Greek artefacts, craftsmen and artists had penetrated Rome since regal days; from the second century BC this trickle had become a continuing and influential flood, contributing together with Italic and Etruscan architecture and art, and the developing central Italian and Roman concrete architecture, to the rich tapestry of the art of the capital. Vespasian (69-79), founder of the Flavian dynasty, showed an astute pragmatism in his handling of architecture and art. In the provinces the architectural and art forms characteristic of the Flavian era continued to flourish. Dynamism returned to imperial commissions with the Romano-Spanish Trajan. The age of Hadrian (117-38) proved to be extraordinary, largely because of the extent to which he was able to impress upon it his own many-sided personality: ruler, philhellene, architect, dilettante, poet, traveller and romantic. The rich artistic harvest of the Flavian to the Antonine ages was not just an imperial, but a corporate achievement, one which offered a worthy inheritance to following generations.

Art and architecture

Formal status, more precisely the degrees of generosity in the dispensation of citizenship to the various peoples of the empire, offers only one measurement of membership in that larger city, the patria communis, that the empire pretended to be. The spread of citizenship, and of Roman-style urban communities with which citizenship was correlated, was an uneven process. The extension of citizenship and urban developments of Roman-type in the western Mediterranean was marked by considerable successes in the plains regions of the general geographic area. As with all historical portraits of the 'barbarian', the negative side of the Roman image of the foreigner was rooted in the proven inferiority of the external society. Surrounded by the twin worlds of ethnicity and rusticity were the urban centres that constituted the core of Roman society. Each town and village, depending on the wider regional and ethnic context in which it was embedded, had its own spectrum of unacceptable persons, of social outcasts.

Rebels and outsiders

The emperor and his advisers

This chapter discusses the total revolution in the nature of the imperial senatorial order. It considers the institutional changes put in place in the course of the century, the new career patterns which resulted, and the evolving political role of senators, both in central, imperial politics and in the governing of localities. The most obvious institutional innovation of the fourth century was the creation of the senate of Constantinople. The new body did not spring fully formed from the head of the emperor Constantine, however, having at least three marked phases of development. The link between the bureaucracy and the senate was fully institutionalized in the reign of Valentinian I and Valens. The fundamental changes in the nature of the senatorial order naturally affected the type of careers being followed by its members. Individual senators and institutional bodies dominated by senators were involved in a wide variety of ways in imperial politics: the formulation of policy and regimes.

Senators and Senates

Hadrian's position as emperor was apparently far from secure. Hadrian is said to have played a personal role in the temple's design, one of many examples of his vaunted omniscience. Only Antoninus Pius' insistence that failure to deify would involve the annulling of Hadrian's acts, including his own adoption, enabled him to overcome. In 143 or 144 the young orator from Hadriani in Mysia, Aelius Aristides, delivered at Rome his famous speech in praise of the empire, which has largely contributed to the favourable verdict of posterity on the Antonine era. With Pius' death Marcus lacked only the name Augustus and the position of pontifex maximus, having held imperium and tribunician power for nearly fourteen years: there was no doubt that he was emperor. Out of respect for Pius, Marcus assumed the name Antoninus, while Lucius gave up the name Commodus, which he had borne from birth, and took instead Marcus' name M. Annius Verus.

Hadrian to the Antonines

If a map survived of part of the Roman world, say Italy in A.D. 100, showing the ownership and juridical status of land, it would reveal a number of different types. We should see for example some state land, some imperial land, and some city land, as well as a host of privately owned properties of varying size. This essay will attempt to assess the relative importance of the various types very briefly, before considering differences of size among private estates. The surviving evidence for private landownership is so distributed as to give a strong Egyptian bias to any exhaustive treatment of the empire as a whole. A selective discussion like the present one can at least attempt to avoid this imbalance. Land generally fell into one of six categories (if both the nuances of legal title and the more complex situation in Egypt are ignored). There is no obvious hierarchy among these categories, but private land has deliberately been left until last here, because evidence for it is abundant enough to justify fuller consideration. AGER PUBLICUS The first type is ager publicus , land belonging to the populus Romanus , the Roman state. Such land, if cultivated, was generally in the hands of private tenants of the state. The extent of ager publicus was originally immense, since Rome's practice was to expropriate the land of conquered peoples, at any rate in name.

R.P. Duncan-Jones

Papers

Some configurations of landholding in the roman empire