The Economy of Favours

2020 ◽  
pp. 159-194
Author(s):  
Laurens E. Tacoma

This chapter discusses the fifth characteristic of Roman political culture; the fact that competition for honour between cities became locked in expectations about the mutual behaviour of its participants. It analyses this on the basis of the rescript of Constantine to the Umbrian city of Hispellum. In the Roman period under single rule competition between cities continued unabated, but the direction and nature of it changed. What might be regarded as a form of ‘horizontal’ competition or ‘peer polity interaction’ between communities that were in principle of equal status was now increasingly conducted along vertical lines: communities tried to enhance their status by obtaining privileges and honours from the ruler that affected their ranking in the urban network. In this way the ruler became not only the external arbiter in the competition for status, but at the same time actively shaped that competition. The symbolic exchange with the ruler was structured by petitions which were presented by embassies sent by communities. The relation between emperor and subject was construed in their interaction, and both the requests and their answers could therefore be bent and subtly manipulated to fit their writers’ wishes. However, as both parties became locked in expectations of each other’s behaviour, in the honorific exchanges exactly what was perceived as a gift obtained from the ruler and what was perceived as an honour given to the ruler became obfuscated. An economy of favours emerged in which benefactor and beneficiary played leapfrog.

2020 ◽  
pp. 195-228
Author(s):  
Laurens E. Tacoma

This chapter discusses the sixth characteristic of Roman political culture: ambiguity in the agency of benefactions. It is analysed on the basis of a small dossier concerning a drainage project carried out in the reign of the Ostrogothic king Theoderic. Members of the elite were supposed to engage voluntarily in benefactions that were directed at the wider community. In reality social expectations were very strong. The Roman period of single rule altered the dynamic of the benefactions. Although they remained an integral part of the internal competition within the elite, in larger projects the ruler became a primary point of reference. Given the tension between voluntary and forced behaviour, the ruler’s role was ambiguous: was he the actual initiator of benefactions that were in reality state ventures, or merely offering approbation to private initiative? The agency in benefactions had never been completely clear, but benefactions could now be used by both ruler and elite to construe a relation between the two parties. The drainage project discussed in this chapter occurred under Ostrogothic rule. It not only shows the durability of Roman modes of behaviour, but precisely because engaging in benefactions offered a type of discourse that had proven to be successful over several centuries, it lent itself to adaptation to changing situations. The language of benefaction offered common ground to ruler and senate, and at the same time allowed both parties to position themselves as the embodiment of Roman values in a radically changed society.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Han Xiao

This article uses Athens in the early Roman Empire, the province of Achaia, and the political culture behind it as a research environment. Then focuses on two public spaces in Athens: Classic Agora and Roman Forum, which are used as cases to research the relationships between these public spaces. Based on the dynamic evolution of public buildings, monuments, and new public spaces in Athens during that period, this article explores the reasons for this adaptation and transformation of the Forum to Agora in the Roman period. Research suggests that the construction and existence of public buildings and monuments in Athens during the Roman period may have played a major role in promoting this transition from Agora to Forum.


Moreana ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (Number 187- (1-2) ◽  
pp. 151-182
Author(s):  
Maarten M.K. Vermeir

In this study, we propose a new understanding, according to the principles of ‘humanistic interpretation’, of a fundamental layer of meaning in Utopia. In the work of Thomas More, major references can be found to the particular genesis and a crucial purpose of Utopia. Desiderius Erasmus arranged the acquaintance of Thomas More with Peter Giles, a key figure in the development of Erasmus as political thinker. More and Giles together in Antwerp (Giles’s home town), both jurists and humanists, would lay the foundation of Utopia. With this arranged contact, Erasmus handed over to More the knowledge of a particular political system - the earliest form of ‘parliamentary democracy’ in Early modern Europe - embedded in the political culture of the Duchy of Brabant and its constitution, named the ‘Joyous Entry’. We argue that Erasmus, through the indispensable politicalliterary skills of More in Utopia, intended to promote this political system as a new, political philosophy: applicable to all nations in the Respublica Christiana of Christian humanism. With reference to this genesis of Utopia in the text itself and its prefatory letters, we come to a clear recognition of Desiderius Erasmus in the figure of Raphael Hythlodaeus, the sailor who had discovered the ‘isle of Utopia’ and discoursed, as reported by More, about its ‘exemplary’ institutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document