GROUP ASSIGNMENT (GROUP 1) COURSE CODE: CLC 204 COURSE TITLE: ANCIENT ROMAN HISTORY, SOCIETY, AND INSTITUTIONS
GROUP MEMBERS:
DIMSON SYLVIA NMESOMA RELIGIOUS STUDIES 190397 ADEBISI TOMISIN RELIIOUS STUDIES 190199 COKER FORTUNE EUROPEAN STUDIES 193368 ADEKOGBA TEMITOPE RELIGIOUS STUDIES 190214 MICHEAL GRACE CHIOMA RELIGIOUS STUDIES 190494 OGUNLADE OLUSEGUN RELIGIOUS STUDIES 193360 SHITTU OLUWATOSIN CLA 190672 NZE AMEN THEATEART 190513 AWODERU IDOWU KOYEDE HISTORY 190349 OLANIYI OLUWAKEMI C. RELIIOUS STUDIES 190580 OLUWATOBILOBA ELIZABETH CLASSICS 190613 OSIBEMHE JOHN O. RELIIOUS STUDIES 193765 ADEKUSIBE TOLASE F. CLASSICS 190220
LECTURER IN CHARGE: DR. MONICA ANENI
JANUARY 5, 2018 QUESTION: HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE ANCIENT ROMAN SOCIETY WITH REGARD TO STATUS, IDENTITY TO A ND NATIONALITY. The ancient Roman society was one of the most important ancient society. It was founded by Remus and Romulus who were raised by a female wolf after being left by their mother. It was a highly distinguished society and one time world power for a very long time. It was established around the year 753BCE and collapsed around 476 AD. The ancient Roman society will be succinctly described with regard to their status, identity and nationality; thus: At first, with regard to status, the ancient Roman society was highly stratified. It was stratified in the sense that there were mainly four classes which were the senators, equestrians magistrates and plebeians as seen the course CLC 204. However there were other classes such as slaves, freedmen, proletariat and so on. To the ancient Roman society, the plebeians were the poorest in the society. Although they were not slaves, yet in terms of good living, they were not in equal status with the senators and the equestrians class. The plebeians in the ancient Roman society were oppressed by hunger, poverty and powerlessness. Allotment of land did not solve their problem because the tiny plots of land allotted to them stopped producing when overworked. Some of the plebeians in the ancient Roman society whose land has been sacked by the Gauls could not afford to rebuild. This brought about borrowing with exorbitant interest rate. Most of the plebeians were farmers and could be sold into slavery and even killed if they were unable to pay their debt to their debtors. The Equestrians in the ancient Roman society on the other hand who were also known as the equites were the Roman Knights. They were Roman horsemen or knights. The name was derived from the Latin horse Equus. The equities came to be a high social class. A single member of the equestrians class was known as equess. In the ancient Roman society, the equestrians were bound to a certain number of campaign. They were usually an important division of the Roman army, but overtime, they lost their military prominence thus moving to the wings of the plantant. They voted first in comitia and kept two horses and a groom than any other in the army. The senators were also group of people with one of the highest status. The senators were regarded as old men and were the assembly of elders in the ancient Roman society. They held three principal responsibilities which were Functioning as the ultimate repository for executive power. Functioning as the executive power They also served as the legislative body. Traditionally, the roman society was extremely rigid. By the first anxiety, however, the need for capable men to run Rome Vast empire was slowly eroding the old social barriers. The social structure of ancient Rome was based on heredity, property, wealth, citizenship and freedom. It was based around men: women were defined by the social status of their fathers or husbands. Women were expected to work after the houses and very few had any real independence.
The Ancient Roman Society with regard to Status Rome was a highly hierarchial and class-conscious society, but there was a possibility of mobility between most classes (indicated in the diagram above by dotted lines) because by the second century BCE class was no longer determined solely by birth. The classes described below superseded the old patrician/pleabian distinction, though certain elements of dress and religious positions and rituals were still reserved for patricians. There was a large gulf between the wealthy upper classes and the senatorial and equestrian classes, shown on the pediment of the temple above; and the poorer lower classes, though it was still possible although quite difficult to more upwards by acquiring sufficient wealth. Upper Classes - Senatorial class ( Senators): The basis for this class was political. It included all men who served in the senate, and by extension their families. This class was dominant by the nobles (nobiles), Families whose ancestors included at least one consul & earlier the qualification had been a curule magistracy i.e. Curule aedile and up). The first man in his family to be elected consul, thus qualifying his family for noble status, was called a new man (novus homo), although this term was used in varying senses it would refer to an equestrian who was the first in his family to be elected to political office and thus join the senatorial class, or to a man from the senatorial class who was the first the nobles, or most dramatically to an equestrian like Cicero who was elected consul. Senators had to prove that they had property worth at least 1,000,000 Sesterces; there was no salary attached to service in the senate, and senators were prohibited from engaging personally in nonagricultural business, trade or public contracts. Men of the senatorial class wore the tunic with broad stripes ( - Equestrian class (equites): The basis for this class was economic. A man could be formally enrolled in the equestrian order if he could prove that he possessed a stable minimum amount of wealth (properly worth at least 400,000 Sesterces); by extension his family members were also considered equestrian. However, if an equestrian was elected to a magistracy and entered the senate, he moved up to the senatorial class; this was nor particularly easy or frequent. Equestrians were primarily involved in the type of business prohibited to senators. Equestrians was the tunic with narrow stripes (angusti clavi). - Women: Although membership in these classes was dominated by the same families over many generations, the classes themselves were defined accordingly to male activities rather than birth. Womens place in these classes was therefore somewhat problematic. However, there came to be a customary acceptance that women belonged to the social class of their fathers and then of their husbands, although the women had no special dress that distinguished their status. This female participation in social status began to crystalize and formalize under Augustus, who explicitly included the daughters, granddaughters, great-granddaughters of senators in his law prohibiting members of the senatorial class from contracting legal marriage with freed people.
Belonging to one of these upper classes had many significant consequences for romans besides prestige, for social class determined ones economic and political opportunities, as well as legal rights, benefits and penalties. Rome had nothing comparable to our middle class; the gulf between these two upper classes and the much larger lower classes was immense. However, as long as one was a freeborn Roman citizen there was at least a slight possibility of moving into the equestrian class through the acquisition of wealth. Entry into the senatorial class, even for wealthy equestrians, was extremely difficult, since for centuries a small number of elite families had monopolized this class. The Ancient Roman elite structure revolved around the patricians. The patricians wielded the political power and were always better represented in the Roman assemblies. The patricians dominated the political scene for centuries because they were always in majority in the senate. Further, at the beginning of the republic, only patricians could enter priesthood but that changed around 300BC. Lower Classes The lower classes consisted of the plebeians who could attain material wealth but did not enjoy the political power. This included average working-class people who indulged in all sorts of ordinary professions including farming and labouring. There was a client patronage relationship between many patricians and plebeians where the plebeians pledged their respect and favour in return for political and legal assistance from the patricians. Slaves in the Roman class structure did not have any legal rights and were entirely dependent on their masters. Common (Plebs or Vulgus) :- All other freeborn Roman citizens. The special mark of dress for citizen males was the toga. All Roman citizens had conubium, the right to contact a legal marriage with another Roman citizen and beget legitimate children who were themselves Roman citizens. - Latins (latini): Freeborn residents of Italy (until 89 BCE) when they were all granted full citizenship and of certain other Roman municipalities who had some legal rights but were not full Roman citizens. Former slaves who had been informally freed by Roman citizens were a special category, Junian latins. - Foreigners (Peregrini): All other freeborn men and women who lived in Roman territories. In 212 CE most freeborn people living within the Roman empire were granted Roman citizenship. Freed people (liberti or libertine): men and women who had been slaves but has brought their freedom or been manumitted. They were not fully free because they had various restriction on their rights and owed certain duties to their former masters, who now became their patrons, but they could become citizens if their former masters were citizens and they had been formally manumitted; they were not, however, eligible for public office. This was the one class it was not possible to leave, though the class encompassed only one generation. The next generation, their freeborn children, became full citizens Ci-c, members of the commons, though their was a social stigma attached to being a freedmans son, and could even become equestrians if rich enough. Freed people had low social status, and most were probably fairly poor, but it was possible for them to achieve some success in a trade, and a few might even become wealthy. They had no special distinction of dress though their names indicated their status as freed people.
- Slaves (servi): System of chattel slavery where human beings were born into slavery or sold into slavery through war or piracy. Slaves were the property of their owners by law, but by custom some slaves (especially urban, domestic slaves) might be allowed their own savings (pecullium) with which they might later buy their freedom, or their masters could manumit them, 80 some mobility into the previous class was possible. Roman slavery was not racially based, and slaves had no special distinction of dress, though slaves who had run away were sometimes made to wear metal collars with inscriptions such as the following: I have run away. Capture me when you have returned me to my master, Zoninus, you will receive a reward. - Women: Since the lower classes were not defined by male activities, there was no problem with including women, female and male children were autocratically members of the social class of their parents (except for freed people, since only one generation could be freed). If the parents were Roman citizens and had contracted a legal Roman marriage, the children followed the social status of their father (ire, they were Roman citizens). However, in the case of latins, foreigners, and slaves, children took the social status of their mother, even of their father was a freeborn Roman citizen. During the reign of monarchy, the Senate most important function was to elect a new king. Their most significant task out side regal election in the ancient Roman society was to function as the king's council and they could also make new laws technically. Furthermore, ancient Roman society can also be described in relation to their identity. Unlike what others must have reasoned identity to be, the ancient Roman society looked to others for any confirmation as his/her identity. The people looked at for the confirmation of one's identity may be elders in the family, patron or client, army comrades or even in an election- the people of Rome. No Roman could be his own judge but could only see himself through the eyes of others which was their identity. This was because the ancient Roman society did not know of modern psychology and thus did not analysed their thoughts and feelings. They could not look in-wards but rather they looked to others. Another reason for this was that it was the opinion of others that dictated the opinion a Roman ultimately held upon as his true self. Thus, the identity of 'a good man' was hence a man deemed worthy by others, it was a man deemed honourable. More so, in the ancient Roman society, glory and honour as one's identity were only measured in the recognition it drew from others. However, this identity of being honourable in one's deeds or action was to climb the social ladder. Thus it was used to further one's political fortunes all in the hope of finally achieving that distant goal- a seat in the Roman Senate. Hence any achievement in the ancient Roman society was blatantly bragged about to make absolute sure that everyone knew about it thus forming his identity. It is sacrosanct to state that since the ancient Roman society viewed one's identity as others saw them they therefore tend to always comport themselves.
Aside the gaze of others which served as the ancient Roman society, the identity of the prostitutes were also foci.
The first aspect of an Ancient Roman prostitutes identity that will be looked at is that of their legal status as infames, and the boundaries this creates with other groups in society. Edwards states that not only was the label of infamis given to prostitutes, but also to gladiators, actors and other public performers. This designation meant that members of these professions were restricted from various aspects of public life, such as standing for election to magistrate orbeing allowed to speak in a court of law. They were also viewed as symbols of shame and allowed to be beaten, mutilated and violated by others without fear of punishment (1997, 66). Indeed, a husband was allowed to kill his wifes lover if they were infames on the condition he then divorced her within three days and began the case against her for adultery (Edwards 1993, 38). The legal restriction on infames overlaps with the legal restrictions already placed on women, so this likely had less of an effect on female than on male prostitutes. However, while the designation of infamia may not appear to have much of an additional effect on a female prostitute in terms of legal restrictions, it was significant in other ways. The first is that the label of infamia is carried for life. Other similar punishments, such as those imposed on disgraced soldiers or criminals, are only in place for a time (Edwards 1997, 67). There is also the effect this legal status has on those around them. Pimps are likewise defined as infames, and if there is an attempt to convict a woman of adultery which fails, the husband can then be prosecuted for pimping and carry the label of infamis himself (Gardner 1986, 90; Olson 2006, 193-194). There are also cases where it is suggested some elite women registered themselves as a prostitute to avoid the fine for adultery (Duncan 2006, 255). This may have had the effect that the husband would be disgraced alongside the wife, and this being the case, there may be more than simple practical economic reasoning behind this. The effect on a husband whose wife claimed to be a prostitute, whether this was actually the case or not, was to be identified alongside them as infames. An unmarried prostitute could marry a free man, but again he would have to carry the infamis identity once they were married. Augustus later brought in legislation to ban any woman who was, or had been, a prostitute from ever marrying a freeborn male citizen (Duncan 2006, 255). This has the result of identifying the prostitute as one that has been ostracized from society. Prostitutes and actors are seen as the worst of the infames (Duncan 2006, 255), and are often viewed as being the same. Both their jobs are seen as faking it for money, and are therefore interchangeable (Duncan 2006, 256:270). Therefore, the identity of a prostitute may not be focused specifically around their job in the sex industry, rather their level of infamia and the fakery innate in the profession.
Caution should be given when assuming that legal designations, such as infamia, relate to social attitudes. Social attitudes are often more fluid and complex than is represented in legal documentation (Edwards 1997, 71). An example of this is the repeated creation of legislation to try and stop the noble classes from taking part in occupations that carry the infamia mark, and to try and stop them from marrying infames. The fact that numerous legislations were brought in suggests it was unsuccessful (Duncan 2006, One of the major reasons for defining prostitutes as infames is to create a boundary between them and the rest of society. In a society where honour was held in high esteem, prostitution could be used as an example of what not to be, providing a contrast to the honourable in society (Edwards 1997, 67). It has been suggested that another way in which the sex industry is further set aside from society is through the concept of moral zoning in city planning. Much of the literature on this uses Pompeii as an example due to its unique preservation, which makes it ideal for studying structures in the wider context of a city. Brothels are a part of Pompeii that has been given a lot of attention, and this may be in part due to the relatively high number of brothels. It has been suggested there could be thirty five in the city, if not more, although this number is contested (McGinn 2006, 161).
One of the ways in which the placement of these brothels has been interpreted is moral zoning, by deliberately placing them in hidden areas, although keeping them central (McGinn 2006, 162; Wallace-Hadrill 1995, 5152). Lawrence (2007, 86) has argued that their placement has also been designed to keep them away from elite children. McGinn (2006, 162) agrees that the visibility of brothels may have been deliberately disguised, pointing to the example of the Roman port city of Ostia where there appear to be no visible brothels, although it seems unlikely there was no sex industry. This adds to the difficulty experienced by archaeologists in recognising prostitutes and the industry as a whole (McGinn 2006, 163). However, moral zoning of a city may be a little simplistic. While defining social class is important in Rome, the physical segregation of elites and the poor in city planning is not so clear cut. While elites do tend to all live in the same area, they are not necessarily cut off from other ranks in society. This being the case, it can be suggested that brothels would not need to be segregated from other groups in society (McGinn 2006, 163). It is also simplistic to attempt to understand the physical presence of prostitution purely through the placement of brothels. There are many public areas, such as the circus or baths, where prostitution could take place (McGinn 2006, 162). Because of the difficulties in being able to define a brothel, and the public nature of a prostitutes work, archaeological evidence is difficult to find. A further feature of a prostitutes identity is described through Ancient Roman attitudes towards sexuality. Sexuality in a modern Western definition tends to fall into categories of gender preference. In simplified terms, this is across an axis of heterosexual and homosexual, although there are many shades within this spectrum. The Ancient Roman definition follows different rules. The axis used is that of active (vir) and passive (cinaedus) (Parker 1997, 47). The role of the vir partner is that of penetration and sexual enjoyment. In contrast cinaedus is a passive role, designed to allow the vir to experience their pleasure through receiving their penetration. Therefore the definition of someones sexuality falls along these lines, regardless of the gender they are having sex with. Bisexuality was allegedly common, although this definition would have made no sense at the time. The idea of a man sleeping with another man does not bring into question the masculinity of either. The penetrator (vir) is still seen as masculine. Indeed the masculinity of an individual could be asserted by sleeping with cinaedus men (Parker 1997, 55). A woman who takes on the active vir role is seen as unusual and masculine in her enjoyment of sex, and is often identified as a prostitute or adulteress and is socially unacceptable (Parker 1997, 58). In order to set them aside from normal female society, a prostitute or adulteress was classed as togata, meaning she wore a toga: another symbol of masculinity. This adds yet another layer to the identity of the prostitute. The identity of togata in describing a woman does not always make a distinction between adulteress and prostitute, suggesting they may be interchangeable in this regard in a similar way as prostitutes and actors in their given roles of infames (Olsen 2006, 192-193).
Ancient Rome is not the only period or place where female prostitutes wore mens clothing to represent their masculine sexual appetite. Prostitutes in Elizabethan England and in 16th century Venice also wore mens clothing for this reason (Duncan 2006, 270; Garber 1992, 86). A woman wearing a toga, as well as representing masculinity in sexual preference, also represents a public figure. Noble women in Rome did not go out in public alone, or conduct business in the public eye. A prostitute is the opposite of this, being visible in public and always alone. Therefore, she again acted more like a male would have than a female, who would stay at home or go out with attendants (Duncan 2006, 270). Thus, the term togata represents the identity of a prostitute on two levels: that of a woman with a sexual preference that goes against the norm and that of someone who works in public and goes out alone. However, while the toga was a symbol of men and masculinity, it is not the case that all men would have always worn one. Poorer male citizens may not have been able to afford one, and they are not necessarily functional items of clothing, being both cumbersome and hot. Augustus legislated to ensure the upper classes wore togas, which suggests even those who could afford it were not always wearing them (Olson 2006, 188). In the same way, defining a woman as togata does not necessarily mean she was literally wearing a toga. The definition is more a moral description than a literal one (Olson 2006, 196). The female version of the toga, representing the ideal of femininity, is the stola, worn over a tunic (Olson 2006, 189). Like the toga, the stola was a brief fashion and was not worn throughout the Ancient Roman period. There are descriptions of elite women discarding the stola to advertise themselves sexually, however, the dominance of male literature on this matter does little to represent the actual thoughts of women. The stola, like the toga, may wellhave been abandoned as an impractical and hot garment, rather than as an attempt to proclaim sexual willingness (Olson 2006, 197:200). While Olson is rightly critical of the male dominated understanding of female clothing, a somewhat simplistic understanding of a prostitutes dressing in modest clothing is given. She questions why a prostitute would do this as it may be bad for business (Olson 2006, 198).
This ignores one of the identities rarely discussed in terms of the prostitute: that of a woman. As discussed earlier, there are laws allowing the abuse of prostitutes. However there is legislation stating that if the woman turns out not to be a prostitute, the abuser can be prosecuted (Olson 2006, 197). While literature complaining of noble women and prostitutes becoming indistinguishable may be down to the male-dominated bias in the literature exaggerating the lagging morals of noble women, legislation such as this suggests that womens fashion is mutually inspired by noble women and prostitutes, such as Coan silk being worn (Olson 2006, 197), showing the identity of the prostitute as a woman. The aforementioned fears of women and prostitutes dressing similarly also suggests the idea of the identity of prostitutes as women. That a prostitute may be willing to dress in a way that is bad for business suggests she may be presenting her identity of a woman over that of a prostitute. To conclude, there is not one simple definition of the identity of the female prostitute in Ancient Rome. Rather, she has a multi-layered identity. In unpicking this identity, it needs to be recognised that the male dominated literature from the time, and the traditionally male dominated research of the period, does not give a highly visible picture of women, and this is especially true for prostitutes. Prostitution is also difficult to define archaeologically through material culture. The first identity presented in this paper is a legal designation: infamia. This presents prostitutes to society as dishonourable and untrustworthy and worthy of segregation from society. The second identity presented is that of vir, the active partner in sex, alongside which is the label of togata, which like like infamia, is interchangeable with an adulteress. This essay also describes the identity of the prostitute as a woman who is a public figure and works alone. The third identity presented is that of a woman. This is shown through clothing and a prostitute presenting herself in a way that is not beneficial for her business, but reinforces her identity. Also, the ancient Roman society can be describe based on their nationality which was also their citizenship. To the ancient Roman, citizenship was a privileged political and legal status afforded to free individuals with respect to laws, property and governance. The rights available to free individuals varied overtime with regard to their place of origin and their service to the state. They also varied under the Roman law according to classification of individual within the state. Various legal classes were defined by the various combinations of legal rights available to citizens include some of the following
ius suffragiorium: The right to vote in the Roman assemblies ius honorum: The right to stand for civil or public office ius commercii: The right to make legal contracts and to hold properties as a Roman citizen ius gentium: The legal recognition developed in the 3rd century BC, of the growing international scope of Roman affairs and the need for Roman law to deal with situations between citizens and foreign persons. ius conubii: The right to have a lawful marriage with a Roman citizen according to Roman Principles, to have the legal right of the paterfamilias over the family, and for the children of such be counted as Roman citizens. ius migratonis: The right to preserve one's level of citizenship upon relocation to a polis of comparable status. The right of immunity from someone taxes and other legal obligations, especially local rules and regulations and so on. Roman citizenship was required in the ancient Roman society in order to enlist in the Roman legions but this was sometimes ignored. Citizen soldiers could be beaten by the centurions and senior officers for reason related to discipline. Non- citizens joined the Auxilia and gained citizenship through service. There were also different classes of citizens in the ancient Roman society; Thus The cilles Romani: The cilles Romani were full citizens who enjoyed full legal protection under Roman law The Latini is another class of citizens who held the Latin Rights (ius Latii)or th Rights of ius commercii and ius migrationis but not the ius connubii. The term latinii originally referred to the Latins, citizens of the Latin league who came under Roman control at the close of the Latin war, but eventually became a legal description rather than a national or ethnic one. The Socii which is the third class also known as Foederati were citizens of States which had treaty obligations with Rome, under which typically certain legal rights of the state's citizens under Roman law were exchanged for agreed levels of military service; that is the Roman magistrates had the right to levy soldiers for the Roman legions from these states. The provincials were those people who fell under the Roman influence or control but who lacked even the rights of the Forderati, especially having the only right of the ius gentium The Peregrini: A peregrinus was originally any person who not a full Roman citizen, that is someone who was not a member of the cilles Romani, with the expansion of the Roman law to include more gradations of legal status, this tern became less used, but the term peregrini included those of the Latini, Socii and provinciales as well as those subject of foreign status. In conclusion, the Roman society having been described based on status, identity and Nationality can be said to be a state where their is high stratification, thus all the occupants of the ancient Roman society were not of equal status. Also they did not have the cognitive ability to look at themselves in an introspective way for their identity but rather to others. Their nationality which was also their citizenship was very unique in the sense that it gave much privileges to those who possessed it.
REFERENCES: Allison, P. M. (2007) 'Engendering Roman Domestic Space'. In Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond, ed. by Westgare, R., Fisher, N. & Whitley, J. London: The British School at Athens, 343-350 Ancient Roman class structure / classes of rome www.legends and chronicles.com.
Barbara F. mcmanus, the college of new Rochelle bmcmanus@ cnr.edu jenuary,2009.
Bauman, R. A. (1992) Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge Duncan, A. (2006) 'Infamous Performers: Comic Actors and Female Prostitutes in Rome'. In Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, ed. by Faraone, C. & McClure, L. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 252-273 Edwards, C. (1993) The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Edwards, C. (1997) 'Unspeakable Professions: Public Performance and Prostitution in Ancient Rome'. In Roman Sexualities, ed. by Hallett, J. P. & Skinner, M. B. Princeton University Press: New Jersey, 66-98 Garber, M. B. (1992) Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. London: Routledge Gardner, J. F. (1986) Women in Roman Law & Society. London: Croom Helm Ltd Gonsalves, L. (2008) Women and Human Rights. New Delhi: APH Publishing Google: Wikipedia Hallett, J. P. (1993) 'Feminist Theory, Historical Periods, Literary Canons, and the Study of Greco-Roman Antiquity'. In Feminist Theory and the Classics, ed. by Rabinowitz, N. C. & Richlin, A. London: Routledge, 44-74 https:// google webbight.com Laurence, R. (2007) Roman Pompeii: Space and Society 2 edn. London: Routledge McGinn, T. (2006) 'Zoning Shame in the Roman City'. In Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, ed. by Faraone, C. A. & McClure, L. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 161-176. Olson, K. (2006) 'Matrona and Whore: Clothing and Definition in Roman Antiquity'. In Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, ed. by Faraone, C.A. & McClure, L. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 186-204. Roman social class and public display vroma www.pbs.org>romans>empire>order
The Roman Empire in the first century. www.vroma.org>bmcmanus>socialclass
GROUP ASSIGNMENT (GROUP 1)
ReplyDeleteCOURSE CODE: CLC 204
COURSE TITLE: ANCIENT ROMAN HISTORY, SOCIETY, AND INSTITUTIONS
GROUP MEMBERS:
DIMSON SYLVIA NMESOMA RELIGIOUS STUDIES 190397
ADEBISI TOMISIN RELIIOUS STUDIES 190199
COKER FORTUNE EUROPEAN STUDIES 193368
ADEKOGBA TEMITOPE RELIGIOUS STUDIES 190214
MICHEAL GRACE CHIOMA RELIGIOUS STUDIES 190494 OGUNLADE OLUSEGUN RELIGIOUS STUDIES 193360
SHITTU OLUWATOSIN CLA 190672
NZE AMEN THEATEART 190513
AWODERU IDOWU KOYEDE HISTORY 190349
OLANIYI OLUWAKEMI C. RELIIOUS STUDIES 190580
OLUWATOBILOBA ELIZABETH CLASSICS 190613
OSIBEMHE JOHN O. RELIIOUS STUDIES 193765
ADEKUSIBE TOLASE F. CLASSICS 190220
LECTURER IN CHARGE: DR. MONICA ANENI
JANUARY 5, 2018
QUESTION: HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE ANCIENT ROMAN SOCIETY WITH REGARD TO STATUS, IDENTITY TO A ND NATIONALITY.
The ancient Roman society was one of the most important ancient society. It was founded by Remus and Romulus who were raised by a female wolf after being left by their mother. It was a highly distinguished society and one time world power for a very long time. It was established around the year 753BCE and collapsed around 476 AD. The ancient Roman society will be succinctly described with regard to their status, identity and nationality; thus:
At first, with regard to status, the ancient Roman society was highly stratified. It was stratified in the sense that there were mainly four classes which were the senators, equestrians magistrates and plebeians as seen the course CLC 204. However there were other classes such as slaves, freedmen, proletariat and so on. To the ancient Roman society, the plebeians were the poorest in the society. Although they were not slaves, yet in terms of good living, they were not in equal status with the senators and the equestrians class. The plebeians in the ancient Roman society were oppressed by hunger, poverty and powerlessness. Allotment of land did not solve their problem because the tiny plots of land allotted to them stopped producing when overworked. Some of the plebeians in the ancient Roman society whose land has been sacked by the Gauls could not afford to rebuild. This brought about borrowing with exorbitant interest rate. Most of the plebeians were farmers and could be sold into slavery and even killed if they were unable to pay their debt to their debtors. The Equestrians in the ancient Roman society on the other hand who were also known as the equites were the Roman Knights. They were Roman horsemen or knights. The name was derived from the Latin horse Equus. The equities came to be a high social class. A single member of the equestrians class was known as equess. In the ancient Roman society, the equestrians were bound to a certain number of campaign. They were usually an important division of the Roman army, but overtime, they lost their military prominence thus moving to the wings of the plantant. They voted first in comitia and kept two horses and a groom than any other in the army. The senators were also group of people with one of the highest status. The senators were regarded as old men and were the assembly of elders in the ancient Roman society. They held three principal responsibilities which were
Functioning as the ultimate repository for executive power.
Functioning as the executive power
They also served as the legislative body.
Traditionally, the roman society was extremely rigid. By the first anxiety, however, the need for capable men to run Rome Vast empire was slowly eroding the old social barriers. The social structure of ancient Rome was based on heredity, property, wealth, citizenship and freedom. It was based around men: women were defined by the social status of their fathers or husbands. Women were expected to work after the houses and very few had any real independence.
The Ancient Roman Society with regard to Status
ReplyDeleteRome was a highly hierarchial and class-conscious society, but there was a possibility of mobility between most classes (indicated in the diagram above by dotted lines) because by the second century BCE class was no longer determined solely by birth.
The classes described below superseded the old patrician/pleabian distinction, though certain elements of dress and religious positions and rituals were still reserved for patricians. There was a large gulf between the wealthy upper classes and the senatorial and equestrian classes, shown on the pediment of the temple above; and the poorer lower classes, though it was still possible although quite difficult to more upwards by acquiring sufficient wealth.
Upper Classes
- Senatorial class ( Senators): The basis for this class was political. It included all men who served in the senate, and by extension their families. This class was dominant by the nobles (nobiles), Families whose ancestors included at least one consul & earlier the qualification had been a curule magistracy i.e. Curule aedile and up). The first man in his family to be elected consul, thus qualifying his family for noble status, was called a new man (novus homo), although this term was used in varying senses it would refer to an equestrian who was the first in his family to be elected to political office and thus join the senatorial class, or to a man from the senatorial class who was the first the nobles, or most dramatically to an equestrian like Cicero who was elected consul. Senators had to prove that they had property worth at least 1,000,000 Sesterces; there was no salary attached to service in the senate, and senators were prohibited from engaging personally in nonagricultural business, trade or public contracts. Men of the senatorial class wore the tunic with broad stripes (
- Equestrian class (equites): The basis for this class was economic. A man could be formally enrolled in the equestrian order if he could prove that he possessed a stable minimum amount of wealth (properly worth at least 400,000 Sesterces); by extension his family members were also considered equestrian. However, if an equestrian was elected to a magistracy and entered the senate, he moved up to the senatorial class; this was nor particularly easy or frequent. Equestrians were primarily involved in the type of business prohibited to senators. Equestrians was the tunic with narrow stripes (angusti clavi).
- Women: Although membership in these classes was dominated by the same families over many generations, the classes themselves were defined accordingly to male activities rather than birth. Womens place in these classes was therefore somewhat problematic. However, there came to be a customary acceptance that women belonged to the social class of their fathers and then of their husbands, although the women had no special dress that distinguished their status. This female participation in social status began to crystalize and formalize under Augustus, who explicitly included the daughters, granddaughters, great-granddaughters of senators in his law prohibiting members of the senatorial class from contracting legal marriage with freed people.
Belonging to one of these upper classes had many significant consequences for romans besides prestige, for social class determined ones economic and political opportunities, as well as legal rights, benefits and penalties. Rome had nothing comparable to our middle class; the gulf between these two upper classes and the much larger lower classes was immense. However, as long as one was a freeborn Roman citizen there was at least a slight possibility of moving into the equestrian class through the acquisition of wealth. Entry into the senatorial class, even for wealthy equestrians, was extremely difficult, since for centuries a small number of elite families had monopolized this class.
ReplyDeleteThe Ancient Roman elite structure revolved around the patricians. The patricians wielded the political power and were always better represented in the Roman assemblies. The patricians dominated the political scene for centuries because they were always in majority in the senate. Further, at the beginning of the republic, only patricians could enter priesthood but that changed around 300BC.
Lower Classes
The lower classes consisted of the plebeians who could attain material wealth but did not enjoy the political power. This included average working-class people who indulged in all sorts of ordinary professions including farming and labouring.
There was a client patronage relationship between many patricians and plebeians where the plebeians pledged their respect and favour in return for political and legal assistance from the patricians. Slaves in the Roman class structure did not have any legal rights and were entirely dependent on their masters.
Common (Plebs or Vulgus) :- All other freeborn Roman citizens. The special
mark of dress for citizen males was the toga. All Roman citizens had conubium, the right to contact a legal marriage with another Roman citizen and beget legitimate children who were themselves Roman citizens.
- Latins (latini): Freeborn residents of Italy (until 89 BCE) when they were all granted full citizenship and of certain other Roman municipalities who had some legal rights but were not full Roman citizens. Former slaves who had been informally freed by Roman citizens were a special category, Junian latins.
- Foreigners (Peregrini): All other freeborn men and women who lived in Roman territories. In 212 CE most freeborn people living within the Roman empire were granted Roman citizenship.
Freed people (liberti or libertine): men and women who had been slaves but has brought their freedom or been manumitted. They were not fully free because they had various restriction on their rights and owed certain duties to their former masters, who now became their patrons, but they could become citizens if their former masters were citizens and they had been formally manumitted; they were not, however, eligible for public office. This was the one class it was not possible to leave, though the class encompassed only one generation. The next generation, their freeborn children, became full citizens Ci-c, members of the commons, though their was a social stigma attached to being a freedmans son, and could even become equestrians if rich enough.
Freed people had low social status, and most were probably fairly poor, but it was possible for them to achieve some success in a trade, and a few might even become wealthy.
They had no special distinction of dress though their names indicated their status as freed people.
- Slaves (servi): System of chattel slavery where human beings were born into slavery or sold into slavery through war or piracy. Slaves were the property of their owners by law, but by custom some slaves (especially urban, domestic slaves) might be allowed their own savings (pecullium) with which they might later buy their freedom, or their masters could manumit them, 80 some mobility into the previous class was possible. Roman slavery was not racially based, and slaves had no special distinction of dress, though slaves who had run away were sometimes made to wear metal collars with inscriptions such as the following: I have run away.
ReplyDeleteCapture me when you have returned me to my master, Zoninus, you will receive a reward.
- Women: Since the lower classes were not defined by male activities, there was no problem with including women, female and male children were autocratically members of the social class of their parents (except for freed people, since only one generation could be freed). If the parents were Roman citizens and had contracted a legal Roman marriage, the children followed the social status of their father (ire, they were Roman citizens). However, in the case of latins, foreigners, and slaves, children took the social status of their mother, even of their father was a freeborn Roman citizen.
During the reign of monarchy, the Senate most important function was to elect a new king. Their most significant task out side regal election in the ancient Roman society was to function as the king's council and they could also make new laws technically.
Furthermore, ancient Roman society can also be described in relation to their identity. Unlike what others must have reasoned identity to be, the ancient Roman society looked to others for any confirmation as his/her identity. The people looked at for the confirmation of one's identity may be elders in the family, patron or client, army comrades or even in an election- the people of Rome. No Roman could be his own judge but could only see himself through the eyes of others which was their identity. This was because the ancient Roman society did not know of modern psychology and thus did not analysed their thoughts and feelings. They could not look in-wards but rather they looked to others. Another reason for this was that it was the opinion of others that dictated the opinion a Roman ultimately held upon as his true self. Thus, the identity of 'a good man' was hence a man deemed worthy by others, it was a man deemed honourable. More so, in the ancient Roman society, glory and honour as one's identity were only measured in the recognition it drew from others. However, this identity of being honourable in one's deeds or action was to climb the social ladder. Thus it was used to further one's political fortunes all in the hope of finally achieving that distant goal- a seat in the Roman Senate. Hence any achievement in the ancient Roman society was blatantly bragged about to make absolute sure that everyone knew about it thus forming his identity. It is sacrosanct to state that since the ancient Roman society viewed one's identity as others saw them they therefore tend to always comport themselves.
Aside the gaze of others which served as the ancient Roman society, the identity of the prostitutes were also foci.
The first aspect of an Ancient Roman prostitutes identity that will be looked at is that of their legal status as infames, and the boundaries this creates with other groups in society. Edwards states that not only was the label of infamis given to prostitutes, but also to gladiators, actors and other public performers. This designation meant that members of these professions were restricted from various aspects of public life, such as standing for election to magistrate orbeing allowed to speak in a court of law. They were also viewed as symbols of shame and allowed to be beaten, mutilated and violated by others without fear of punishment (1997, 66). Indeed, a husband was allowed to kill his wifes lover if they were infames on the condition he then divorced her within three days and began the case against her for adultery (Edwards 1993, 38). The legal restriction on infames overlaps with the legal restrictions already placed on women, so this likely had less of an effect on female than on male prostitutes. However, while the designation of infamia may not appear to have much of an additional effect on a female prostitute in terms of legal restrictions, it was significant in other ways. The first is that the label of infamia is carried for life. Other similar punishments, such as those imposed on disgraced soldiers or criminals, are only in place for a time (Edwards 1997, 67). There is also the effect this legal status has on those around them. Pimps are likewise defined as infames, and if there is an attempt to convict a woman of adultery which fails, the husband can then be prosecuted for pimping and carry the label of infamis himself (Gardner 1986, 90; Olson 2006, 193-194). There are also cases where it is suggested some elite women registered themselves as a prostitute to avoid the fine for adultery (Duncan 2006, 255). This may have had the effect that the husband would be disgraced alongside the wife, and this being the case, there may be more than simple practical economic reasoning behind this. The effect on a husband whose wife claimed to be a prostitute, whether this was actually the case or not, was to be identified alongside them as infames. An unmarried prostitute could marry a free man, but again he would have to carry the infamis identity once they were married. Augustus later brought in legislation to ban any woman who was, or had been, a prostitute from ever marrying a freeborn male citizen (Duncan 2006, 255). This has the result of identifying the prostitute as one that has been ostracized from society. Prostitutes and actors are seen as the worst of the infames (Duncan 2006, 255), and are often viewed as being the same. Both their jobs are seen as faking it for money, and are therefore interchangeable (Duncan 2006, 256:270). Therefore, the identity of a prostitute may not be focused specifically around their job in the sex industry, rather their level of infamia and the fakery innate in the profession.
ReplyDeleteCaution should be given when assuming that legal designations, such as infamia, relate to social attitudes. Social attitudes are often more fluid and complex than is represented in legal documentation (Edwards 1997, 71). An example of this is the repeated creation of legislation to try and stop the noble classes from taking part in occupations that carry the infamia mark, and to try and stop them from marrying infames. The fact that numerous legislations were brought in suggests it was unsuccessful (Duncan 2006, One of the major reasons for defining prostitutes as infames is to create a boundary between them and the rest of society. In a society where honour was held in high esteem, prostitution could be used as an example of what not to be, providing a contrast to the honourable in society (Edwards 1997, 67). It has been suggested that another way in which the sex industry is further set aside from society is through the concept of moral zoning in city planning. Much of the literature on this uses Pompeii as an example due to its unique preservation, which makes it ideal for studying structures in the wider context of a city. Brothels are a part of Pompeii that has been given a lot of attention, and this may be in part due to the relatively high number of brothels. It has been suggested there could be thirty five in the city, if not more, although this number is contested (McGinn 2006, 161).
ReplyDeleteOne of the ways in which the placement of these brothels has been interpreted is moral zoning, by deliberately placing them in hidden areas, although keeping them central (McGinn 2006, 162; Wallace-Hadrill 1995, 5152). Lawrence (2007, 86) has argued that their placement has also been designed to keep them away from elite children. McGinn (2006, 162) agrees that the visibility of brothels may have been deliberately disguised, pointing to the example of the Roman port city of Ostia where there appear to be no visible brothels, although it seems unlikely there was no sex industry. This adds to the difficulty experienced by archaeologists in recognising prostitutes and the industry as a whole (McGinn 2006, 163). However, moral zoning of a city may be a little simplistic. While defining social class is important in Rome, the physical segregation of elites and the poor in city planning is not so clear cut. While elites do tend to all live in the same area, they are not necessarily cut off from other ranks in society. This being the case, it can be suggested that brothels would not need to be segregated from other groups in society (McGinn 2006, 163). It is also simplistic to attempt to understand the physical presence of prostitution purely through the placement of brothels. There are many public areas, such as the circus or baths, where prostitution could take place (McGinn 2006, 162). Because of the difficulties in being able to define a brothel, and the public nature of a prostitutes work, archaeological evidence is difficult to find. A further feature of a prostitutes identity is described through Ancient Roman attitudes towards sexuality. Sexuality in a modern Western definition tends to fall into categories of gender preference. In simplified terms, this is across an axis of heterosexual and homosexual, although there are many shades within this spectrum. The Ancient Roman definition follows different rules. The axis used is that of active (vir) and passive (cinaedus) (Parker 1997, 47). The role of the vir partner is that of penetration and sexual enjoyment. In contrast cinaedus is a passive role, designed to allow the vir to experience their pleasure through receiving their penetration. Therefore the definition of someones sexuality falls along these lines, regardless of the gender they are having sex with. Bisexuality was allegedly common, although this definition would have made no sense at the time. The idea of a man sleeping with another man does not bring into question the masculinity of either. The penetrator (vir) is still seen as masculine. Indeed the masculinity of an individual could be asserted by sleeping with cinaedus men (Parker 1997, 55). A woman who takes on the active vir role is seen as unusual and masculine in her enjoyment of sex, and is often identified as a prostitute or adulteress and is socially unacceptable (Parker 1997, 58). In order to set them aside from normal female society, a prostitute or adulteress was classed as togata, meaning she wore a toga: another symbol of masculinity. This adds yet another layer to the identity of the prostitute. The identity of togata in describing a woman does not always make a distinction between adulteress and prostitute, suggesting they may be interchangeable in this regard in a similar way as prostitutes and actors in their given roles of infames (Olsen 2006, 192-193).
ReplyDeleteAncient Rome is not the only period or place where female prostitutes wore mens clothing to represent their masculine sexual appetite. Prostitutes in Elizabethan England and in 16th century Venice also wore mens clothing for this reason (Duncan 2006, 270; Garber 1992, 86). A woman wearing a toga, as well as representing masculinity in sexual preference, also represents a public figure. Noble women in Rome did not go out in public alone, or conduct business in the public eye. A prostitute is the opposite of this, being visible in public and always alone. Therefore, she again acted more like a male would have than a female, who would stay at home or go out with attendants (Duncan 2006, 270). Thus, the term togata represents the identity of a prostitute on two levels: that of a woman with a sexual preference that goes against the norm and that of someone who works in public and goes out alone. However, while the toga was a symbol of men and masculinity, it is not the case that all men would have always worn one. Poorer male citizens may not have been able to afford one, and they are not necessarily functional items of clothing, being both cumbersome and hot. Augustus legislated to ensure the upper classes wore togas, which suggests even those who could afford it were not always wearing them (Olson 2006, 188). In the same way, defining a woman as togata does not necessarily mean she was literally wearing a toga. The definition is more a moral description than a literal one (Olson 2006, 196). The female version of the toga, representing the ideal of femininity, is the stola, worn over a tunic (Olson 2006, 189). Like the toga, the stola was a brief fashion and was not worn throughout the Ancient Roman period. There are descriptions of elite women discarding the stola to advertise themselves sexually, however, the dominance of male literature on this matter does little to represent the actual thoughts of women. The stola, like the toga, may wellhave been abandoned as an impractical and hot garment, rather than as an attempt to proclaim sexual willingness (Olson 2006, 197:200). While Olson is rightly critical of the male dominated understanding of female clothing, a somewhat simplistic understanding of a prostitutes dressing in modest clothing is given. She questions why a prostitute would do this as it may be bad for business (Olson 2006, 198).
ReplyDeleteThis ignores one of the identities rarely discussed in terms of the prostitute: that of a woman. As discussed earlier, there are laws allowing the abuse of prostitutes. However there is legislation stating that if the woman turns out not to be a prostitute, the abuser can be prosecuted (Olson 2006, 197). While literature complaining of noble women and prostitutes becoming indistinguishable may be down to the male-dominated bias in the literature exaggerating the lagging morals of noble women, legislation such as this suggests that womens fashion is mutually inspired by noble women and prostitutes, such as Coan silk being worn (Olson 2006, 197), showing the identity of the prostitute as a woman. The aforementioned fears of women and prostitutes dressing similarly also suggests the idea of the identity of prostitutes as women. That a prostitute may be willing to dress in a way that is bad for business suggests she may be presenting her identity of a woman over that of a prostitute. To conclude, there is not one simple definition of the identity of the female prostitute in Ancient Rome. Rather, she has a multi-layered identity. In unpicking this identity, it needs to be recognised that the male dominated literature from the time, and the traditionally male dominated research of the period, does not give a highly visible picture of women, and this is especially true for prostitutes. Prostitution is also difficult to define archaeologically through material culture. The first identity presented in this paper is a legal designation: infamia. This presents prostitutes to society as dishonourable and untrustworthy and worthy of segregation from society. The second identity presented is that of vir, the active partner in sex, alongside which is the label of togata, which like like infamia, is interchangeable with an adulteress. This essay also describes the identity of the prostitute as a woman who is a public figure and works alone. The third identity presented is that of a woman. This is shown through clothing and a prostitute presenting herself in a way that is not beneficial for her business, but reinforces her identity.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the ancient Roman society can be describe based on their nationality which was also their citizenship. To the ancient Roman, citizenship was a privileged political and legal status afforded to free individuals with respect to laws, property and governance. The rights available to free individuals varied overtime with regard to their place of origin and their service to the state. They also varied under the Roman law according to classification of individual within the state. Various legal classes were defined by the various combinations of legal rights available to citizens include some of the following
ius suffragiorium: The right to vote in the Roman assemblies
ReplyDeleteius honorum: The right to stand for civil or public office
ius commercii: The right to make legal contracts and to hold properties as a Roman citizen
ius gentium: The legal recognition developed in the 3rd century BC, of the growing international scope of Roman affairs and the need for Roman law to deal with situations between citizens and foreign persons.
ius conubii: The right to have a lawful marriage with a Roman citizen according to Roman Principles, to have the legal right of the paterfamilias over the family, and for the children of such be counted as Roman citizens.
ius migratonis: The right to preserve one's level of citizenship upon relocation to a polis of comparable status.
The right of immunity from someone taxes and other legal obligations, especially local rules and regulations and so on.
Roman citizenship was required in the ancient Roman society in order to enlist in the Roman legions but this was sometimes ignored. Citizen soldiers could be beaten by the centurions and senior officers for reason related to discipline. Non- citizens joined the Auxilia and gained citizenship through service. There were also different classes of citizens in the ancient Roman society; Thus
The cilles Romani: The cilles Romani were full citizens who enjoyed full legal protection under Roman law
The Latini is another class of citizens who held the Latin Rights (ius Latii)or th Rights of ius commercii and ius migrationis but not the ius connubii. The term latinii originally referred to the Latins, citizens of the Latin league who came under Roman control at the close of the Latin war, but eventually became a legal description rather than a national or ethnic one.
The Socii which is the third class also known as Foederati were citizens of States which had treaty obligations with Rome, under which typically certain legal rights of the state's citizens under Roman law were exchanged for agreed levels of military service; that is the Roman magistrates had the right to levy soldiers for the Roman legions from these states. The provincials were those people who fell under the Roman influence or control but who lacked even the rights of the Forderati, especially having the only right of the ius gentium
The Peregrini: A peregrinus was originally any person who not a full Roman citizen, that is someone who was not a member of the cilles Romani, with the expansion of the Roman law to include more gradations of legal status, this tern became less used, but the term peregrini included those of the Latini, Socii and provinciales as well as those subject of foreign status.
In conclusion, the Roman society having been described based on status, identity and Nationality can be said to be a state where their is high stratification, thus all the occupants of the ancient Roman society were not of equal status. Also they did not have the cognitive ability to look at themselves in an introspective way for their identity but rather to others. Their nationality which was also their citizenship was very unique in the sense that it gave much privileges to those who possessed it.
REFERENCES:
ReplyDeleteAllison, P. M. (2007) 'Engendering Roman Domestic Space'. In Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond, ed. by Westgare, R., Fisher, N. & Whitley, J. London: The British School at Athens, 343-350
Ancient Roman class structure / classes of rome
www.legends and chronicles.com.
Barbara F. mcmanus, the college of new Rochelle
bmcmanus@ cnr.edu jenuary,2009.
Bauman, R. A. (1992) Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge
Duncan, A. (2006) 'Infamous Performers: Comic Actors and Female Prostitutes in Rome'. In Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, ed. by Faraone, C. & McClure, L. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 252-273
Edwards, C. (1993) The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Edwards, C. (1997) 'Unspeakable Professions: Public Performance and Prostitution in Ancient Rome'. In Roman Sexualities, ed. by Hallett, J. P. & Skinner, M. B. Princeton University Press: New Jersey, 66-98
Garber, M. B. (1992) Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. London: Routledge
Gardner, J. F. (1986) Women in Roman Law & Society. London: Croom Helm Ltd Gonsalves, L. (2008) Women and Human Rights. New Delhi: APH Publishing Google: Wikipedia
Hallett, J. P. (1993) 'Feminist Theory, Historical Periods, Literary Canons, and the Study of Greco-Roman Antiquity'. In Feminist Theory and the Classics, ed. by Rabinowitz, N. C. & Richlin, A. London: Routledge, 44-74 https:// google webbight.com
Laurence, R. (2007) Roman Pompeii: Space and Society 2 edn. London: Routledge
McGinn, T. (2006) 'Zoning Shame in the Roman City'. In Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, ed. by Faraone, C. A. & McClure, L. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 161-176.
Olson, K. (2006) 'Matrona and Whore: Clothing and Definition in Roman Antiquity'. In Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, ed. by Faraone, C.A. & McClure, L. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 186-204.
Roman social class and public display vroma
www.pbs.org>romans>empire>order
The Roman Empire in the first century.
www.vroma.org>bmcmanus>socialclass