Social structure

The development of the imperial society during the Dominate period was a direct continuation of the process of change that had began as early as the second century AD.^{^[1110]} Although after the extension of the Roman citizenship to all the free inhabitants of the empire in the early third century the distinction between Roman citizens and foreigners lost its earlier social significance, divisions in society grew even deeper and the gap between the honestiores (honourable) and the humiliores (humble) continued to widen.

To the class of the honestiores belonged imperial and municipal senators, state functionaries and administrative personnel, soldiers and, from the early fourth century AD, the higher members of the Church hierarchy. The class of the humiliores comprised free craft workers, small farmers with some land of their own, free land workers, a relatively small proportion of freedmen and some slaves in numbers varying greatly from region to region. To these were now added new groups, such as displaced persons and fugitives who had lost their means of subsistence as a result of foreign invasions or state persecution, war prisoners who had been assigned to the great landlords as labourers, and monks and hermits whose numbers had considerably increased, especially in the eastern provinces of the empire. As has already been noted, a person's legal status as well as his treatment by those responsible for enforcing the law were largely determined by reference to the class to which he belonged. Thus the honestiores were not subject to grave or degrading forms of punishment, were exempt from torture in judicial investigations and had the right of appealing to the emperor against sentences imposed upon them by judicial magistrates.

Authors of the fourth century speak of a distinction between the potentiores or potentes (the 'more powerful') and the humiliores or

tenuiores or plebs,^{^[1111]} For the most part the potentiores belonged to the senatorial aristocracy - the wealthiest class in society - out of whose ranks the senior officials of the imperial administration were chosen.^{^[1112]} Members of the senatorial class bore the title of clarissimus, acquired by inheritance, by imperial grant or by the attainment of certain important offices.

The great increase in the number of the imperial officials was accompanied by the creation of different status groupings within the clarissimi, such as the spectabiles ('respectable') and the illustres ('illustrious'). The title of illustris was given to some of the highest officers of the state, such as the praefecti praetorio, the praefecti urbi, the comes sacrarum largitionum and the quaestor sacri palatii. In the sixth century AD these state functionaries were referred to as gloriosi ('glorious'). The titles Caesar and nobilissimus ('most noble') were reserved for members of the imperial household. To the potentiores belonged also many leading equites, a great part of the officer corps and a large number of senior imperial officials (officiales).^{^{size=2 color=black face="Times New Roman">[1113]}} During the early years of the Dominate period the position of the equites was temporarily strengthened as a result of the administrative reforms of Diocletian, who used equites in many posts of the imperial administration. However, from the time of Constantine, as the number of senatorial positions in the government continued to increase, the leading groups of the equestrian class were gradually incorporated into the senatorial order and, in the fifth century, the ordo equester ceased to exist as a distinct social order.^{^[1114]}

In the provinces of the East, where urban life continued, the great land-owners, referred to as possessores, lived in the cities, while in the West they resided in their country estates. For the cultivation of their lands they used tenants (coloni) and slaves over whom they exercised powers of jurisdiction similar to those exercised by the procurators on the imperial estates. The immunities which the great land-owners enjoyed, such as exemption from municipal taxes and other burdens, tended to give an almost manorial character to their position. They frequently defied the organs of the imperial government, formed private armies, refused to pay taxes and, sometimes, even imposed taxes and other exactions themselves within the districts under their control.

Such was their power that whole village communities, anxious to avoid the burdens imposed upon them by the local authorities, often placed themselves under their patronage (patrocinium vicorum) becoming their tenants. A number of imperial enactments of this period were concerned with abuses of power on the part of possessores. Complaints by local authorities to imperial officials often fell on deaf ears, however, as these officials were themselves possessores and usually sided with their own class.^{^[1115]} The power of the state was thus nullified by its chief servants and, in time, the land-owning aristocracy became the real inheritors of the empire.

As was noted in chapter 7, during the crisis of the third century the situation of the urban middle class worsened and city life declined. Nevertheless, many cities and several smaller towns continued to exist, especially in the Greek-speaking eastern provinces where cities such as Alexandria, Antioch and Ephesus remained important commercial and cultural centres. In the cities there were still magistrates and the municipal councils (curiae) continued to operate. But during the later Empire the burdens imposed upon the members of the municipal councils (curiales, decuriones) by the imperial government made their position untenable. Besides being responsible for the keeping of public order and the defence and provisioning of the city, the curiales were expected to finance public games and festivals, to contribute to the construction and maintenance of public buildings and to collect all the taxes in their community, being personally liable for the total amount owed to the state and with their own property standing surety. As eligible citizens sought by every means to escape responsibility, service on the municipal councils was made compulsory and hereditary.^{^[1116]} Moreover, the curiales were obliged to reside in their own town and could not leave their community or sell their estates without the permission of the provincial governor.^{^[1117]} In essence, the curiales became unpaid civil servants and their freedom was greatly restricted.

Looked upon with hostility by their fellow citizens and faced with financial ruin many curiales sought to escape their responsibilities by fleeing their towns. Others joined the army or, with the connivance of corrupt officials, sought to acquire privileged status that would enable them to avoid the demands placed upon them by the state. A number of measures were introduced by the imperial government aimed at stemming such practices and at putting an end to the depopulation of the local curiae, but these were met with little success.^{^[1118]} By the end of the fourth century the urban middle class which supplied the members of the town councils was bankrupt and the class as a whole was facing extinction, especially in the more backward western provinces.

Under government control were also various groups of persons engaged in occupations which were regarded as being of vital importance to the state, such as mariners (navicularii), bakers (pistores) and butchers (suarii). These were required to join together in associations (corpora) which operated under the supervision of state organs (the urban prefects in Rome and Constantinople and the provincial governors and local magistrates in the municipalities). The members of the corpora (corporati) were required to provide products or services to the state or their municipalities and the government made their corporations responsible for carrying out the relevant orders. To ensure that the needs of the state were met membership in the corpora was made compulsory and hereditary and measures were introduced aimed at preventing style='font-style:italic'>corporati from evading their obligations by changing their occupation, enrolling in the army or becoming tenants of senatorial landholders.^{^[1119]} As the needs of the state continued to grow the obligations imposed upon the members of the corpora (corporati) became heavier.

During the later Empire the general situation of the peasantry continued to worsen.

Driven to desperation by the growing demands of the state and the great land-owners many farmers abandoned their lands and lived as brigands. As the abandonment of the land by farmers naturally threatened state revenues in kind, the government stepped in and institutionalised the system of colonatus. Like the curiales and the corporati, the coloni were now prohibited from entering public service or another occupation and their status became permanent and hereditary.^{^[1120]} Although in the eyes of the law the coloni were free citizens, they were not allowed to leave the estates where they had been working and, when an estate was sold, they passed from one land-owner to another.^{^[1121]} According to a law of Constantine a fugitive colonus was to be returned by force to the estate which he had left and the person who had offered him shelter had to pay compensation to the state for any loss of tax incurred.^{^[1122]} Although a number of imperial edicts were issued during this period defining the rights and duties of the coloni, as time went on the condition of the coloni became closer to servitude - a halfway between free men and slaves.^{^[1123]} But not all farmers were reduced to the status of coloni. In some parts of the empire, especially in the more prosperous eastern provinces, small landholders continued to exist.^{^[1124]}[1125] In an effort to deal with the problems of desertion and depopulation of the land the government began to impose on free farmers the obligation to cultivate, besides their own land, neighbouring lands abandoned by their owners {agri deserti) and to pay the relevant taxes to the state (adiectio sterilium).^54.

<< | >>

↑

Source: Mousourakis George. The Historical and Institutional Context of Roman Law. Routledge,2003. — 480 p.. 2003

Social structure

More on the topic Social structure: