Roman Social History: A Sourcebook. By TIM G. PARKIN and ARTHUR J. POMEROY.
Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World. London and New York:
Routledge, 2007. Pp. xvii + 388. Paper, $37.95. ISBN
978–0–415–42675–6.
Order this text for $34.28 from Amazon.com using this link and benefit
CAMWS and the Classical Journal:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/classjourn-20
Previously published CJ Online reviews are at
http://classicaljournal.org/reviews.php
CJ Forum Online 2009.11.01
This book gathers together an interesting, diverse and suggestive selection
of Greek and Latin sources regarding Roman social history, mainly intended
for the undergraduate student. The period in question comprises the best
part of the Principate, i.e. the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. The wide
selection of very different texts ranges from literary sources and legal
texts to papyri and inscriptions, in addition to outlines by the authors
concerning regions of Rome and their buildings (p. 51), census data (p. 64)
and age-rounding (p. 66). [[1]] The authors in their introduction highlight
that in the attitude towards the ancient word of recent scholarship, there
is “no monolithic ‘Roman’ society.” Coherent with this tendency,
they include subjects in a way neglected by traditional sourcebooks:
peasantry, freedmen or slaves. As a conceptual framework, the authors have
chosen the already classic handbook by P. Garnsey and R. Saller, The Roman
Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (London, 1987), which explains Roman
society by insisting on all these aspects and taking account of “power
structures” (p. 2). [[2]] The sources included are structured around nine
topics: social classes (3–42), demography (43–71), family and household
(72–135), education (136–53), slavery (154–204), poverty (205–43),
the economy (244–91), the legal system and courts (292–327), and
leisure and games (328–56). Each chapter has a brief but sufficient
introduction, and each entry a short informative note.
The first chapter is entitled “Social Classes,” and in the introduction
the authors use terminology of this type (“The Roman world shows both
untrammelled capitalism and remarkable state intervention in the
economy…”). The authors’ use of these terms is, of course, merely
pedagogical use of these terms. But it might have been useful to outline
the difference between the technical value of modern terms such as
“social class” or “capitalism” and their meaning in the Roman world
to help students to be accurate with these concepts. [[3]] The main subject
in this chapter is the hierarchical structure of Roman society, ranging
from the superior ordines, probably less than 0.1 per cent of the
population (senators and equestrians and their provincial equivalents, i.e.
“town councillors or even tribal chiefs”) to the common people. The
starting point of the political framework, the so-called “mixed
constitution” is rightly exemplified not through Polybius, as typically,
but through a contemporary text, Cicero Rep. 1.43, 67. The part played by
the emperor in the new regime is characterized via Pliny the Younger (not
only the epistles, but especially the panegyric) and some carefully chosen
inscriptions, such as ILS 8781 (“an oath of allegiance to the emperor”)
and ILS 8794 (“Nero’s benefaction to the Greeks”). The new
configuration of the senatorial status is profusely explained, as well as
the equestrian order (regulation on the wearing of rings…) and the
decurions (Tab. Her. 89–97). As for the lower orders, the examples are
extracted from Patristic sources or inscriptions. In my view, the text by
Artemidorus (Oneir. 1.35)—presumably selected by Pomeroy [[4]]—on the
significance of the dream of losing one’s head is extremely telling, as
the prediction is adapted to the status of the dreamer, and the image of
the capitis deminutio is clearly implied.
“Demography,” the next chapter, is mainly based on Parkin’s work on
the subject, the main conclusions of which are clearly stated in the
Introduction (pp. 43–6). [[5]] Extremely varied material is used to
exemplify the author’s conclusions, including the Res gestae divi
Augusti, data excerpted from the Egyptian census, literary sources about
plagues, disease and natural disasters, fragments of patristic sources and
epitaphs.
“Family and household” is the title of the next chapter. This is a key
matter in Roman society, since the familia also involved a status issue.
Marriage and patria potestas are rightly explained within this framework.
Among the documents included are some related to the family in Egypt,
including epitaphs (to examine family patterns outside the aristocratic
sphere we know through literary sources) and census papyri. A glossary of
key legal terms is provided at the beginning of this chapter. This glossary
is extremely useful, but can also be confusing. For example, paterfamilias
is rightly defined as “the male head of the familia” with reference to
the ius vitae necisque, but the definition does not point to the fact that
a sui iuris boy could also be considered such in the sense that he had the
three statuses, libertatis, civitatis and familiae. When the authors tackle
the legal definition of marriage, they include among its requirements the
dowry, but rightly underline that it was not mandatory.
“Slavery,” the fifth chapter, deals with a economic and social reality
without which the ancient world is difficult to understand. The sources
employed range from the slave as a way to display wealth to more
picturesque stories such as the slave used as a talking book (Sen. Epist.
27 5–8). The authors also tackle imperial slaves and freedmen (the
“Familia Caesaris”), along with less fortunate farming workers
(Columella 1.16). Some examples of manumission as recorded in inscriptions
or papyri are offered (e.g. AE 1995 665; PSI IX 1040). AE 1971 88 offers
significant evidence of slaves’ living conditions, since it involves a
service for the punishment of slaves. Some less common epigraphic materials
such as slave collars (ILS 9454, 9455…) are also quoted. The Senatus
consultum Silanianum is exemplified—perhaps too profusely—through a
quotation of D. 29.5. Juristic texts are also quoted in reference to the
rules of manumission (Gai I 9–54), some aspects of the operae and the
rights of a slave to use his peculium (cf. D. 33.8.19; D. 40.1.4–5), and
the actio quanti minoris and the actio redhibitoria (D. 11.3; D. 21.1),
both related to defects to be declared in the sale of slaves.
“Poverty” is dealt with in detail in the sixth chapter, where the way
the Roman society was stratified is highlighted, starting with the text
Artemidorus Oneir. 2.9, in which dreams are differently interpreted for the
rich and poor. The title “poor” embraced many different people: pauper
was not exactly the same as egenus, as the epigrams of Martial show.
Christian authors interpreted the interrelation between rich and poor in a
very different way, with many sociological novelties. The authors rightly
point out that—despite the official rhetoric—the alimentary foundations
by the Antonines are far from a charitable work, in the sense that they
were open—at least primarily—to the poor but also and especially served
the privileged orders of society. “A Roman Robin Hood” is an entry on
Bulla, the chief of a robber band under the Severans, according to Dio
Cassius.
The chapter “Economy” is concerned mainly with agriculture, but also
with mining and trade. In reference to the latter, the authors quote the
polemic between Finley (significantly conservative in his interpretation)
and the historians who evaluate trade as an indicator of substantial
economic growth. [[6]] In a pedagogical context, this controversy—which
provides a framework to comment on the sources included in this
chapter—might easily have received more stress. It is important to avoid
simplistic equations between Rome and nowadays, especially in matters such
as coinage and manufactured and traded goods, but on the other hand it is
obvious that these realities were important in some areas. In any case, the
relatively advanced aspects of the Roman economy existed side by side with
subsistence farming, and it is not always easy to identify economic
rationalism (maximization of income, benefit analysis…) in the ancient
mentality.
“The Legal System and Courts” offers interesting insights into law and
its social repercussions, but the chapter lacks some consistency, since no
outline of the legal system is included. The average undergraduate reader
is likely to need a complete explanation of how Roman procedures worked;
what the relevant sources of law were at that moment; what the role of
local practice was; and what part the emperor and his chancery played in
the unification and creation of law. On the other hand, the social impact
of law is perfectly expressed, for example in the case of wills. As
Champlin has shown, [[7]] their function was not limited to patrimonial
matters, but also offers access to social realities by e.g. mentioning the
emperor as patron (8.14) or even praising and blaming the other (8.15).
Papyri are quoted to illustrate trials and official complaints. SEG XVII
755 is a significant inscription that reproduces a mandatum by Domitian on
the privileges of the cities. Some literary (Ap. Met. IX. 12; Luc. Tox. 29)
and legal (C. Th. IX. 3; C. I. IX. 5. 1) sources exemplify the state of
prisons.
“Leisure and Games” closes the compilation. The chapter is mainly
focused on gladiatorial games and the authors use profuse literary
(Juvenal, Martial, Suetonius, Seneca, Tertullian…) and epigraphic sources
(graffiti pompeiani about entertainments) to complete the panorama offered
by archaeological evidence.
To sum up, Parkin and Pomeroy have succeeded admirably in their task of
providing an introductory resource for students and the general reader,
based on a rich spectrum of sources acceptably translated and focused on
different topics, all of them significant to the comprehensive study of
Roman social history.
CARLOS SÁNCHEZ-MORENO ELLART
University of Valencia
[log in to unmask]
[[1]] Three outlines with commentaries are added as Appendix A (“Life
Expectancy” 354–6), Appendix B (“The Roman Status Hierarchy”) and
Appendix C (“Greek and Roman Weights, Measures, and Coinage”).
Demography is one of Parkin’s areas of expertise, and the outline of
Appendix A is mainly based on his Demography and Roman Society (Baltimore
and London, 1992).
[[2]] “It is our belief that Roman society is best explained in terms of
its power structure.”
[[3]] “Capitalism” in this context presumably means only the existence
of trade and an oriented exchange market. In the context of the Roman
world, the use of this term is common (apart from the Marxists) in the Max
Weber tradition, although he eventually became more critical to it; see
e.g. J.R. Love, Antiquity and Capitalism (London and New York, 1991).
[[4]] J. Pomeroy, “Status Anxiety in the Greco-Roman Word,” Ancient
Society 22 (1991) 51–74.
[[5]] For a slightly different point of view regarding the utility of the
available data, see R.S. Bagnall and B.W. Frier, The Demography of Roman
Egypt2 (Cambridge, MA, 2006).
[[6]] For a good outline of the so-called “Finley-Jones model” and the
controversy with Rostovtzeff, see K. Greene, Archaeology of the Roman
Economy (London, 1986) 14–18; P. Garnsey and R. Saller, The Roman Empire:
Economy, Society and Culture (London, 1987) 46–51; J.R. Love, Antiquity
and Capitalism (London and New York, 1991). As A. Carandini states in his
study on one of the most advanced estates of the Roman upper-class farms,
we are dealing with a “bi-sectoral economy,” with a monetary sector
(products for the major markets) and a natural sector (polyculture); see A.
Carandini, “Columella’s Vineyard and the Rationality of the Roman
Economy,” Opus 2 (1983) 177–204.
[[7]] Cf. E. Champlin, Final Judgments (Berkeley, 1991).
If you have been forwarded this review, you may subscribe to the listserv
by sending an email to: [log in to unmask]
Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write:
SUBSCRIBE CJ-Online
You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online listserv by sending an email to:
[log in to unmask]
Leave the subject line
|