria than it was when you returned home to Apulia after the campaigning season. The aged dad, loyal wife and young son whom a soldier left behind simply had less resources to deal with disaster, or the depredations (or simply competition) of encroaching wealthy landowners. Romans were able to import traditional grain crops at far cheaper prices from their new provinces in Sicily and North Africa, as well. The wise farmer converted to different crops (olives and wine), but these required funds both to aquire the root stock and to wait for harvests (which could take 5 to 20 years). The soldier's farm, therefore, was more likely to fail. The simple farmer, accordingly, became increasingly like to sell off his farm to the owner of a nearby latifundia and move to the city, where he became, if lucky, a tabernarius (shop keeper) and if not, part of the infima plebs or proletariate (free citizens so poor that all they could offer the state were their proles or children). They became, in bad times, the urban mob.

The Roman elite, clung to the ideal of the citizen as soldier/farmer, even though they no longer farmed personnally. Cato the Elder, the anti-hellene of the early 2nd century BCE, for example, wrote two famous works. In De Origines, a history of Rome, he wrote a history of Rome in which he didn't supply the names of Roman generals (they were only doing their duty, after all). In De Agri Cultura (see, RCiv, v. 1, #166), he wrote a treatise on farming, which described the new capitalistic practices of farming in terms of the old ideal of Cincinnatus. Later Roman writers like Varro (see, RCiv, v.1, #166), Vergil and Columella would do the same. However quietly they invested their money in trade and finance, Romans of the elite class cultivated a snobbery against those who earned their living by their hands or in trade. Cicero's discussion of the topic (RCiv, v.1, #165) is typical.

Similarly, members of the Roman elite began to identify themselves by their lifestyle. A gentleman, of course, knew Greek. His father had purchased a Greek war slave to serve as his paidagogus. The paidagogus was a nanny, tutor and attendant for a young Roman boy, and his services ensured that a Roman aristocratic lad would be bilingual. As he grew older, the boy studied Greek and Latin literature with a grammaticus and rhetoric with a rhetor, either privately at home (a true gentleman could afford the retinue of Greek savants a proper education required) or in independent schools that began to appear in Rome in the first century BCE. After finishing his schooling, he might also spend some months or even years in Greece, studying philosophy and rhetoric with the best teachers. As an adult, he would retire to his country villa with friends to discuss philosophy, and would himself write learned tomes (assisted by Greek slaves and freedmen) as Cicero, Caesar, and Varro did, or would support Greek and Roman literati who did. This recourse to the literary life came in handy when a wealthy Roman politician failed in his political/military career. Sallust wrote his histories after his patron, Julius Caesar, was killed. Lucullus retired to an estate, opulent even by Roman standards, and created a patch of Greece in Rome for his literary companions after Pompey replaced him as every Roman's favorite general. Cicero, during his exile, wrote some of his best known philosophical works.

Marcus Licinius Crassus is probably the best example of a dis(wealthy man) in the late Republic for whom birth, wealth, military service and political power are inextricably intertwined. Crassus' father had been consul in the year 97 BCE, but ended up on the wrong side of the conflict between Marius and Sulla. Young Crassus was shipped off to Spain for safekeeping. Crassus senior was killed and the family property confiscated. However, Marcus grew up, came back to Rome and joined Sulla, whose ultimate victory enabled him to acquire enormous wealth (essentially the confiscated property of the people Sulla proscribed). He invested in real estate and slaves and came to own his own silver mine. Crassus was said to have opined that no man should call himself rich unless he can afford to field his own army. He was also one of the most politically powerful men in Rome. In 72, he supressed the slave revolt of Spartacus. In 72, he became consul with Pompey. In 60, Caesar, Pompey and Crassus formved a triumvirate through which they subverted the Republican consitution and effectively controlled Rome. In 56 BCE, Crassus insisted on the governship of Syria, hoping to win a military reputation against the Parthians that would rival Pompey's. The Parthians destroyed his legions in the desert.

return to top

Equites

Originally, Romans used the term equites (horsemen) to refer to citizen/soldiers wealthy enough to provide themselves with horses and serve as the Roman cavalry in times of war. In time, simple possession of the wealth required by the census could lead to designation as an equite. The local elite class of towns within the Roman empire were also refered to as equites (see, RCiv, v.2, #73). Because of the prohibition against trade by Senators, a new economic class of citizens arose in the wake of Rome's expansion in the Mediterranean basin. Publicani formed corporations that bid to provide military supplies, build public works, and collect taxes (see, RCiv, v.1, #169). Less well capitalized than the publicani were the negotiatores, local bankers, traders and merchants. Gradually, these men became conscious of their identity as a class with distinct political interests and became an important force in Roman republican politics. They were instrumental, for example, in the rise of Marius to power, and Cicero considered them his natural constituency (see, RCiv, v.1, #167).
The equites were Romans who were wealthy enough to stand for magisterial elections (and thereby gain entry into the Senate), but chose not to either for the moment or for life. They were of the same economic class as senators (indeed, the sons of senators were typically equites unless and until they followed their fathers into politics). Cicero's great friend Titus Pomponius Atticus was an equite who was wildly wealthy. He made scads of money investing in real estate, befriended and lended judiciously to Roman politicans on all sides of the civil wars, and lived as much of his life as he possibly could in Greece (hence his nickname, "Atticus," or "man of Attica [another name for Greece]"). He took great interest in literary and cultural life, employing specially trained scribes to copy not merely the letters, speeches and philosophical works of Cicero (so he could arrange for their distribution). He, himself wrote antiquarian and biographical works, but none have survived.

return to top

Status and Wealth and Patronage

The wealthy were expected to demonstrate their wealth through enormous gifts to their local communities and for Rome. They built public works (aqueducts and baths) for their home towns, endowed schools, etc. (RCiv, v.2, 14, 70-72). This generosity could quickly become extravagence, however, as Romans of the elite classes competed with each other to display their wealth, and if politically active, curry favor with the plebs. While moralizing Romans deplored the competitive display of the wealty (see, RCiv, v.2, #42) as a decline from the simple but noble Roman values of ancestors (like Cincinnatus) and explicitly linked the decline (e.g., Lucan, Pharsalia, Book 1, 180 ff; Livy, Praefatio; Sallust, Bellum Catilinum, 1.10ff)) to Rome's imperial successes, the trend was difficult to stop (think of the relationship between "soft money," lobbiests and the cost of television advertising in American politics). The elite identified themselves and earned and justified their place in society, in part, by their display of wealth. Wealth was one of the inevitiable consequences of military and political success. Members of the elite, accordingly, competed fiercely for the opportunity to succeed in the military and political spheres.
The wealthy and powerful demonstrated their influence in more subtle ways as well. Roman society was organized in a very hierarchical manner. Those with more power and influence were patroni (patrons) and those who depended on the power and influence of their patrons were clientes (clients). Every morning clients rose, donned their togas and went to their patron's house for the salutatio (greeting). If you were small fry, a slave would give you lunch money (or a picnic basket with lunch) and send you on your way. Your duties to your patron could be quite limited; accompanying him in the streets when he campaigned and voting for him. The more important you were, the more likely you were to be invited into your patron's inner sanctum to give advice at the salutatio. The more important you were, the greater the duties you owed your patron tended to be: advice and support in political and legal battles, serving as a lieutenant in your patron's military campaigns and provincial governorship. If you were not a military or politically minded Roman (e.g., if you were a poet), you would dedicate your verse to your patron and often, just hang out with him and provide him good company. Caelius is a good example of a young client who supported his patron, Cicero, in political and legal affairs. [Caelius actually seems to have broken with Cicero over Catiline, but then returned to the fold when he found himself in legal difficulties. Cicero welcomed him back and defended him with the pro Caelio, one of the funniest forensic speeches surviving from the ancient world). Horace is a good example of a poet who forswore public life after a brief and disastrous experience as a soldier in the civil wars, but remained the loyal client and companion of his patron, Maecenas. His poem on their friendship (Horace, Satires, 1.6) is a good place to begin exploring the Roman relationship of amicitia.

Patronage was, however, a two way street. As a client, no matter how humble, you could turn to your patron for advice and help in business and legal affairs. In theory, no Roman ever paid an advocatus to represent him in a lawsuit. It was a patron's duty to take that role. [As a practical matter, very rich clients didn't mind making their appreciation felt.] But within this relationship, small fry were supposed to bother their patron for advice on family and business decisions, ask for support in getting ahead (e.g., Maecenas introducing his poets to the 'best people;' ordinary business men expecting their patrons to help them get deals or collect loans owed them) and turn to them for legal advice and representation when they found themselves in legal difficulties.

These relationships of amicitia, moreover, weren't frozen in stone. You might begin your adult life with a patron because he had been your father's patron (or his father had been your father's patron). But, you might not seek a better, more supportive and effective patron, if you felt your current guy was ineffective. A number of scholars, moreover, believe that ordinary citizens were not as loyal with their votes as previously had been thought. Clients probably always voted for their patrons, but did not necessarily vote for their patron's candidate in other elections. (Based on what you know from the Commentariolum, [RCiv, v. I, #155], do you think this analysis could be right?).

When friendships among the elite foundered, it was a matter of grave concern. A Roman of the elite class would take care to publicly disseminate the fact that someone was no longer his amicus. Conversely, when members of the Roman elite made new friends, part of the burden of that friendship was to publicize it's existence. By the time of the empire, the Emperor and leading political figures even had ranks of friendship. A man might be your amicus. Or your good friend, or your very good friend, or your closest friend. [What do you think the point of these distinctions were?] The friendships of the elite were different from those of more ordinary people in another important way. Members of the elite could claim entire cities as their clientes. [See, RCiv, v. 2, #72]. Now obviously Pompey didn't write Saturnalia cards to the cities of the east that were his clients. Instead, he served as something of an ambassador for them in the Roman senate and Roman politics. Cicero, for example, was a patron to Sicilians. When Verres, the Roman governor of Sicily, was plundering the place, it was to Cicero that Sicilians turned for help. He sued Verres for extortion, in effect, on behalf of the people of Sicily. They remembered and were greatful. By the time of the late Republic and Principate, these municipal patron-client relationships could have profound political implications. Caesar, for example, was keen to expand Roman citizenship to the peoples of Northern Italy and Southern Gaul, because most of them were his clients.

return to top

The New Man

If you were more than small fry, you expected your patrons to back you and help support your career. Your patron would try to get posts for you in military campaigns and on governor's staffs. In fact, in order to be a good patron, you had to be the master of that famous literary genre, the letter of recommendation. This exercise of influence ensured that when you were ready to run for office, you a) had the right experience on your resume; and b) had the chance to expand your own network of friends and influence.
As a result of these kinds of friendships, the Roman elite was able to recruit into the leadership class, talented young men from families that hitherto had not chosen to pursue Roman politics (e.g., wealthy municipal families, like Cicero's) and to ensure that they would not be wild and crazy radicals. If you were the first in your family to be elected to the Senate, the Romans called you a novus homo (new man). While it wasn't uncommon for a novus homo to be elected aedile or praetor, it was very rare to find a Roman moving from the ranks of social obscurity to the lofty heights of the consulship. Cicero and Marius were two men who were able to achieve this feat.

One reason for the difficulty Romans experiened in scrambling to the top within one generation is indicated by the term novus homo, itself. Novus or new, is not a term of approval in the Roman political vocabulary. While "newness" is something almost inherently attractive in American politics, in Roman politics it's synonymous with revolution (and a revolution in which everyone loses their money to boot). Romans, rich and poor alike, were much more politically conservative than Americans. Ordinary Romans liked to vote for candidates whose fathers had been consuls and distrusted candidates with few antecedants they could look to and judge by. Marius came to the public's attention through his exploits as a soldier, Cicero via his legal career. Marius' political success was due less to his patrons (with whom he eventually broke) than with the public's appreciation for his military acumen (cf. McCain's "insurgent" Republican party candidacy). Cicero, conversely, was supported by the elite in his bid for consulship precisely because they trusted him to toe the party line at a time of political uncertainty (cf. Al Gore in the Democratic party primaries).

During the civil wars, many of Rome's elite families, especially those who sided against Octavian, were wiped out. When Octavian became Augustus, he consciously enlisted the support of the municipal equestrian classes throughout the Italian peninsula. He promoted their members to the Senate and effectively created a new elite, senatorial class in Rome that was more broadly based (geographically). While there was some resentment for this program on the part of the old Roman urban families who had controlled the city and Senate for centuries, as Tacitus noted, most who objected had died and those that survived sold out.

return to top