Gift and Gain: How Money Transformed

Ancient Rome 1st Edition Neil Coffee

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/gift-and-gain-how-money-transformed-ancient-rome-1
st-edition-neil-coffee/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Uncommon Grounds The History of Coffee and How It

Transformed Our World Pendergrast

https://textbookfull.com/product/uncommon-grounds-the-history-of-
coffee-and-how-it-transformed-our-world-pendergrast/

Uncommon Grounds The History of Coffee and How It

Transformed Our World 2019 edition | Retail Edition
Mark Pendergrast

https://textbookfull.com/product/uncommon-grounds-the-history-of-
coffee-and-how-it-transformed-our-world-2019-edition-retail-
edition-mark-pendergrast/

Ancient Rome and Victorian Masculinity First Edition

Laura Eastlake

https://textbookfull.com/product/ancient-rome-and-victorian-
masculinity-first-edition-laura-eastlake/

How to Make Coffee Lani Kingston

https://textbookfull.com/product/how-to-make-coffee-lani-
kingston/
Exemplary Ethics in Ancient Rome Rebecca Langlands

https://textbookfull.com/product/exemplary-ethics-in-ancient-
rome-rebecca-langlands/

The Imperial Families of Ancient Rome Maxwell Craven

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-imperial-families-of-
ancient-rome-maxwell-craven/

Pocket Genius: Ancient Rome First American Edition Dk

Publishing

https://textbookfull.com/product/pocket-genius-ancient-rome-
first-american-edition-dk-publishing/

Money Warfare and Power in the Ancient World 1st

Edition Jeremy Armstrong

https://textbookfull.com/product/money-warfare-and-power-in-the-
ancient-world-1st-edition-jeremy-armstrong/

How Money Works Dk

https://textbookfull.com/product/how-money-works-dk/
╇ i

Gift and Gain

ii

Classical Culture And Society

Series Editors
Joseph Farrell and Robin Osborne

Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome

Robert A. Kaster

Making Mockery: The Poetics of Ancient Satire

Ralph M. Rosen

Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire:

A Study in Elite Communities
William A. Johnson

Apollonius of Rhodes and the Spaces of Hellenism

William G. Thalmann

The Captor’s Image: Greek Culture in Roman Ecphrasis

Basil Dufallo

Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition

Emma Gee

Gift and Gain: How Money Transformed Ancient Rome

Neil Coffee
╇ iii

Gift and Gain

How Money Transformed Ancient Rome

Neil Coffee

1
iv

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Coffee, Neil, author.
Title: Gift and gain : how money transformed Ancient Rome / Neil Coffee.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2017] |
Series: Classical culture and society | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016015945 (print) | LCCN 2016025771 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780190496432 (hardback) | ISBN 9780190496449 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780190496456 (online)
Subjects: LCSH: Money—Rome—History. | Rome—Economic conditions—
30 B.C.–476 A.D. | Rome—Civilization. | Rome—History.
Classification: LCC HC39 .C59 2017 (print) | LCC HC39 (ebook) |
DDC 332.4/937—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016015945

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by Edwards Brothers Malloy, United States of America
v

For Quinn and Vera

vi
╇ vii

CONTENTS

List of Figuresâ•… ix
List of Tablesâ•… xi
Acknowledgmentsâ•… xiii

PART I } Orientation
Introductionâ•… 3
1. Locating the Fault Line: Concepts and Scopeâ•… 7

PART II } Early Rome: Foundation

2. Looking Forward from Archaic Romeâ•… 25

PART III } The Middle Republic: Adaptation

3. Adapting the Law in the Age of Catoâ•… 33
4. Ideological Flexibility: Cato and Enniusâ•… 47
5. Life before Liberality: Plautus and Terenceâ•… 61
6. The Gracchi and the Failure of Collective Generosityâ•… 79

PART IV } The Late Republic: Exploitation

7. Crooked Generosity in the Late Republicâ•… 89
8. Cicero between Justice and Expediencyâ•… 99
9. Sallust and the Decline of Reciprocityâ•… 109
10. Caesar’s Wicked Giftsâ•… 115
11. Atticus: Banker, Benefactor, Paragonâ•… 127

PART V } The Early Empire: Separation

12. Prying Worlds Apart: The Augustan Responseâ•… 137
13. Seneca’s Philosophical Cureâ•… 151
viii

viii { Contents

PART VI } Conclusions
14. Halfway to Modernity 167

Appendix 173
Notes 191
Bibliography 261
Index of Quoted Works 283
General Index 289
ix

FIGURES

2.1. Drawing of an early Roman as, showing the head of Janus on one
side and the prow of a ship on the other   26
4.1. Average frequency of terms for “greed” (cupid-​+ pecuniae, avarus/​a/​um/​e,
avaritia) in select Latin authors   54
5.1. Average frequency of words liberalitas and (in)liberaliter in select Latin
authors   71
7.1. Average frequency of terms for “money” (pecunia), “greed” (avaritia),
“debt” (aes alienum), and “generosity” (liberalitas) in select Latin
authors   91
7.2. Average frequency of terms for “profit” (lucrum, quaestus) and “loan
interest” (faenus) in select Latin authors   93
13.1. Average frequency of words “ingratitude,” “unfairness,” and “rudeness”
from 1750 to 2008 in Google N-​Gram Viewer British and American
Corpus   153
13.2. Average frequency of terms for “ingratitude,” “ingrate,” and “ungrateful”
(ingrat-​) in select Latin authors, arranged by estimated death date   154
A.1. Average frequency of words avaritia, avarus –​a –​um -​e, and the phrase
cupid-​+ pecuniae in Latin authors as used in fi ­ gure 4.1   174
A.2. Average frequency of the words liberalitas, liberalis, and (in)liberaliter
in Latin authors as used in fi­ gure 5.1   174
A.3. Average frequency of the words liberalitas, pecunia, avaritia, and the phrase
aes alienum in Latin authors as used in fi ­ gure 7.1   181
A.4. Average frequency of the words lucrum, quaestus, and faenus in Latin
authors as used in ­figure 7.2   181

All figures were created by the author.

ix
x
xi

TABLES

A.1. Counts and frequencies for use of terms for greed by Latin authors   175
A.2. Counts and frequencies for use of terms related to generosity by Latin
authors   178
A.3. Counts and frequencies for use of terms for generosity, money, and debt
by Latin authors   182
A.4. Counts and frequencies for use of terms for gain and financial interest
by Latin authors   185
A.5. Counts and frequencies for use of terms for ingratitude by Latin
authors   188

xi
xii
xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Of the three Graces, the eldest deserves special honor, says Seneca. She embod-
ies spontaneous giving, while her younger sisters stand for receiving and returning
gifts. I find myself standing with the lesser Graces, and so must express my gratitude
to the followers of their nobler sister who helped bring this book to publication.
I owe thanks first to the institutions that gave me time to work on the proj-
ect. A University at Buffalo Humanities Institute Faculty Research Fellowship in
spring 2009 enabled me to conduct preliminary studies. One became an article in
the volume The Gift in Antiquity edited by Michael Satlow (Wiley-​Blackwell, 2013),
which supplied material for ­chapter 4. Another appeared in Classical Journal in
2011. I am grateful to the editors of CJ for permission to use it as the basis of
­chapter 11. A research leave for 2014–​2015 granted by the University at Buffalo
College of Arts and Sciences allowed for the writing of the final chapters and revis-
ing of the whole.
I presented early versions of these ideas to audiences at Brown University,
Renmin University, the University at Buffalo Affect Studies Workshop, a University
at Buffalo Conference on Asking and Giving in Religious and Humanitarian
Discourses, the University of Bristol, UCLA, the University of Santiago de
Compostela, Yale University, and at a panel on reciprocity at the 2013 meeting of
the American Philological Association (now Society for Classical Studies), which
I co-​organized with Polyxeni Strolonga. The graduate students in my fall 2015
Roman Economy and Society seminar were a patient and duly critical audience for
the full manuscript. I am grateful to all for the opportunity to develop my ideas and
gain insightful critique.
Fanny Dolansky, David Konstan, Ted Peña, and Matthew Roller provided
comments on several of the chapters. Amy Richlin greatly improved ­chapter 6
on comedy, and John Starks likewise lent sound advice on Plautus and Terence.
Don Pollack gave me an invaluable introduction to the work of David Graeber.
Shadi Bartsch and Christopher Faraone worked through ideas and gave moral
support. My colleagues on the Tesserae Project, Caitlin Diddams, Christopher
Forstall, James Gawley, and Walter Scheirer, inspired the digital approaches I
have employed here while reminding me that serious discussions called not only
for clarity and rigor but also kindness and humor. Caitlin greatly improved the
word frequency graphs and created the indexes. Joseph Farrell helped find a good
audience by recommending publication in the Oxford University Press Classical
Culture and Society Series. Stefan Vranka at OUP guided the publishing process
xiii
xiv

xiv { Acknowledgments

with consummate professionalism. The reviewers for the Press provided numerous
suggestions that strengthened the book immeasurably.
In the course of the project, friends have provided help well beyond the obliga-
tions of friendship. John White read and commented on multiple chapters, and
challenged me to think bigger. Adam Breindel gave calm advice mixed with good
humor. Neil Bernstein helped frame the project, read the whole manuscript, and
served as a trenchant and encouraging critic. Without his help, this book might not
exist. John Dugan offered guidance on Cicero, Atticus, and the late Republic. He
has been a steadfast friend and an inspiration for his sharp intellect, sound judg-
ment, good heart, and exceptional integrity.
Thanks go above all to my family, beginning with my mother, Laurette, my
father, Michael, and my sister, Karen. My wife Quinn and my daughter Vera have
been endlessly patient with the demands of the project. For their generous love and
support, I have no counter-​gift, only a token, the dedication of this book.
I have aimed here to provide the rigorous argumentation classical scholars expect
and to reach a wider audience. I have therefore made various choices in order to
make the book easier to read, at some expense of convenience to the scholar, such
as gathering notes at the end, placing note markers at the ends of paragraphs, and
translating Latin book titles. I hope readers who share the goal of demonstrating
the continued relevance of classical antiquity will look upon the result charitably.
All remaining errors are my own, as are all uncredited translations.
╇ xv

Gift and Gain

xvi
1

PART } I

Orientation
2
3

Introduction

Human beings are born for the sake of other human beings, so that
they may mutually benefit one another. We should then follow Nature,
contributing to the general good by the exchange of favors, through giving
and receiving, and so by our skill, industry, and talents cement human
society more closely together, person to person.1
—Marcus Tullius Cicero, On Duties

Parents care for their children. Neighbors lend one another tools. The poor re-
ceive assistance from government agencies. Buyers meet sellers in the marketplace.
Producers deliver merchandise to consumers around the world.
Different as they may seem, each of these interactions, from personal to global,
is a form of exchange. As natural as breathing is to the body, so is exchange to
social life. By providing goods and services, individuals and groups help one an-
other thrive, cooperating amid competition.
This book examines the exchange culture of ancient Rome. It argues that re-
lationships of gifts and favors, long a basic feature of everyday Roman life, were
substantially displaced over the centuries by relationships of payment and contract.
Gift yielded to gain, with major consequences for nearly every dimension of society
and for Rome’s legacy to later civilizations.2
“Gift” is the traditional shorthand for gifts and favors. It refers to acts of giving
and receiving that are expected to involve generosity. In the modern West, when
we think about gift exchange at all, birthday and holiday presents come to mind,
or possibly the more public act of charity. But gift giving takes everyday forms
as well, such as tipping or treating friends to a meal. Commodity exchange is the
counterpart of gift giving, encompassing interactions involving money that lack
any dimension of generosity.3
In the modern world, the concepts of commodity exchange—​markets, invest-
ments, savings, economics—​are ubiquitous. In ancient Rome, the situation was re-
versed: the language of gift exchange was dominant. Gift exchange was far more
important, for one fundamental reason: despite the achievements that made Rome
a highly advanced civilization for its time—​aqueducts, roads, elected governance,
3
4

4 { Orientation

and an elaborate system of law, to name a few—​its social support systems were
miniscule when compared to the modern welfare state. The Roman Empire is
famous for its “bread and circuses,” but grain handouts reached only some citizens
in the city of Rome and were scarcely enough to get by on. There was no police
force to intervene if you were being robbed or beaten. There was no fire department
to help if your home went up in flames. If you got sick, you could visit a healer at
a local temple, but there was no hospital and certainly no health insurance. If you
died and left your family without an income, there was no government program to
save them from destitution.4
In place of the state, individuals relied on those they knew best, beginning with
their families. Disease and accidents were often fatal, and when a parent died, rela-
tives beyond the nuclear family regularly helped with childrearing. Your paternal
uncle, or patruus, had a responsibility to raise you and so was notoriously more
stern than your avunculus, or maternal uncle, who could just spoil you. Essential
social connections extended further, to friends, neighbors, and associates. When
you needed help with problems large and small, you called on them for favors and
material aid, and later helped them in turn. These requests could be urgent, giving
rise to the saying that “whoever gives quickly gives double.”5
At the same time, Rome was also highly commercialized. With roots in the be-
ginning of Roman coinage in the fourth century bce, and in various forms of trade
centuries earlier, Rome’s systems of commodity exchange came to rival its great
feats of engineering. By the first century ce, these included lending at interest on a
grand scale, even to other nations; a steady traffic of massive ships ferrying grain,
olive oil, and luxury goods around the Mediterranean; major mining operations;
and the largest business enterprises of the ancient world, the societies of contrac-
tors who collected taxes and performed public services across the empire.
The two forms of exchange could be separated conceptually. Gifts were impor-
tant to social relationships and gain to economic survival and advancement. But in
practice they often coincided. In an economic system with little government regu-
lation or oversight, trust was essential. So it is that the Latin word meaning “he or
she trusts,” credit, came to take on the financial meaning it still retains. Personal re-
lationships were the bedrock of business transactions and brought with them habits
of gift giving. Interest-​free loans were a common practice. They allowed givers to
add the generosity of free interest to the contractual relationship of a loan and
foster a gift relationship as part of a business deal.6
When commodity exchange supplanted gift giving, however, it led to conflict.
By tradition, wealthy and powerful patrons represented their dependent clients in
court as a favor, and clients in return provided political support and other services.
Beginning in the late third century bce, Roman legislators had to forbid payments
to legal advocates, along with gifts used as payments. By the first century bce, the
prohibition was widely flouted. In the early Empire, it was abandoned, and paid
legal services became the norm.7
5

Introduction } 5

Other gift customs remained in place but assumed the instrumental form of
commodity exchange. The giving of favors was so important to Roman society that
a variety of legal contracts were put in place to manage them. In the third century
bce, it became possible to sue someone for failing to return an interest-​free, friendly
loan of money. In the second century, one could sue for failing to return other fun-
gible items, like grain or seeds. In the first century, the right to sue was extended
to free loans of nonfungible objects, such as a plow. The pattern of legal remedies
shows gift customs progressively breaking down, starting with favors that involved
money, then involving items that were fungible like money, then items that were not
so easily exchanged.8
The effect of commerce on gift giving did not go unnoticed. In the epigraph
to this chapter, Cicero speaks in defense of gift exchange. Elsewhere he warns his
countrymen not to “lend our favors at interest.” When he voices his concerns, he
shows an awareness of the challenge commodity exchange posed to gift giving and
the need to confront it. The early imperial philosopher Seneca likewise raises his
voice, with still greater urgency:

What is more praiseworthy, what more universally acceptable to everyone’s

judgment than to show gratitude for favors done? Tell me, what motive leads
us to this? Gain? Whoever does not spurn gain is ungrateful.

Seneca proceeds to identify the conceptual and ethical reason for the transi-
tion: treating gifts like debts led to treating gifts as debts.9
The conflict between gift and gain reshaped Roman society, from our earliest
records down through the transition from Republic to Empire. It had widespread
effects, altering basic principles that informed human interaction. Similar shifts in
exchange culture occurred elsewhere, notably in the Greek culture that so influ-
enced Rome, and would recur in Western societies down to the modern age. Yet
at Rome the transformation of exchange was promoted and shaped by distinctive
social institutions and met with typically Roman responses.10
The four main sections of this book explore how Roman society grappled with
its changing culture of exchange over time, from the period before substantial
written records lasting into the early Republic (up to approximately 264 bce), to the
middle Republic (264 to to 146 bce), to the late Republic (145 to 30 bce) and early
Empire (29 bce to 68 ce). Within each section, chapters are organized chronologi-
cally, except when similar evidence is compared across time periods. The concluding
chapter summarizes the argument for the shifting balance between gift and gain,
and compares it with later developments in Western culture. We begin in the fol-
lowing chapter by defining the concepts and scope of Roman exchange.
6
╇ 7

1}

Locating the Fault Line

CONCEPTS AND SCOPE

Establishing prices, assessing values, determining equivalents, trading—╉all

this preoccupied the primal thoughts of man to such an extent that in a
certain sense it constituted thinking itself.
—Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals

The notion of interest, of the individual search after what is useful … does
not present itself … as it functions in our own minds. If some equivalent
reason animates the Trobriand or American Indian chiefs, the Andaman
clans, etc., or once motivated generous Hindus, and Germanic or Celtic
nobles, as regards their gift and expenditure, it is not the cold reasoning of
the merchant, the banker, and the capitalist.
—Marcel Mauss, The Gift

Opinions about the nature of exchange in premodern societies have diverged widely.
For Friedrich Nietzsche, mankind from its earliest days was engaged in commodity
trade to such an extent that rational calculation became the dominant mode of
thought. For Marcel Mauss, the members of early human societies did no such
thing.1 Instead, they employed gift exchange as the fundamental means of social
interaction. Neither categorical statement is true, at least for Roman society. This
chapter expands on the introduction to provide the background and concepts re-
quired to investigate how the two kinds of exchange commingled and clashed.2

Gift, Gain, and Other Forms of Exchange

Across human civilizations, the forms of exchange fall into four types. The first
is typical of the family, a kind of sharing. When parents provide food, shelter,
clothing, and guidance to their children, they scarcely regard their giving as ex-
change at all. The rule is illustrated by the exceptional case of the modern British
7
8

8 { Orientation

nature writer Ernest Thompson Seton. On his 21st birthday, Seton’s father pre-
sented him with a peculiar present, a bill for all the expenses of his upbringing,
starting with the doctor’s fee for his delivery at birth. Being something of an
ornery cuss himself, Seton actually paid it. In doing so, he followed his father
in rejecting what is otherwise the prevailing norm of sharing within the family.3
The second type of exchange is redistribution, where an authority collects and
transfers goods or services. An example of redistribution in the modern world is
government assistance to the poor.4
The third type of exchange is the subject of standard economics, commodity
trade. Unlike sharing within families, commodity exchanges are recognized as
distinct events. Both parties assess the value of the trade, often with reference to
money. When we consider buying some apples, we compare their price to our own
assessment of their value. If we decide to buy them, we pay with some form of cur-
rency. We might be friends with the grocer, but the friendship is incidental to the
transaction.
The fourth and final type of exchange is gift giving. Because of the cyclical
nature of giving and receiving gifts, this form of exchange can also be referred to
as “gift reciprocity,” and as “reciprocal exchange” or “reciprocity,” with the last
two, more general terms indicating more naturally the giving of both objects and
services. Like commodity exchange, gift exchange is recognized as a distinct act.
Parties do not give simultaneously, however, but in turn, with some lapse of time in
between. They convey a sense of generosity, without specifying the type, amount,
or time of any return. So, in the modern world, when we give a birthday gift, we
are expected to do so generously, without thinking about the birthday gift we will
get in return.5
Ancient Romans used the four types of exchange in different proportions from
citizens of the modern West. Further consideration of Juvenal’s famous description
of the Roman people lulled into complacency by “bread and circuses” illustrates
the difference. The granting of “bread,” the grain handouts that began in the late
Republic, was a rare exception. Otherwise, Rome did not engage in state-╉directed
redistribution as such.6 Juvenal’s “circuses,” or chariot races, stand for the more
common case. When emperors used military spoils and taxes to put on games, they
converted the appropriations into large-╉scale benefactions.7

The Importance of Gifts and Commerce

Gift exchange was ubiquitous at Rome and took a variety of forms. Romans gave
gifts to divinities in public settings, from officials sacrificing animals for the good of
the Republic, to individuals making votive offerings at temples to ensure their good
health and prosperity. At household altars, honey cakes and incense were burned
for the Lares, the gods that protected the family. Libations of wine were poured
out to the divinized spirits of the dead at their tombs.8 Among mortals, small gifts
9

Locating the Fault Line } 9

were given on celebratory occasions. At the Saturnalia, these could include a cloak
or a pig, or for guests at a dinner party, a book or bouquet of roses. Bequests were
offered to the powerful in gratitude for their aid. Most offensive to modern mo-
rality was the giving of slaves as presents, a practice to which Seneca attests.9 Most
characteristic were the sizeable gifts given in the regular conduct of business and
politics. These ranged from no-​interest loans to large-​scale public benefactions, in-
cluding the offering of games, and the construction of aqueducts, commercial and
legal fora, city walls, and theaters.
Gifts among mortals were made in one of two dimensions, either horizontally,
among peers, or vertically, up and down the socioeconomic scale. A distinctive fea-
ture of Roman gift giving was the formalization of gift exchange in the vertical di-
mension, in the institution known as patronage. Patrons acted in a fatherly capacity,
providing legal services and gifts to their clients. Clients favored their patrons with
economic services and political support. The patronage relationship was enshrined
in law, with legally binding obligations. It gave structure to Roman society by unit-
ing individual wealthy patrons with groups of clients lower down the social scale.10
Gift giving was unusually significant at Rome relative not only to the modern
West but also to its contemporary civilizations. Ancient Jewish society did not have
a culture of reciprocity prior to its encounter with Rome. The wealthy gave alms
to the poor in the form of nonbinding charity, but gift exchange was reserved for
offerings to God. Social cohesion was produced not through mutual gift giving but
through shared ideals and a common identity. Under Roman imperial domination,
some Jews assimilated, but more pushed back against the intrusion of Roman gift
practices perceived as manipulative. The rabbis re-​emphasized the common ideals
that promoted collective solidarity.11
Greek culture exercised a formative influence on Rome and had its own robust
culture of gift giving. The first substantial document of Greek civilization, Homer’s
Iliad, centers on a dispute over gifts. At the opening of the epic, the greatest warrior
of the Achaean army, Achilles, refuses to fight, because the leader of the expedi-
tion, Agamemnon, reclaimed a slave girl he had given to Achilles after an earlier
raid. Agamemnon later regrets the confiscation and sends a delegation to offer gifts
and bring Achilles back to the battle against the Trojans. Achilles rejects the offer,
and eventually rejoins the fight only to avenge the death of his best friend Patroclus.
The centrality of gifts in the Iliad indicates their importance to Greek culture from
the time when the poem was written down in the late eighth century bce.12
As in the Roman world, Greek gift giving came into conflict with an emergent
commodity culture. In the Iliad, heroes exchange gifts among themselves but rarely
engage in trade. In the later Odyssey, commodity trade plays a larger role, reflecting
its growing importance in Greek society, though it is still regarded with suspicion.
By the Greek archaic period of sixth to fifth centuries bce, the advent of coinage
and diffusion of money led to clashes between aristocrats who defended traditional
values, including gift culture, and those who promoted the new ethic of the com-
merce from which they benefited. Traditionalists tried in vain to restrict certain
10

10 { Orientation

goods, such as precious metals and cattle, to a sphere of elite exchange, not to be
traded for humble items like food. The new technology of money had far-╉reaching
effects. Its universal exchangeability even provided a model for the philosophical
concept of the similarity of all matter in the cosmos.13
Heavily influenced as it was by Greece, Rome nevertheless had its own deep-╉
rooted customs that gave rise to an even sharper encounter between gift and gain.
Neither Greek nor Jewish cultures had legally recognized institutions of patronage,
whereas the formal nature of Roman patronage embedded gifts at the core of
Roman society and provided a validating model for other gift relationships. No
Greek or Jewish observer claims for his own society what Cicero and Seneca do for
Rome, that the exchange of benefactions was an essential force for social cohesion.14
Rome also had a distinctively deep tradition of commerce. Among the earli-
est documents of Roman history is a treaty between Rome and its future enemy
Carthage, dating to 509 bce. It required, among other things, that trade between
the citizens of both nations be conducted in the presence of town officials. As this
provision attests, unlike in the Near East and in Greece, from early in its history
Rome did not delegate commercial activity to foreigners but allowed it to be carried
out by its own citizens.15
Rome began issuing its own coinage around 400 bce. Some 200 years later,
around the time of the Second Punic War, the societies of government contractors
known as publicani came into formal existence, and their tax farming and other ac-
tivities would go on to become a major source of elite profit. By the late Republic,
senators were prohibited from bidding on public contracts, but allied themselves
with the knights and others who could. Part of this engagement was stipulated by
law, which required land as security for bids on public contracts, land held most
abundantly by the elite.16
As much as they were invested in gift giving, then, Romans were also comfort-
able thinking in terms of money and were thoroughly engaged in commerce. This
was a culture where all civil judgments were put in terms of money, even if the
plaintiff only sought the return of property. By the time of Augustus, the poet
Horace could well complain that, while Greek boys were busy reading poetry to
polish their expression, Roman boys were studying fractions in order to calculate
loan interest.17

A Changing Gift Culture

If the advent of money had profound effects on Greek gift giving, the growth of
commodity culture could be expected to exert at least as much influence in Rome,
with its deeper commitments to both forms of exchange. And, indeed, we find signs
of a changing relationship between gift and gain across contexts in Roman society.
The clearest indications take the form of laws to manage gift giving:18
╇ 11

Locating the Fault Line }╇ 11

• From 204 bce onward, legal advocates were not allowed to be paid or
given gifts.
• As of the early first century, husbands and wives were effectively
prohibited from giving one another large gifts.
• In the year 40 bce, restrictions on bequests to nonheirs were loosened,
so that up to three-╉quarters of one’s estate could be committed as gifts
in advance of one’s demise.
• In 4 ce, acts of ingratitude by freedmen (ex-╉slaves) toward their former
masters became liable to legal penalties.
• In the first century ce, it became possible to sue someone for failing
to carry out a service offered as a favor, under what was called a
mandatum contract.

Later chapters will address these laws more fully, but these simple descriptions
testify to two basic facts. Gift relations were of sufficient practical importance to
be subjected to legislation, not just regarding political corruption, but across social
contexts from legal advocacy to marriage, and over the centuries. And the laws were
only necessary because gift norms were repeatedly violated. To understand how a
growing commodity culture contributed to these violations, we must begin by con-
sidering the structural dynamics of Roman exchange.19

Frameworks for Interpretation

GIFTS AS THE EXERCISE OF POWER: BOURDIEU

One of the major contributions to sociology of the eminent theorist Pierre Bourdieu has
been his model of social action as competition. In his view, through words and deeds,
individuals and groups within a society seek to maximize their advantage in relation to
others by accumulating capital. For Bourdieu, capital takes not only the economic form
of money, property, and other assets, but also two intangible forms with which it can
be exchanged: the social capital of relationships and the cultural capital of prestige.20
Classical scholars have often analyzed Roman gift relations in these terms,
whether or not they invoked Bourdieu. The internal history of Roman society has
been told as a story of competition for power and resources, where elite patricians
confronted angry plebeians, or elite factions jockeyed for position. Within these
struggles, gifts were employed to create and spend all three forms of capital. Gift ex-
change was used to transfer economic capital, as in the donations of money that the
emperor Augustus periodically gave to the Roman people (congiaria). The social
capital of relationships was created and maintained through giving gifts and per-
forming gratuitous services. The poet Horace writes of being accosted by a man who
wanted an introduction to Augustus’s confidante Maecenas, and who insinuates
that Horace himself was taking advantage of his friendship with Maecenas. Gift
relationships also yielded the cultural capital of prestige. Funding the construction
12

12 { Orientation

of a new forum or temple in the precincts of the city of Rome brought honor and
authority (auctoritas), so much so that, after gaining sole control of the Roman
government, Augustus restricted the privilege to himself and his inner circle.21
Gift exchange is one means of exercising power, by forming and transferring
capital, with qualities that make it different from the alternatives of force, persua-
sion, and commodity exchange. Gift exchange gently binds the receiver with an
ostensibly positive social bond. The flexibility in the quantity, type, and timing of
giving and receiving provides latitude to seek the greatest advantage, especially for
the stronger party. Where the gift relationship is not governed by law, it can be
broken off without the consequences of violating a contract.
The elite of the late Republic accordingly traded in gifts and debt to advance
their individual and factional interests in an intensely competitive political envi-
ronment. The wealthy who managed public contracts and other larger concerns
made gift relationships an integral part of their business engagements. In the early
Empire, the ongoing status negotiations between the emperor and his circle in-
volved the mutual definition of the benefactions the emperor would offer, from
dinner invitations to the granting of pardons. Some mastery of gift gestures was
essential to obtaining posts in imperial administration. Poets of the early Empire
like Horace and Statius used their power to exalt and immortalize benefactors to
return favors, assert their equal status, and avoid becoming subordinate clients.22
With power channeled through gift giving, its requisite generosity could feel
false, leaving receivers and even givers feeling exploited. Publilius Syrus, the first-╉
century ce author of stage mimes, wrote that “accepting a gift means putting your
freedom up for sale.” The younger Seneca attests to widespread complaints from
givers who were met with ingratitude, leaving them feeling cheated. The same power
dynamics are found even in more balanced exchange relationships. The Roman ver-
sion of friendship, amicitia, so often consisted of a utilitarian trade in services that
ancient and modern observers have debated whether it involved any affection at all,
much less selfless giving.23
Seen from this perspective, gift relationships closely resemble commodity trade,
aiming directly at securing advantage. Just as commodity exchanges can involve
debt, so gift exchanges involve “gift-╉debt.” The intertwining of the two modes of
exchange as complementary ways of exerting of power gives the impression that the
choice between them was simply a matter of tactics.24

THE PROBLEM OF GENEROSITY

There was more to Roman gift giving than just the exercise of power, however. Its
other dimensions can be most easily understood through brief consideration of a
prominent Roman of the late Republic we will examine more closely in �chapter 11,
Cicero’s friend Atticus.
The contemporary biographer Cornelius Nepos writes the following about the
gift giving of Atticus:
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 ERICA viscaria.

CHARACTER SPECIFICUS.

Erica, antheris muticis, inclusis; corollis campanulatis, viscosis; floribus

axillaribus, spicatis; calycibus foliaceis, duplicatis; foliis quaternis,
linearibus, glabris.

DESCRIPTIO.

Caulis fruticosus, bipedalis, erectus; rami et ramuli simplices, longi,

laxi, superne viscosi.
Folia quaterna, linearia, acuta, glabra, juniora in apicibus ramulis
viscosa; petiolis adpressis.
Flores spicati in medio ramulorum, patentes, axillares; pedunculi
brevissimi.
Calyx. Perianthium duplex; foliolis rudibus, viscosis, adpressis,
marginibus glandulosis.
Corolla campanulata, valde mucosa, purpurascens, semiquadrifida;
laciniis reflexis.
Stamina. Filamenta octo linearia. Antheræ muticæ, inclusæ.
Pistillum. Germen globosum. Stylus inclusus, filiformis. Stigma
tetragonum.
Habitat ad Caput Bonæ Spei.
Floret a mensi Aprili, in Julium.

REFERENTIA.

1. Calyx, et Corolla.
2. Calyx, auctus.
3. Corolla.
 4. Stamina, et Pistillum.
5. Stamina a Pistillo diducta.
6. Stamen unum, auctum.
7. Stylus, et Stigma, lente aucta.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER.

Heath, with beardless tips, within the blossoms, which are bell-shaped, and
clammy; the flowers grow from the foot-stalks of the leaves close to the
branches forming close spikes; the cups are like the leaves of the plant, and
are double; the leaves grow by fours, are linear and smooth.

DESCRIPTION.

Stem shrubby, grows two feet high, and upright; the larger and smaller
branches are simple, long, loose and clammy at the ends.
Leaves grow by fours, are linear, pointed, and smooth, the younger ones
are clammy at the ends of the branches; foot-stalks pressed to the stem.
Flowers grow in spikes about the middle of the branches, spreading out,
and growing from the foot-stalks of the leaves; the foot-stalks very short.
Empalement. Cup double; the leaves unequal, clammy and pressed to the
blossom, with small glands on their margins.
Blossom bell shaped, very clammy, purple, half way cleft into four, the
segments bent back.
Chives. Eight linear threads. Tips beardless and within the blossom.
Pointal. Seed-bud globular. Shaft within the blossom and thread-shaped.
Summit four-cornered.
Native of the Cape of Good Hope.
Flowers from April, till July.

REFERENCE.

1. The Empalement and Blossom.

2. The Empalement, magnified.
3. The Blossom.
4. The Chives, and Pointal.
5. The Chives detached from the Pointal.
6. A Chive, magnified.
7. The Shaft and Summit, magnified.
 ERICA Walkeria.

CHARACTER SPECIFICUS.

Erica, antheris muticis, sub-inclusis, foliis quaternis, linearibus, glabris;

floribus sessilibus, erectis, quaternis, terminalibus; calycis foliola margine
membranacea, serrato-lacera.

DESCRIPTIO.

Caulis fruticosus, spithamæus, erectus, ramosus; ramuli frequentissimi,

suberecti.
Folia quaterna, linearia, glabra, crassiuscula, nitida, patentia; petiolis
brevissimis.
Flores sessiles, erecti, fastigiati, quaterni, terminales; fere pedunculati.
Calyx. Perianthium duplex, exterius triphyllum, foliolis subulatis,
marginibus membranaceis, serrato-laceris; interius tetraphyllum, foliolis
longioribus, apicibus carneis, adpressis.
Corolla ventricosa, pellucida, ore arctata, extus pallide sanguinea, intus
alba; laciniis sub-cordatis, expansis, maximis.
Stamina. Filamenta octo capillaria; antheræ muticæ, inclusæ.
Pistillum. Germen turbinatum, læviter sulcatum. Stylus subexsertus,
filiformis. Stigma tetragonum.
Habitat ad Caput Bonæ Spei.
Floret a mensi Februarii in Junium.

REFERENTIA.

1. Calyx lente auctus.

2. Corolla.
3. Stamina et Pistillum.
 4. Stamen unum lente auctum.
5. Pistillum lente auctum.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER.

Heath, with beardless tips, just within the blossom; leaves grow by fours,
linear, and smooth; flowers sit close upon the ends of the branches, upright,
and by fours; the leaves of the cup are skinny at the edge, and sawed as if
torn.

DESCRIPTION.

Stem shrubby, a span high, upright, and branching; smaller branches

numerous, and nearly upright.
Leaves grow by fours, linear, smooth, thickish, shining, and spreading
out; with very short footstalks.
Flowers sit close in upright bunches, by fours, on the ends of the
branches; scarce any footstalks.
Empalement. Cup double, the outer three-leaved, which are awl-shaped,
having the edges skinny, and sawed as if torn; the inner has four leaves,
which are longer than the others; the points flesh-coloured, and pressed to
the blossom.
Blossom bellied out, and pellucid, the mouth narrowed, without a pale
red, white within; the segments nearly heart-shaped, spreading, and very
large.
Chives. Eight hair-like threads; tips beardless, within the blossom.
Pointal. Seed-bud turban-shaped, slightly furrowed. Shaft just without
the blossom, and thread-shaped. Summit four-cornered.
Native of the Cape of Good Hope.
Flowers from February till June.

REFERENCE.
1. The Empalement magnified.
2. The Blossom.
3. The Chives and Pointal.
4. The Chive magnified.
5. The Pointal magnified.
 ALPHABETICAL INDEX
TO THE
FIGURES IN VOL. I.

1. Erica Aitonia
2. .... albens
3. .... ampullacea.
4. .... baccans
5. .... Banksia
6. .... bruniades
7. .... caffra
8. .... calycina
9. .... campanulata.
10. .... capitata
11. .... cerinthoides.
12. .... cernua.
13. .... coccinea.
14. .... conspicua.
15. .... coronata.
16. .... costata.
17. .... cruenta.
18. .... cubica.
19. .... curviflora.
20. .... discolor.
21. .... droseroides.
22. .... exsurgens.
23. .... flexuosa.
24. .... glauca.
25. .... glutinosa.
26. .... grandiflora.
27. .... imbricata.
28. .... incarnata.
29. .... jasminiflora.
30. .... lateralis.
31. .... Leea.
32. .... lutea.
33. .... mammosa.
34. .... marifolia.
35. .... margaritacea.
36. .... Massonia.
37. Erica melastoma.
38. .... monadelphia.
39. .... mucosa.
40. .... Muscaria.
41. .... nigrita.
42. .... obliqua.
43. .... Patersonia.
44. .... Petiveriana.
45. .... physodes.
46. .... pinea.
47. .... β Plukenetia nana.
48. .... pubescens.
49. .... pulchella.
50. .... purpurea.
51. .... pyramidalis.
52. .... radiata.
53. .... ramentacea.
54. .... retorta.
55. .... Sebana aurantia.
56. .... β .... lutea.
57. .... γ .... viridis.
58. .... serratifolia.
59. .... setacea.
60. .... sordida.
61. .... spicata.
62. .... spuria.
63. .... taxifolia.
64. .... tubiflora.
65. .... ventricosa.
66. .... verticillata.
67. .... versicolor.
68. .... vestita alba.
69. ... β.... . purpurea.
70. ... γ .... . coccinea.
71. .... viscaria.
72. .... Walkeria.
 SYSTEMATICAL ARRANGEMENT
OF THE
LXXII ERICAS, OR HEATHS, CONTAINED IN
VOL. I.

Taken from the shape of the tips, and the number of leaves which
surround the stem in one whorle

Antheræ aristatæ. Tips bearded.

Foliis ternis. Leaves by threes.

E. marifolia Marum-leaved, H.
.. pulchella Whipcord-like.
.. discolor Two-coloured.

Foliis quaternis. Leaves by fours.

.. caffra Caffrean.
.. pubescens Downy.
.. mucosa Mucous-flowered.
.. verticillata Whorled-flowered.
.. mammosa Teat-like-flowered.
.. cruenta Bloody.
.. Patersonia Paterson.

Foliis senis. Leaves by sixes.

.. spicata Spike-flowered.

Foliis octonis. Leaves by eights.

.. coronata coronet-flowered.

Antheræ cristatæ. Tips crested.

Foliis sparsis. Leaves scattered.
.. droseroides Sun-dew-leaved.

Foliis ternis. Leaves by threes.

.. calycina Large-cupped.
.. glauca Sea-green.

Foliis quaternis. Leaves by fours.

.. ramentacea Slender-branched.
.. margaritacea Pearl-flowered.
.. lateralis Lateral-flowered.
.. incarnata Flesh-coloured.
.. cernua Nodding-flowered.
.. baccans Arbutus-flowered.
.. physodes Bead-flowered.

Antheræ bicornutæ. Tips two-horned.

Foliis sparsis. Leaves scattered.

.. obliqua Irregular-leaved.

Foliis ternis. Leaves by threes.

.. setacea Bristly-leaved.
.. Aitonia Aiton.
.. jasminiflora Jasmine-flowered.

Foliis quaternis. Leaves by fours.

.. cubica Square-flowered.
.. ventricosa Bellied.
.. ampullacea Flask.
.. conspicua Long-yellow-flowered.
Antheræ Muticæ. Tips beardless.

Foliis oppositis. Leaves opposite.

E. lutea Small yellow, H.

Foliis ternis. Leaves by threes.

.. nigrita Black-tipped.
.. flexuosa Zig-Zag-branched.
.. imbricata Tiled-cup.
.. taxifolia Yew-leaved.
.. albens Whitish-flowered.
.. bruniades Brunia-like-flowered.
.. capitata Woolly-headed.
.. versicolor Various-coloured.
.. costata Ribbed-flowered.

Foliis quaternis. Leaves by fours.

.. Muscaria Musk-Hyacinth-smelling.
.. Walkeria Walker.
.. viscaria Viscous.
.. campanulata Bell-flowered.
.. pyramidalis Pyramidal.
.. radiata Raied-flowered.
.. retorta Filligrane-leaved.
.. serratifolia Sawed-leaved.
.. coccinea Deep-red-flowered.
.. cerinthoides Honey-wort-flowered.
.. Massonia Masson.
.. tubiflora Tube-flowered.
.. curviflora Curve-flowered.
.. spuria Rolling-pin-flowered.
.. sordida Dirty-flowered.
.. grandiflora Large-flowered.
.. exsurgens Ever-flowering.

Foliis scenis. Leaves by sixes.

.. purpurea Purple-flowered.
.. Leea Lee.
.. glutinosa Clammy.
.. pinea Pine-leaved.
.. vestita alba White tremulous.
β ..... purpurea Purple tremulous.
γ ..... coccinea Scarlet tremulous.

Antheræ penicillatæ. Tips pencilled.

Foliis ternis. Leaves by threes.

.. Monadelphia Columnar-threaded.
.. Banksia Banks.
β Plukenetia, nana β Plunkenet, dwarf.
.. melastoma Black-mouthed.
.. Petiveriana Petiver-like.
.. Sebana, aurantia α Seba, orange.
β ....., lutea β ..., yellow.
γ ....., viridis γ ..., green.
 GENERAL LIST OF HEATHS
CULTIVATED BY

Messrs. Lee and Kennedy, Hammersmith, in 1802.

Erica. 1 2 3
1. absynthoides g r p
2. Aitonia d l,b s
3. albens g s,b p
4. ampullacea d l,b s
5. arborea m r l
6. β ... squarrosa m r l
7. γ ... ramosa m r l
8. Archeria d l s
9. arctata g r l
10. articularis g r l
11. assurgens g r p
12. aulacea g r p
13. australis m r l
14. axillaris g r p
15. baccans g r p
16. Banksia g l p,l
17. β ... purpurea g l p,l
18. Blæria g r p
19. β ... rubra g r p
20. bracteata g r p
21. bruniades g r p
22. caffra g r l
23. calycina g r s
24. campanulata g r p
25. canescens d r l
26. capitata g r p
27. β ... minor g r p
28. carinata d b s
29. carnea h r p
30. cerinthoides g l p
31. β ... elatiora g l p
32. cernua d r l,p
33. ciliaris m r p
34. cinerea h r p
35. β ... alba h r p
36. coccinea g l l
37. comosa g s,b p
38. β ... alba g s,b p
39. concolor g l l
40. concinna g l l
41. conspicua g l l
42. coronata d l s
43. corifolia g r p
44. costata g l l,p
45. corymbosa g r p
46. cruenta g l p
47. β ... nana g l p
48. cubica d r s
49. cupressoides d l s
50. curviflora g l p
51. Dabœcii h r p
52. daphneflora g s,b l
53. β ... alba g s,b l
54. declinata g r p
55. denticulata g s,b l
56. densifolia g l p
57. depressa g l p
58. discolor g l l
59. divaricata g r p
60. droseroides d s,b l,p
61. elata g l p
62. elongata g l p
63. empetrifolia g r l,p
64. empetroides g r l,p
65. β ... alba g r l,p
66. enneaphylla d l s
67. erecta g l p
68. exsurgens d l l
69. β ... lutea d l l
70. expansa g r l,p
71. fastigiata g s,b p
72. flammea d l p
73. flexuosa g r p
74. florida g r p
75. florabunda g r l
76. foliosa g l l
77. formosa d l l
78. fucata m r p
79. fulva g l l
80. gelida g l l
81. glauca d s,b s
82. glomerata g r p
83. glutinosa d l s
84. grandiflora g l p
85. halicacaba g l,b l,p
86. hirta g r p
87. hispida g r p
88. hybrida g l p
89. ignescens g l p