Imperial Romans

Author: John Beierle

None

By the middle of the second century AD the Roman Empire extended from Scotland to Arabia and from Morocco to the highlands of Armenia. Its northernmost frontier, the Antonine Wall, ran between the estuaries of the Forth and the Clyde. “It embraced western and southern Europe up to the Rhine and Danube, with an ill-defined zone of influence beyond, while the provinces of Upper Germany and Dacia extended beyond those rivers into the Main-Taunus Black Forest region and into Romania respectively. Western Asia belonged to the empire up to the Euphrates and the Syrian or Arabian Desert. Egypt was Roman, as were the North African coast and its hinterland to the edge of the desert zone, and Egypt and North Africa between them supplied Rome with most of its grain” (Fagan, 1996: 608).

Historically this period covers a span of nearly 500 years from 27 BC to 476 AD.

Population statistics for Imperial Rome and the Roman Empire are difficult to find in the literature. The censuses recorded in the Res Gestae of Augustus give 4,063,000 for 28 BC, 4,233,000 for 8 BC, and 4,937,000 for 14 AD, but these figures probably refer not only to males of military age but all male citizens, including children and old men. If this were true then the estimate of Roman citizens of both sexes in Rome, Italy, and the provinces, not including slaves, would approximately double the figures given by Augustus. In 14 AD the Fasti Ostienses give 4,199,900 instead of 4,937,000 with a similar difference reflected in the last specifically reported census of 47 AD which some authorities give as 6,944,000 against Tacitus’ figure of 5,984,072. It seems more than likely that the higher figure for both 14 AD and 47 AD refer to the male citizen population of the whole empire, and the smaller to the male citizen population of Italy alone. If we add to the Italian figures a corresponding total for women, and a rough figure of one million for slaves, we get a global population of Italy amount to between nine and nine-and-a- half million in 14 AD and between twelve-and-a-half and thirteen million in 47 AD (Pareti, 1965: 819-820). Demographic data for later periods of the Imperial Roman era were not available in the literature consulted.

Latin was the primary language of the Roman people, employed for literary and administrative use and in exchanges between educated people. Both in cities and in the country where native dialects were still being used, these dialects became heavily larded with words of Latin origin. In many cases a form of bilingualism developed in which native dialects were used in home and community situations, and Latin employed in administrative and business exchanges. Generally Latin was spread by the Roman colonists planted in territories of foreign speech, as well as by the Roman armies who were stationed in various regions of the Empire. Trade, too, was made easier by new methods of communication. “Later on, in every land occupied by Rome, in the Marsic country, in Umbria, in Apulia and in Picenum, hybrid blends of Roman indigenous peoples were formed....” (Pareti, 1965: 369-370). At the beginning of the fourth century, Roman citizenship was granted to inhabitants of allied cities, which they could exercise in Rome. With the migration of the new citizens to Rome, bringing with them their own native languages, educated people became systematically and spontaneously bilingual, speaking Latin and a local dialect at the same time. Gradually the ancient Italic languages of Italy (e.g., Oscan) ceased to be written, but were preserved in everyday speech and were the distant base of the modern dialects.

Latin persisted in more or less pure form in the Church, in diplomacy, and as the vehicle for transmitting learning. In a somewhat adulterated form it subdivided into the principal Romance languages spoken today (2006) – French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian; even the Germanic languages and especially English, all were strongly affected, both directly and indirectly by Latin.

The Roman Imperial period, which followed the Republican era (509-27 BC), has been classified by most historians as consisting of six distinct periods starting with: the principate under Augustus (27 BC-14 AD); the reign of the Julio-Claudian emperors (14 AD–68 AD); the reign of the Flavian emperors (69 AD–96 AD); the five good emperors (96 AD-180 AD); the century of confusion (180 AD-285 AD); and the autocracy (285 AD-476 AD).

During the principate of Augustus, who is usually considered the first of the Julio-Claudian emperors, peace and prosperity predominated throughout the empire. The military conquests of the Republican era were consolidated and the basis of sound provincial administration introduced. Numerous social and religious reforms were instituted at this time designed to restore older standards of morality and piety. Augustus was also responsible for the addition of many new buildings to Rome and the restoration of more than eighty temples. The age of Augustus has also been known as the culmination of the so-called “Golden Age of Roman Literature” resulting in such great works as Vergil’s Aeneid, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, and Livy’s History of Rome (in 142 books).

Following the death of Augustus began the era of the Julian-Claudian emperors – Tiberius Gaius (better known as Caligula), Claudius, and Nero – each of whom were related in some way to Augustus or to his wife Livia. In 33 AD, during the reign of Tiberius, a most important event took place in world history, namely the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth which eventually led to the spread of Christianity throughout the Eastern Empire and finally to Rome itself. The fifty-year period between the death of Augustus and the death of Nero, although marred by civil disorders in Rome, particularly during the reigns of Caligula and Nero, was one of continuing peace and prosperity. The provincial administrative policies introduced by Augustus were of great value in keeping the peace throughout the empire. During this time the boundaries of Rome were gradually being extended by the incorporation into the empire of Cappadocia, the two Mauretanias, Britain, Thrace, and Lycia as provinces.

The civil uprisings in the last days of Nero’s reign (68 AD) brought about a period of great disorder in which three successive emperors ruled during the same year, each deposing one another in turn. These emperors were Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Vespasian (Titus Flavius Vespasianus), the first of the Flavian emperors succeeded to the rule in 69 AD, and was the founder of the Flavian dynasty which extended its rule from 69-96 AD. During Vespasian’s ten year rule he brought a degree of peace and security to Rome and the empire, bringing a cessation to the civil wars, and restoring a sense of financial confidence in the economy.

He was succeeded in office by his son Titus who ruled for two years (79 AD-81 AD) and his son Domitian who ruled for fifteen (81 AD-96 AD). This period of time (i.e., at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century AD), has been known as the “Silver Age” of Latin literature, famed for its literary output and dominated by such writers as Juvenal, Tacitus, Suetonius, Martial, and Pliny the Younger. Outstanding achievements and events of this period were the capture of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the eruption of the volcano Vesuvius in 79 AD destroying the towns of Pompeii and Herculaneum, the military conquest of Agricola in Britain, and the construction in Rome of the Flavian amphitheatre now known as the Colosseum.

From 96 AD-180 AD the Roman Empire enjoyed one of its greatest period of peace and prosperity under the rule of the “five good emperors” – Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. During Trajan’s reign the empire reached its greatest extent with the addition as provinces of Dacia, Arabia, Armenis, Mesopotamis, and Assyria (most of which were later given up By Addrian in an attempt to consolidate the empire). Hadrian’s fame as emperor rested on his achievements in building construction – the Pantheon (the great temple of Venus and Rome near the Colosseum}, and his own mausoleum across the Tiber, known today (2006) as the Castel Sant’Angelo. The reigns of Antoninus Pius and his successor Marcus Aurelius are considered to have been the happiest period of the Roman Empire. Business and industry flourished, and the provinces benefited from good roads, schools, libraries, theatres, baths, and aqueducts.

With the appointment of Commodus as emperor by his father, Marcus Aurelius, a period of Roman history began which has been known generally as the “century of confusion” (180-285 AD). Characteristic of this aptly named era was the misrule and corruption of many (but not necessarily all) of its numerous emperors, civil war, economic decline, and the gradually increasing pressure on its frontiers by barbarian populations. By the middle of the third century, independent states had established themselves in Gaul and the Near East, and the central government in Rome had little or no power to oppose them. During the reign of Aurelian (270 AD- 275 AD) a modicum of order was restored to the empire when an invading army entering into the Roman provinces of Asia Minor was defeated and the disorders in Gaul were ended. The construction of walls, towers and gates around Rome during Aurelian’s rule clearly symbolized the increasing weakness of Rome as a power. Following Aurelian’s assassination, confusion again prevailed throughout the empire, ruled by six short-lived emperors in succession.

The autocracy (285 AD-476 AD) was developed under Diocletian (285- 305 AD) as a stop-gap measure to provide a temporary solution to Rome’s problems. Under this form of government military power was exalted as a means of stabilizing the frontiers and maintaining internal order, and economic life was regimented. Unable to reunite the wide-spread empire, Diocletian divided it into four major military and administrative districts ruled by himself and Maximian (in 286 AD) and two junior caesars. At his death the empire was again plunged into civil war which was finally suppressed by Constantine the Great (306 AD-337 AD). Constantine, the first Christian emperor of Rome, did much during his reign to encourage the spread of Christianity throughout the empire. One of his greatest achievements was to grant complete freedom of worship to all Christians in the empire. Constantine also transferred the capital of the empire from Rome to Constantinople. At the death of the emperor Theodosius in 395 AD, the empire was formally split into two parts, with the eastern section having its capital at Constantinople. This eastern division eventually became known as the Byzantine Empire. The western empire continued to decline and was unable to defend itself against barbarian pressure. Eventually Goths, Vandals and others completely overran Italy, and Rome itself was sacked by Goths in 410 AD and later by Vandals in 455 AD With the assumption of the throne by Odoacer, a leader of the German mercenaries, in 476 AD, the Roman Empire came to an end.

The typical Roman settlement plan was derived both from earlier Greek traditions and from their own experience in laying out large military encampments. The richest cities of the Empire (i.e., the cities in which the most opulent men in the Roman world lived), were those that had the most developed commerce and lay near the sea on great trade-routes or were centers of lively river traffic (Rostovtsev, 1926, no. 2). Basically Roman cities were designed in a geometrical pattern, in which two main streets intersected at right angles to one another, and around which a network of lesser streets divided the city into a series of uniform rectangular areas and building blocks. Rome itself was divided into fourteen districts of this kind, and had 265 intersections with guardian Lares (shrines of household gods located at the central crossroads of each neighborhood). To avoid an appearance of monotony, Roman architects added such secondary features as colonnaded streets, arches and gateways, or ornamental sculpture and fountains to soften the sense of geometrical rigor. Within a Roman town, private houses followed a variety of patterns. The earliest were of low-built, spreading forms of one or two stories, which were centered around an open hall (atrium) and a colonnaded garden (peristylium). These houses were best known at Pompeii, but were also fashionable in Rome, and were of a style well suited to the aristocracy and municipal classes of the early empire. In the provinces, housing seems to have kept to local traditions, improved and embellished to suit the prosperity of the times. The increasing wealth and social changes taking place in the empire were soon reflected in the architecture. The richest classes began to build luxurious villas with surrounding gardens, often in the countryside or by the sea. In the largest towns where space was expensive and a large population of laborers and small craftsmen needed housing, there began to appear the new style of building known as insulae These were large apartment houses divided into many shops and small flats. Some areas of poor-class tenement housing in this style had existed in Rome from early times; but the new technique of brick-and-concrete architecture had made a revolutionary change, and after the great fire of AD 64 Nero took the opportunity to rebuild Rome systematically in the new style (Pareti, 1965, pp. 734-735).

The economy of Rome was essentially agrarian and slave based. Agriculture and trade dominated the economy supplemented in small part by industrial production.

Subsistence in Rome was based primarily on agriculture, with a heavy reliance on grains such as wheat, barley, and millet. Much of the grain was supplied in the form of tribute paid to Rome from its provinces. Loane (1938, no. 10) notes that Egypt and other Roman provinces in Africa sent fifteen million bushels annually to Rome. Over 300,000 bushels were distributed to needy Roman citizens, some retained for sale at fair market price to the remainder of the urban population, and additional amounts reserved to feed the Roman armies. Grain was shipped directly to Ostia, the official port of Rome, and penalties for disruption of the most direct route included deportation or execution. Once delivered to Ostia the grain was weighed, checked for quality, and then sent up the Tiber River on barges to Rome, where it would be repacked for distribution throughout the Empire. The food supply was further supplemented with fresh fruits and vegetables which came in large extent from small truck farms just outside the city or from the market gardens covering the nearby Alban and Sabine hillsides. To this was added meat, cheese, olive oil, fish, poultry, honey, and other condiments either from domestic production or as preserved items from abroad (e.g., salted meats).

From time to time the population centers of the Roman Empire had food scarcity and high prices relative to the obtainment of food, resulting in periods of famine. At these times wealthy Romans would often provide money to feed the starving, but others would take the opportunity for profiteering, cornering and hoarding food supplies, and holding out for extortionate prices. As the result food riots frequently ensued, making government intervention necessary. In part these famines were not only the earmarks of the vast quantity of food consumed by the city of Rome and its armies, but also resulted from the diversion of cereal cultivation to the more profitable production of wine and olive oil.

Roman commerce was essentially a world commerce. A lively commerce went on between Gaul and the Danube lands and Germany. The products of Roman industry reached even the Scandinavian lands and the shores of the Baltic Sea (Rostovtsev, 1926: 145). Although commerce existed between Roman provinces in the first century, it assumed much larger proportions in the second. The main factors governing internal trade between provinces were the availability of supplies in one area to meet demands in others, and the cost of transport.

The evolution of commerce in the Roman Empire in the first two centuries AD established the fact that commerce, and especially foreign and inter-provincial maritime commerce, provided the main source of wealth in the Roman Empire. Most of the nouveaux riches owed their money to it. Industry, land, and money-lending were regarded as more or less safe investments for wealth gained by commercial enterprise. The richest cities of the Empire-- the cities in which the most opulent men in the Roman world resided, were those that had the most developed commerce and lay near the sea on great trade-routes or were centers of a lively river traffic (Rostovtsev, 1926: 161).

The significance of industry and manufacturing to the Roman economy was comparatively minor in contrast to that of agriculture. The largest industry in the Empire was mining, which provided stone for the various building projects and metals for tools and the weapons. Greece and northern Italy provided much of the marble used in building construction. Great quantities of gold and silver were mined in Spain and used in the mintage of coins and in the manufacture of jewelry. In Britain, mines produced iron, lead and tin, essential in the production of weapons. Small-scale manufacturing plants were established in numerous cities and towns throughout the Empire producing hand-made pottery, glassware, weapons, tools, jewelry and textiles.

Land and sea routes were well established during the Imperial Roman period. The Roman roads, many of which are still in use in the twenty-first century, were not only useful in the transportation of trade goods, but also enabled the rapid mobilization of the military legions. Vast quantities of trade goods were carried along these roads, but transporting goods by land was slow and expensive. This form of transportation was only profitable if goods were going only short distances or if the cargo was small, expensive luxury items. Most of the large volume, bulky items, such as food, precious metals, stones and building supplies, were shipped by water. Numerous sea lanes provided cheap and easy access to all parts of the Mediterranean.

Roman importers thrived from their imports and were among the wealthiest citizens of the Empire. Although the barter system was still in use during the Imperial Roman period, the Romans also used one of the world’s most developed coinage systems in their trade transactions. Coins of brass, bronze, copper, silver and gold were minted and circulated under strict rules for weights, sizes, value and metal composition. Roman coins became so popular in trade that they could be found distributed as far east as India. These coins were so detailed and of such high artisanship, that they were often used as tools by the Emperors to circulate various forms of news and propaganda to the people of the world.

Men confined their activities to business, and trade outside the home, such as shopping and supplying the provisions for the home. Women, on the other hand, generally confined themselves to domestic roles within the household. Urban women would sometimes assume the positions of seamstresses, woman’s hairdressers, midwives, and nurses (Carcopino, 1975: 181). Women of the upper classes devoted themselves to music, literature, science, law, or philosophy, as a method of passing the time and would have thought it beneath them to stoop to working at a trade (Carcopino, 1975: 180-181).

Since the Republican era (509-27 BC) the Roman economy had been persistently evolving in the direction of large estates. During the first and second centuries AD, both in Italy and in the provinces, great landed estates called latifundia were typical. Simple agriculture was practiced by laborers in partial servitude. Concurrent with the growth of these large estates was the concentration of many of them in the hands of the wealthy, the senatorial aristocracy, and especially the emperors. During Nero’s reign, for example, the conflict between the emperor and the aristocracy over land ended with the almost complete extermination of the richest and oldest senatorial families and the confiscation of their estates by the emperor under trumped-up charges of lese-majesty.

Because of the enormous size of many of these estates, landowners increasingly leased their estates in smaller parcels to the growing class of free tenant farmers ( coloni), who were often ex-slaves. By the second century AD slave or tenant farmer operated latifundia were becoming obsolete and tenancy was becoming prevalent. Gradually formalized by imperial legislation, this institution, called the colonate, contained the seeds of manorial serfdom and was one of the most significant heritages of the Roman world to feudal times (Lewis & Reinhold, 1966: 166).

As indicated above, land during the Imperial Roman period, was the basis of the personal fortunes of the rich and of the wealth of the Empire.

The family was the basic social unit through which wealth and status were transmitted in Roman society. The perpetuation of the aristocracy, the possibilities for social mobility, the distribution of landed wealth, and other matters depended fundamentally on patterns of family behavior (Garnsey, 1987: 126). The Latin terms familia and domus for family and household did not have the same semantic range of emphasis in Roman times as they are used today (2006) in referring to a father, mother, and their children. The Romans used familia to refer to all individuals under the father’s power ( patria potestas), including the wife, children, the sons’ children, and adopted children, all agnates (those related through the male line who derive from the same house – a lineage, but excluding a daughter’s children or a mother’s blood kin, all related through males to a common ancestor who shared a common name (i. e., the clan or gens, and the slave staff. The term domus in the sense of household was more frequently used in reference to the family, and generally covered a larger group than is associated with the family today (2006), encompassing husband and wife, children, slaves, and others living in the house including relatives linked through women.

In general Roman kinship relations were intertwined in a broader network of social relationships and reciprocal obligation. Orphans were taken care of and raised by relatives of all types, and individuals seeking help and support in public or private affairs often turned to kin by blood or marriage as a potential source of aid.

The Latin terminology for kin made a clear distinction between uncles, aunts and cousins related through the father ( patrui, amitae, and fraters/sorores patrueles)respectively, and those related through the mother ( avunculim materterae and [con]sobrini respectively. In the works of Pliny and Seneca, no reference to the term “cousin” can be found, suggesting that the division between paternal and maternal cousins was unimportant and that cousins did not loom very large in the thinking of Romans about their social relationships, although it is suspected that this may have changed with time. “The words for uncles and aunts do appear occasionally , though without any obvious difference in social roles between paternal and maternal uncles and aunts. General words for kin ( necessarius, propinquus, and mei, tui or sui) seem to have been used more often than specific classificatory designations. “Words meaning ‘mine’ or ‘yours’ were particularly common in reference to relatives, and they did not distinguish kin from unrelated dependants such as freedmen. Kin outside the immediate family came into consideration as one group among others deserving protection and help, with no special classification of kin enjoying a privileged position” (Garnsey & Saller, 1987: 146).

In contrast to the Republican era (509-27 BC) when people, especially of the upper classes, married for the sake of having children, during the Imperial Roman period (27 BC-476 AD),the object of marriage was different. In this later period matrimony was entered into in order to establish a house, to have a recognized position in the society, and to settle down in life. The choice of a husband or wife was determined solely by considerations of convenience, of rank, and fortune. Romantic factors did not enter into the union, for girls were married at such an early age (12-14), that they were considered too young to choose (Pellisson, 1897, no. 18: 37-38). Parents were the ones to arrange the marriage of a daughter. It was their place to pick out her future husband, generally a man of at least thirty years of age, ideally of good moral character, noble family, with good career prospects, attractive personality, and a large fortune. Doubtlessly many potential wives had to put up with less. Desirable characteristics of a future bride were intelligence and moral qualities, beauty, and a large potential cash dowry. Girls without a dowry frightened away eligible young men.

When the two families agreed to the marriage, the couple was considered betrothed. The occasion of a betrothal was celebrated with much pomp. Presents were made by the man to his fiancée among which was an iron ring as a pledge of his fidelity. This ceremony led to no particular change in the relationship between the two young people. Their betrothal gave the young people no right to seek to become better acquainted with each other, for the concept of “courting” as viewed from the western standpoint was an unknown concept among the Romans.

The betrothal over, it was now time for the wedding to take place. According to custom the father of the bride was expected to purchase jewels and the trousseau for his daughter, and select the servants who would follow the young wife into her new dwelling. On the morning of the wedding both houses of the betrothed were decorated, while friends and relatives gathered in the atrium of the bride’s house. With the appearance of the bride, elaborately coiffed and bejeweled, the wedding proper began. Once the ten witnesses to the marriage had placed their signatures on the contract, a specially chosen matron led the bride up to the bridegroom and joined their hands. A sacrifice was then made by the couple on the family altar, after which, in festal procession, they set out for their new home. Arriving at the home, the bridegroom was expected to lift the bride over the threshold of her new dwelling, thus symbolizing his right of possession of the wife. A feast was then given in the husband’s house, with husband and wife sitting side by side.

Roman soldiers were forbidden to marry while in military service, and even legal marriages contracted before admission to the army were dissolved by entry into service. This ban was lifted in 197 AD by Septimius Severus.

The instability of Roman marriage is noted by the high rate of divorce, especially among the elite. “A famous epitaph of the Augustan age boasted of a long marriage ‘ended by death, not broken up by divorce’ as something ‘rare’. Many elite Romans had more than one spouse in the course of their lives, and some went through a series of remarriages after divorce or the death of spouses” (Garnsey & Saller, 1987: 133).

Despite the fact that the Romans referred to slightly different aspects of the family as domus and familias, (see section entitled “Kin Groups and Descent”), the basic domestic unit was the extended family which included the husband and wife, their children, their son’s children, adopted children, servants and slaves and all others living in the same domicile.

The system of acquisition and transmission of property was the basis of the Roman framework of social and economic inequality. Wealth was primarily measured in land and acquired by inheritance through the family, primarily by means of wills left by the paterfamilias. Frequently these wills would also grant freedom to the deceased individual’s slaves. Many rich men, especially bachelors, left a large part of their estates to the emperors in order to secure the rest for their natural or chosen heirs, rather than have them confiscated by the state. In cases of intestacy Roman civil law called for the division of the inheritance in equal shares among all legitimate children (male and female), although Romans with property often made wills that could alter this equal shares specification. If a Roman chose not to have his children as heirs to his estate, he had to disinherit them specifically in his will.

In cases where the family had died out and there were no adopted heirs, only then were non-relatives able to gain control over valuable resources. Those individuals who benefited most in these cases were select lower-class dependents, such as freedmen or slaves who had won the confidence or affection of their master during his lifetime.

The rights of a father over his children were unlimited. At birth the new-born child was laid at his father’s feet. If he wished to recognize the child, he picked it up and held it in his arms. If he turned away from the child it was carried out of the house and exposed on the street. Should the baby not die of exposure, it belonged to any one who was willing to care for it, whether as an “adopted” member of that person’s family or as a slave.

Childhood education began with their care by a nurse or governess who taught them to speak correctly, and presumably other appropriate behavior for their status in life. Punishment for failure to learn a lesson correctly was severe, and often resulted in whippings. At home children were in the care of a trusted slave or paedagogus who accompanied them to and from school.

During the Republican period (509-27 BC) all citizens were considered equal under the law, but in the Roman Empire of the second and third centuries there was a distinct legal distinction which divided citizens into two classes the honestiores, frequently referred to in the literature as the patricians and the humilioresor plebians. The honestiores class was composed of Roman senators and knights with their families, soldiers and veterans with their children, and men who held or had held municipal offices in towns and cities outside of Rome, along with their descendants. This group constituted the Roman elite. All other citizens belonged to the humiliores(, and, unless wealth or personal ability brought them into public office, there they remained. The humiliores were subject to severe punishments for infractions of the law often resulting in their being sent to the mines, thrown to the animals in the amphitheater, or crucified. On the other hand the honestiores enjoyed certain privileges when it came to the violation of the law. In cases of grave misconduct, they were spared any punishments that would degrade their position in the eyes of the public and generally got off with banishment or loss of property (Carcopino, 1975, no. l: 52-53).

The two highest subdivisions of the honestiores were known as ”orders” and were composed of senators and knights. Both orders had monetary stipulations as a requirement of membership. The knights or Equestrian Order had to possess a minimum of 400,000 sesterces ($16,000), while the Senatorial Order had to own at least 1,000,000 sesterces ($40,000) to qualify.

Each of the orders mentioned above encompassed fine gradations of status. Within the senatorial order, those who could boast of consular ancestors, nobiles, stood out from the mass of newcomers. The wealthiest and most powerful of these senators came to be known as the “first men” ( primores viri) Of the Equestrian Order, those few appointed to high office in the service of the emperor were described as belonging to the “equestrian nobility” ( equestris nobilitas) (Garnsey & Saller, 1987: 118).

At the top of this rigid social system was the emperor or princeps, a person ”midway between earth and heaven poised in lonely, incomparable majesty” (Carcopino, 1975: 53-54). As his title suggests the princeps was First of the Senate and People, and this primacy implied a difference not only of degree but of nature between him and the rest of humanity. He was considered an offspring of the gods, and at his death he would return to them and in due course would be proclaimed a god himself.

The elite orders described above represented only a small fraction of the population of the empire. Below them came the great mass of

The “common” people, the humiliores – freeborn, freed men (i.e., manumitted slaves), citizens, non-citizens, and the slaves.

Government in the Roman Empire was centered in the city of Rome under the emperor, his advisers and personal staff in the administration. Although the emperor was ultimately responsible for policy decisions and the appointment of imperial officials, those decisions were made largely on the basis of advice from those around him, in particular from a council ( consilium principis) composed of leading senatorial and equestrian friends. This council also advised the emperor in his legal capacities as a judge both of appeals and as a formulator of new laws. The emperor’s personal staff, composed of imperial freedmen, and slaves were also said to have influenced the emperor’s decisions to some degree, most notably in the cases of Claudius, Nero, and Commodus.

By the end of the reign of Augustus (ca. 14 AD) the city of Rome had its own police force, fire department, and an office for the distribution of the grain supply, each under the control of a prefecturechosen from the senatorial and equestrian orders. Another leading equestrian was appointed praetorian prefect, commander of the emperor’s elite bodyguard, the praetorian guard.

The central financial administration of the government consisted of the main treasury, the aerarium into which provincial taxes flowed, and the military treasury the aerarium militare created By Augustus to provide benefits for veteran on retirement. The main treasury was headed by two prefects who were chosen by the emperor from the ranks of former praetors or magistrates. Much of the fiscal responsibility, however, lay not with these men, but with the emperor’s freedmen and then, from the middle of the first century, with a high-ranking equestrian procurator ( a rationibus)), who with a staff of imperial freedmen and slaves kept accounts of the empire’s revenues and expenditures (Garnsey & Saller, 1987: 24). Because the emperor subsidized the public treasuries from his own personal wealth, he was entitled to draw funds from these treasuries to finance the administration of the provinces.

At its height the Roman Empire consisted of approximately 40 provinces and an aggregate of cities and towns enjoying varying degrees of self government according to the status granted to each by the central government. Eventually more and more of the urbanized centers were raised to the status of Roman municipalities with some even being granted the privileged positions of colonies.

From the reign of one emperor to another, cases of litigation between Roman citizens increased to such an extent that public courts were vastly overwhelmed. In order to relieve some of the congestion on the court system, Augustus, from as early as two BC, opened up the Forum to hear some of these cases. Civil cases were heard during 230 days of the year; criminal prosecutions for 365. Most of these cases involved disputes regarding property, personal assaults, libel, marital offenses, etc., much as we would expect to find on court dockets of the twenty-first century. Inter-city disputes in the provinces were generally handled by the governor of the province, who might in continuation of republican practices, assign a neutral arbiter to hear the case. The emperor was, of course, the final arbitrator to whom a dispute might be referred by or appealed from a governor. Usually, however, the governor’s word was law (Lewis & Reinhold, 1966: 365).

The official Roman religion was a cluster of beliefs expressed in an elaborate system of institutions and rituals. The Romans accepted that the safety and prosperity of their communities depended upon the gods, whose favor was won and held by the correct performance of the full range of cult practices inherited from the past. Supervision of the state religion was in the hands of the political authorities. Priesthoods were held by the same men who held political office. In Rome, as in other societies, religious institutions and practices reflected the power relations within the community and provided the justification for the existing order (Garnsey & Saller, 1987: 163).

As religion now became embedded in the political structure of the state, the transition from oligarchy to monarchy brought about changes in the framework of the official religion. Religious offices, as well as all others, now came under the authority of the emperor Augustus. The priestly colleges, now deprived of any political decision making, reoriented themselves toward services to the emperor. This imperial cult was Rome’s main export to the Empire and was considered a way of focusing the loyalty of provincials on the emperor. This cult continued to spread and prosper over the next two centuries (first & second centuries AD), with only minor changes in tone and superficial characteristics. Emperor worship during this period followed in the main the lines laid down by Augustus, namely divine honors to the genius of the living emperor and deification after death (an honor also accorded to other members of the imperial family). The worship of the living emperor was widespread throughout the Empire, especially in the eastern provinces.

As Rome, through conquests, came into contact with other civilizations with other gods, two parallel movements began in Roman religion -- the adoption of some foreign cults, and a syncretism between those cults and those already in existence in the Empire. The Romans were unwilling to absorb certain foreign cults and those were strongly suppressed, especially those that dealt with sacrifices, divination, and other practices involving human victims. By the mid-second century AD cults dealing with the worship of Egyptian gods, Judaism, Christianity, and Mithraism were treated as subversive and liable to be attacked because they threatened to break the exclusive control of the political authorities over religious activities and also threatened to undermine rather than supplement the ancestral religion.

“Unlike other alien ideological influences, astrology and magic invaded all sections of Roman society. Emperors were disturbed by the political implications of astrology among the Roman upper classes. If emperors could use astrology freely, as they did, for aid in decision-making and for information about their span of life, then covertly disloyal members of the political classes could do the same as a preliminary step to revolution” (Garnsey & Saller, 1987: 173). Magic was a complex phenomenon. Not only was it a set of practices designed to secure success in the law courts, in love, or at the races, but also to cause injury or death to another person. In the latter case was the fear that the potential use of magical arts could be used to jeopardize the safety of the emperor.

During the imperial period (27 BC-476 AD), the state religion was in the hands of individuals with political authority. Religious offices, as well as all others were under the control of the emperor. Succeeding emperors, after Augustus, were high priests ex officio. With time the priestly colleges lost their political decision-making abilities and reoriented themselves toward service to the emperor. The main task of the Arval Brothers, as the priesthood was called, was to intercede with the gods for the welfare of the emperor and his family. This priestly intercession involved sacrifices in the temples, as well as the interpretation of unusual natural phenomena by professional diviners.

In addition to the Arval Brotherhood were a group of women known as the vestal virgins who were consecrated to the Roman goddess Vesta and to her service in keeping the sacred fire on her altar perpetually burning.

The Romans of this period enjoyed a large number of ceremonies most of which were associated with the cult of the gods, and contained both secular and religious elements. Some of the major ones were the Lupercalia in February; the Parilia, Cerialia, and Vinalia in April; the Vestalia and Matronalia in June; the Volcanalia in August; and the Saturnalia in December. Ceremonies having the nature of games were connected with some of the holidays during this imperial period (27 BC-476 AD): for instance, the dance of the Salii which took place on the festival of the Quinquatrus (March 19) and the Armilustrium (October 19), the foot races of the Robigalia (April 25),and the races on foot and mule back of the Consualia (August 21 and December 15)(Carcopino, 1940: 204).

Beginning as far back as the reign of Caesar, a new kind of public holiday was decreed by the Roman Senate to commemorate significant events in the life of the emperor, such as birthdays, anniversaries, important military victories, etc. This precedent was followed by succeeding emperors, each adding new holidays to the calendar until by the time of Claudius there were 159 days expressly marked as such, of which 93 were devoted to games given at public expense. After Claudius, there was very little information in the literature on public holidays.

At the death of an emperor a religious ceremony, called an apotheosis, took place, in which the deceased emperor was deified. This involved an elaborate funeral, followed by the “lying-in-state” of a wax image of the emperor displayed on a large ivory couch, and after a seven day period, the final burning of the replica on a huge funeral pyre.

The arts of the Romans during the imperial period were relatively well developed, although many of the elements apparently were borrowed from the Greeks, Etruscans, and others and modified by Roman artists to suit their own needs. Some of the major accomplishments of the Imperial period in the arts are listed below.

Roman sculpture was naturalistic in style, encompassing a variety of forms and materials, and was used in several contexts. Commemorative statues included portraits, executed as busts, statue in-the-round, equestrian figures, and historical reliefs. Religious figures included cult statues and temple decorations. Funerary sculpture included carved sarcophagi, sometimes with elaborate relief scenes or reclining figures of the deceased. In general, Roman sculpture appears to mirror Greek sculpture in style and composition (Fagan, 1996: 601).

The process of glassblowing was discovered in the Roman Empire and led to the production of a number of inexpensive objects for daily use. The Romans manufactured the first window panes and buildings were decorated with glass mosaics, and they also made dazzling luxury objects of glass. Roman glass was valued outside the borders of the Empire and archaeological samples have been found in the Baltic region, the Middle East, India, and eastern Asia.

The techniques of Roman painting were borrowed from the Greeks and Etruscans and found a distinct new idiom of expression when exposed to the Roman imagination. Two modes of painting were practiced in Roman times: painting on movable tablets and painting directly on stuccoed walls. Although basic themes of the Roman artist depicted mythical and historical objects they also included scenes of architecture and landscape as well. Genre or anecdotal painting and still life seem to have been Roman innovations. With time, styles of painting changed. In the Augustan era artists used the carefully outlined, polished Hellenistic style, but after the mid-first century, painters created their own purely Roman form of expression, representing their subjects in a warmer, freer way. Concentrating on the effects of light on their subject(s), the Roman artist could convey a feeling of mood and scene with a few brush strokes. As the Empire began to decline so did the ability to handle paint; Roman painting became rather crude, and influenced by the East, somewhat stylized (Payne, n.d.: 351).

Roman mosaics which evolved from the Hellenistic mosaic tradition, became a common means of decorating the floors and walls of important buildings throughout the Roman Empire. The mosaic components were basically small cubes usually of stone or marble, although in the finest wall mosaics they often were composed of glass, mother of pearl, or gold.

The uniqueness of Roman architecture was the product of a society whose early development was shaped through close contacts with cultures significantly more advanced and sophisticated than their own (e. g. Greece). Although they borrowed almost all their architectural forms and building techniques from these cultures, they made such changes in them that by the first century A.D they had created a style of their own that was profoundly to influence the western world. This style was based on the arch and its extensions, the vault and dome, which up to that time had been little used, and it was made possible by a Roman innovation – concrete that did not buckle under the stresses and weight of the huge structures. A few examples of structures that utilized these architectural forms and materials are the Roman aqueducts, the forum, Hadrian’s wall, the theater of Marcellus, and the Colosseum.

The period of time from the beginning of Tiberius’ reign (14 AD) to the death of Hadrian in 138 AD has been called by historians the “Silver Age” in Roman literature. This term, however, is misleading since it implies that the literary output of the Imperial period was inferior to the classic works of Vergil, Ovid, and Horace of the period just preceding it. The writings of the newer generation differed from the old in being “more stylized and epigrammatical, more dependent on artifice and device; it was produced at a time when rhetoric was the all-important scholarly discipline and listening to orators was more popular than theatergoing” (Payne, n.d., 321). At the same time the new writing was more concerned with man and his problems. Although some scholars believe that the Empire did not produce the quality of poetry as the previous Republican era had, the general literature of the period, as most agreed, was more varied in style and genre, with a distinct leaning to satire and history.

Despite some benevolent rulers, it was a time when tyranny and degeneracy were prevalent and the truth was often a dangerous possession. Nero forced the satirist Petronius, the dramatist Seneca, and the poet Lucan to commit suicide. Some, like Juvenal, were exiled for minor offences; Tacitus and Pliny being more discreet, suffered years of silence waiting for a more propitious time to publish their attacks on the evils they had seen (Payne, n.d., 321).

During the Imperial period, Rome devoted great attention to the study of medicine, encouraging the growth of medical schools for the teaching of this science. Under Vespasian these institutions actually received grants from the state for their support.

From the first to fourth centuries AD a number of volumes dealing with medicine and medical practices were produced, presumably by graduates of these schools. Some of these include Celsus’ eight books on medicine and surgical procedures; Athenaeus’ works in thirty volumes also dealing with this subject; and Soranus of Ephesus’ principal study entitled The Diseases of Women in which he discusses gynecology, obstetrics, and pediatry.

The most characteristic side of Roman medicine during the Imperial Roman period was the importance attached to hygiene, much emphasized by the construction of water services, including aqueducts, and public baths. Besides the presence of individual doctors, there were hospitals valetudinaria) to care for the sick, and special institutions for soldiers, slaves, and poor people.

In general, medical practices during this period emphasized the use of specifics and panaceas, in the concoction of which superstition and magic often played a larger part than did empirical knowledge. Procedures frequently involved the administration to the patients of various pharmaceuticals, of real or imagined usefulness, consisting of some 300 ingredients or more made up of powders, pills, infusions, decoctions, ointments, etc. When necessary, surgery could be used, a procedure in which the Romans were quite skilled.

Both inhumation and cremation were practiced in the Roman Empire. The kind of a funeral which a person received was determined by his rank and age. Etiquette sanctioned the extravagant display of a public funeral for men of wealth and rank in the state. This type of funeral involved a procession marshaled by a master of ceremonies, the designator, hired female mourners who sang dirges over the dead, musicians, dancers, a mimic who imitated the appearance, bearing, and language of the deceased, men in chariots who represented the dead man’s ancestors, and finally the friends and relatives of the deceased. At the cremation site the bier was placed on a funeral pyre while the procession marched solemnly around it as friends of the dead threw offerings on the pyre. Frequently at the funerals of the elite, gladiators were summoned to fight to the death, and when the combat was finished the son or nearest relative of the dead applied a torch to the pyre. After the cremation the bones and ashes of the deceased were collected into a brass urn and placed in a family sepulcher. Finally the designator purified those present with pure water and allowed them to depart.

A poor man’s funeral was much simpler. There were no hired mourners, masters of ceremonies, dirges, or magnificent funeral pyres. The body was enclosed in a simple coffin and was carried to the public subterranean burial place near the Esquiline Hill, called the grave-pits. During the first century of the Christian era, burial societies were established designed to give their members a suitable burial. Those who joined the society by paying the required dues were assured that after their death, instead of being buried in public ground, their ashes would be placed in the columbarium, a chamber with niches for receiving urns of ashes (Pellisson, 1897, no. 18: 294).

Tombstones and memorials generally marked the grave site or family sepulcher of the dead. These monuments, depending on the status and rank of the deceased, bore inscriptions which ranged in length from short and simple statement of the poor to the long and often very flowery memorials of the well-to-do.

In the early days of Rome, Romans believed that a remnant of life persisted beyond the tomb, that the body and soul were still capable of suffering, and that the withholding of certain funeral rites might result in eternal woe to the dead. This general belief eventually became a superstition, a belief which disappeared almost completely by the time of the Antonines (Pellisson, 1897: 292). In regard to the existence of the soul after death, Pliny states flatly that such beliefs “are fictions of childish absurdity, and belong to a mortality greedy for life unceasing” (Pliny, 1969, no. 14: 633-634). Two of the great systems of philosophy of the Roman era – Epicurism and Stoicism – had slightly different beliefs about the soul after death. Epicureans affirmed boldly that there was no future life, while the Stoics did not deny absolutely the immortality of the soul, but they did not believe in the persistence of the personality. According to them, at death the soul is absorbed into the universal soul (Pellisson, 1897: 291).

Documents referred to in this section are included in the eHRAF collection and are referenced by author, date of publication, and eHRAF document number.

The EI09 Imperial Romans collection consists of fifteen documents, all of which are in English. Historically the majority of documents in this collection focus on the first century AD, particularly from the death of Augustus in 14 AD to the accession of Trajan in 98 AD, with less emphasis on the principate of Augustus itself and on the period of 99-192 AD.

Probably the most comprehensive studies for an overall understanding of Imperial Roman history and ethnography are: Carcopino, 1940, no. 1; Rostovtsev, 1926, no. 2; Lewis & Reinhold, 1966, no. 4; and Pellisson, 1897, no. 18. Both Carcopino and Pellisson are chiefly concerned with the daily life of the citizens of Rome, while Rostovtsev deals with the social and economic history of the empire, and Lewis & Reinhold with imperial policies and administration, economic life, society and culture, life in the municipalities and provinces, the Roman army, law, and religion (particularly with the rise and eventual triumph of Christianity). The works by Columella (1960, 1968, 1968, nos. 6, 7, and 8) present perhaps one of the most comprehensive and systematic of all treatises by a Roman writer on agricultural affairs and animal husbandry. Loane (1938, no. 10)presents a detailed study of the provisioning of the city of Rome (50 BC-200 AD), including data on various aspects of trade, manufacturing, and other associated commercial activities. Rivenburg, 1939, no. 11, gives an account of what Seneca thought about the fashionable life and manners of this day (i. e., 35-65 AD). While coverage in this document is broad rather than deep, this study is valuable for its insights into the moral judgments of the time. Tanzier (1939, no. 12), written by an archaeologist, is an attempt to study the life of the common people of Pompeii as revealed through their graffiti, friezes, and wall paintings which were preserved in the ashes resulting from the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 AD The documents by Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus) in this collection (1967, 1969, 1969, 1966, 1968, nos. 13-17), are all from his Natural History, an encyclopedic inventory of the knowledge about natural history held by the Romans of that time. The contents deal with ethnometeorology and ethnogeography (no. 13), ethnosociology, ethnopsychology and ethoanatomy (no. 14), the medicinal use of plants (nos. 15 and 16, and a study of metals, minerals and a history of art (no. 17).

The collection of documents in this unit centers primarily on the city of Rome, and secondarily on the Roman Empire at the height of the Imperial period. Although the collection is generally well balanced, especially for the first century AD, there are some areas of coverage which are poorly represented, if at all. These areas are in the study of the language itself, Roman kinship and kin groups, Roman religion (excluding Christianity which is fairly well covered), and sex. With the exception of Tanzer (1939, no. 12), most of the cultural data found in the collection deal with the middle or upper classes of Roman society, with very little information on the lower classes.

For more detailed information on the content of the individual works in this collection, see the abstracts in the citation preceding each document.

This culture summary, including the synopsis and indexing notes, were written by John Beierle in August 2006.

Athlete’s guilds (a form of union) - use "LABOR ORGANIZATION (467)" and "SPECTACLES (541)"

Bailiffs – farm overseers - use "TILLAGE (241)" and "LABOR RELATIONS (466)"

Cenacula –flats of the upper stories of an apartment building - use "DWELLINGS (342)"

Christianity in Rome - use "RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS (795)"

Claques – hired applauders - use "OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALIZATION (463)"

Clepsydra – a water clock composed of a transparent vessel of water with a regular intake placed near a sundial - use "ORDERING OF TIME (805)"

“corporations” or trade guilds - use "LABOR ORGANIZATION (467)"

Domus – a private house - use "DWELLINGS (342)"

Feriae – public games - use "ATHLETIC SPORTS (526)" and "SPECTACLES (541)"

“Greek games” – use "SPECTACLES (541)"

Honestiores – a class of Roman citizens including senators, knights and their families, soldiers and veterans and municipal office holders with their descendents - use "CLASSES (565)"

Hoplomachia – gladiatorial combat - use "SPECTACLES (541)"

Horologium – the Roman sundial - use "ORDERING OF TIME (805)"

Horrea – warehouses - use "WAREHOUSING (488)"

Humiliores – the working classes of Roman citizens, not included under honestiores - use "CLASSES (565)"

Ingénue – free born men - use "CLASSES (565)"

Insulae – apartment houses - use "DWELLINGS (342)"

Iugerum – a land measurement equivalent to about three-fifths of an acre - use "WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (804)"

Ius civile – law applied to the Roman citizens - use "LEGAL NORMS (671)”

Ius gentium – the law applying to foreign nations - use "LEGAL NORMS (671)" and "INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (648)"

Librarii – publishers - use "PUBLISHING (214)"

Ludi – public holidays - use "REST DAYS AND HOLIDAYS (527)"

Maeniana - balconies - use "DWELLINGS (342)"

Manes – spirits of the dead - use "ESCHATOLOGY (775)"

Obsequium – obligation of respect - use "ETIQUETTE (576)" and "ETHICS (577)"

Ornatrix – hair-dressers for women - use "BEAUTY SPECIALISTS (305)"

Persecution of Christians - use "RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE AND MARTYRS(798)"

Pergulae – loggias of a house - use "DWELLINGS (342)"

Recitation – public readings - use "LITERATURE (538)"

Sesterces – a unit of money equal to about 4 U.S cents - use "MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE (436)"

Solaria – pocket sundials - use "ORDERING OF TIME (805)"

Sportula- the distribution of food or money by a patron to his client - use "SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND GROUPS (571)" and "GIFT GIVING (431)"

Tabernae – booths and shops - use "BUSINESS STRUCTURES (347)"

The “three-children privilege” - use "POPULATION POLICY (168)" and "STATUS, ROLE, AND PRESTIGE (554)"

Tonsor – barbers; hair-dressers for men - use "BEAUTY SPECIALISTS (305)"

Vestal virgins – a maiden or virgin consecrated to the Roman goddess Vesta and to the service of watching that the sacred fire on her altar is kept perpetually burning - use "PRIESTHOOD (793)"

Vici – quarters within the fourteen regions of Rome, separated from each other by the streets which bounded them - use "CITIES (633)"

Carcopino, Jerome (1940). Daily life in ancient Rome: the people and the city at the height of the empire. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.

Columella, Lucius Junius Moderatus (1960). On agriculture: in three volumes: I. Res Rustica I-IV. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press.

Columella, Lucius Junius Moderatus (1968). On agriculture: in three volumes: II. Res Rustica V-IX. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press.

Columella, Lucius Junius Moderatus (1968). On agriculture and trees: in three volumes: III, Res Rustica X-XII, De Arboribus.

Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press.

Fagen, Brian M. ed. (1996). The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Garnsey, Peter and Richard Saller (1987). The Roman Empire: economy, society and culture. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., Ltd.

Lewis, Naphtali and Meyer Reinhold (1966). Roman civilization: Sourcebook II: the empire. New York: Harper and Row.

Loane, Helen Jefferson (1938). Industry and commerce of the city of Rome (50 BC-200 AD). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Pareti, Luigi (1965). History of mankind. Vol. II, The Ancient world. New York: Harper and Row.

Payne, Robert (n.d.). The Horizon Book of Ancient Rome. New York: American Publishing Co., Inc.

Pellisson, Maurice (1897). Roman life in Pliny’s time. Meadville, Pa.: Flood and Vincent, Chatauqua-Century Press.

Pliny, Gaius Plinius Secundus (1967). Natural history in ten volumes: Volume I. Praefatio, Libri I, II. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press.

Pliny, Gaius Plinius Secundus (1969). Natural history in ten volumes: Volume II. Libri III-VII. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press.

Pliny, Gaius Plinius Secundus (1969). Natural history in ten volumes: Volume VI. Libri XX-XXIII. Cambridge; London: Harvard university Press.

Pliny, Gaius Plinius Secundus (1966). Natural history in ten volumes: Volume VII. Libri XXIV-XXVII. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press.

Pliny, Gaius Plinius Secundus (1968). Natural history in ten volumes: Volume IX. Libri XXXIII-XXXV. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press.

Rivenburg, Marjorie Josephine (1939). Fashionable life in Rome as portrayed by Seneca. Philadelphia: [s.n.}.

Rostovtsev, Mikhail Ivanovich (1926). The social and economic history of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tanzer, Helen Henrietta (1939). The common people of Pompeii: a study of the graffiti. Johns Baltimore: Hopkins Press