Introduction

During the three centuries surveyed in this chapter (800–500 B.C.) the economic and social structure of the Greek world underwent massive alterations which set the framework for the Classic age. The general character and the tempo of development can be discerned; causes and interrelationships are often obscure. For present purposes Hesiod (Works and Days only), Solon, Theognis and Herodotus provide the most valuable literary testimony. The difficulties in using Homer as a historical source, suggested in CAH II.2, chapter 39b, must lead one to cite the epics only with caution; Aristotle, Plato and other later authors are occasionally helpful if we keep in mind their very different intellectual milieu. Significant archaeological evidence will be noted briefly, for the second part of this chapter will survey the physical material more fully.

Economically the volume of output increased tremendously, as measured against earlier centuries, and was much diversified in types of products and in their styles. Industrial and commercial activity tended to concentrate at urban centres in the more advanced parts of Greece. After his conquest of Asia Minor the Persian king Cyrus asked about the nature of the Spartans (Hdt. I. 153), and upon receiving an answer purportedly commented, ‘I have never yet been afraid of any men who have a set place in the middle of their city, where they come together to cheat each other and forswear themselves.’ To this emphasis on the role of economically independent elements in Hellenic markets a modern observer would add the important fact that the accepted Greek standard of value had by Cyrus' day become coined money, even if coins themselves were not always actually used in the exchange of goods and services.

Several reasons may be offered for beginning this study of patronage with an examination of the related vocabulary. Most simply, in order to understand the testimony of the ancient sources, it is necessary to know the meaning of the words used to describe the phenomena under study. But this, of course, hardly constitutes a sufficient reason, since the lexical definitions of the important words, such as patronus, cliens and beneficium, are satisfactory. What is of real concern here is to discover in what social contexts and with what connotations the words were used. As these questions are answered, we shall begin to understand the way in which Roman aristocrats categorized their social relationships and the attitudes and ethics appropriate to each category.

While a language study can be useful as an avenue of entry into the Roman Weltanschauung, it has potential pitfalls. Just as problems are encountered if no distinction is drawn between ideals and behavior, so will mistakes be made if we fail to distinguish between conscious statements about the usage of patronage-related words given by Roman authors and actual usage in the extant literature. Moreover, there may be a temptation to assume a simple one-to-one relationship between words and categories. For example, in a recent study it was thought significant that both Roman poets and their aristocratic supporters were called amici, adhering to the ‘familiar code of amicitia’. But, as will become clear in this chapter, the fact that men of varying social statuses could be called amici does not indicate that all amicitiae fit into a single category of social relationships with a single code of conduct.

The principes of the late Republic were, first and foremost, great patrons—patrons of armies, of the urban masses, of foreign kings and provincial cities, of senators and equites. After Octavian eliminated his rivals, the princeps' role continued to be defined in terms of a patronal ideology. In the previous chapter arguments were adduced to suggest that this ideology was not an anachronistic survival from the Republic and that the patronal language was not sterile jargon. In this chapter the patronal aspects of the emperor's position will be explored in greater detail in an attempt to elucidate the reality which lay behind the ideology. First, a list of the beneficia at the emperor's disposal can be drawn up. This should help to define the range of imperial activities in which patronage was a factor. Next, the core of the chapter will approach the questions of who was able to secure the beneficia and in what contexts. Finally, after considering how the recipients fulfilled their reciprocal obligations, attention will be turned to the broad implications and significance of these exchange relationships.

IMPERIAL BENEFICIA

The word beneficium occurs frequently in Pliny's Panegyricus, suggesting an important theme in the aristocrats' ideology of the good emperor. The ideology clearly made an impression on the minds of the emperors themselves. Though the Suetonian anecdote about Titus may not be accepted as historically accurate, we possess documentary evidence of the imperial viewpoint. In an edict preserved in a letter of Pliny, Nerva wrote that he had abandoned his quies and assumed responsibility for the empire ‘in order that I might confer new beneficia and preserve those already granted by my predecessors’.

Patronage is a social practice of considerable importance in most Mediterranean societies today. Few historians of ancient Rome would deny its existence during the early Empire: patronage of communities has been studied in a full-scale work, and in its personal form it is mentioned frequently in political and social histories. But patron-client relations between individuals have not yet received the systematic treatment that this study aims to provide for the period from Augustus to the Severan emperors. As the title indicates, municipal patronage falls outside the scope of this work, and patronage of freedmen is also excluded on the ground that, in being subject to legal regulation, it differed fundamentally from voluntary associations between freeborn men. Further, owing to the nature of the evidence, the aristocracies of Rome and the provinces will claim the greatest part of our attention; patrons and clients lower on the social ladder certainly existed, but they left little record of their activities (except perhaps in the special case of Egypt). No attempt has been made to examine all provinces comprehensively, since it seemed that much could be learned from an intensive study of a single area of special significance, the North African provinces.

This volume originated as a doctoral dissertation written at the University of Cambridge, where I received help and encouragement in an environment made stimulating by Professor Sir Moses Finley and by teachers and fellow students too numerous to list. I wish to thank those who read and commented on various chapters: Mr D. Cohen, Dr R. Duncan-Jones, Professor Sir Moses Finley, Professor F. Millar, Professor M. Ostwald, Mr S. Price, Miss J. M. Reynolds, Dr B. D. Shaw, Mr W. Turpin, and Mr C. R. Whittaker.

Seneca devoted the longest of his moral essays to the subject of beneficia — that is, reciprocal exchange. Concerning the importance of exchange to the fabric of society, the philosopher noted that it was a custom ‘which more than any other binds together human society’. Seneca's typology of beneficia comprised three categories: the protection of life and liberty for oneself and one's kin; pecunia and honores (less vital, but nevertheless ‘useful’ for a full life); and favors which can be described as frivolous luxuries.

Studies of patronage in the Republic have concentrated on the political arena, especially the voting assemblies. Thus, when the selection of magistrates and the passage of legislation were effectively taken out of the hands of the assemblies, it has been thought by some that patronage should have disappeared. But this view does not take account of two facts: political competition did shift to another arena but did not disappear, and political support was only one type of beneficium, as indicated by Seneca. Indeed, during the late Republic political patronage was less prominent than economic and social beneficia in the commendationes of Cicero. As A. R. Hands has pointed out, the exchange of these latter favors often performed functions which are the concern of more formal institutions in the modern world. For patronage to have disappeared, the entire nature of Roman society (not just politics) would have had to undergo a radical transformation.

In this chapter I shall endeavor to show that the exchange of economic and social goods and services within the imperial aristocracy continued largely unchanged from the end of the Republic.