Ph. D. Assist. Prof. Mădălina Strechie University of Craiova (madalinastrechie@yahoo.fr)
Résumé:
L΄ordre équestre représente une réalité sociale de Rome Antique. Il a eu une organisation similaire d΄une classe sociale qui a évolué au même temps que la pouvoir romain. Il avait sa propre hiérarchie bien établie : cursus equester.
Key words : order, social class, equester
The name of order, ordo in Latin, implies some linguistic and sociological definitions. Order: category of beings, things, facts, classed by their characteristics.
Especially in Antiquity, the equestrian order – the knight class in Rome (trad.n.).1
In the freemen category there were different classes as a result of the social origin or wealth; actually we should rather speak of order than of social class, because the word ordo implies a definition and official recognition that really existed.
Ordo equester - its name and origin come from a military classification and it is related to the organization of the 193 centuries.2
Orders are economical and social classes, as the required census attested. They are functional categories, constrained in regularized careers in the state service; each ordo offers visible honors, ornamenta, officially for knights starting with Lex Visellia from year 24 A.D.3
One can talk about orders in Rome starting with the 3rd century B.C., when there begin to stand out two essential factions based on census: one with juridical functions assigned to the rich and the other with fiscal functions assigned to the knights.
In the year 123 B.C. it becomes an irreversible process for the two factions to divide their power. The fiscal attributions become the monopoly of the knights, while the senators begin to have political attributions, being a sort of „avant la lettre”4 power separation.
In fact, ordo is a class, a rank, if we accept the definition of Titus Livius about the conditions required to the knights: „… The second class containing those whose census was over 100000 sesterces, up to 65000 and consisting of 20 centuries of young and old men. Their weapons were similar to those of the first class, but they didn’t have any
1 *** Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la langue française LE MAXIDICO, Éditions de la Connaissance, Clé, Paris, 1997, p.782.
2 *** Larousse Dicţionar de civilizaţie romană, Jean-Claude Fredouille, professor la Universitatea Paris X-Nanterre, traducere de Şerban Velescu, Editura Univers Enciclopedic, Bucureşti, 2000, pp.52-53.
3 Marcel Bordet, Istoria Romei Antice, Traducere: Maria Ivănescu, Editura Lider, Bucureşti, p.296.
4 Claude Nicolet, Le métier de citoyen dans la Rome Républicaine, Éditure Galimard, Paris, 1976, p.13.
armour…”1
The definitions of ordo, as a class of the Roman society, actually prove the righteousness of Titus Livius’ words, ordo being a social reality, a constitutive part of the Roman society. Its definitions are multiple, but those that worth retaining are the sociological ones. Linguistically, the word is explained in the following way: „Ordo, inis, s.m., 1. row, line; 2. (mil.) line (of soldiers); 3. century; 4. (rank of) centurion; 5. social class, rank; 6.(fig.) order.2” So, it involves especially a military side, which is correct in the knights’ case and by analogy the notion is extended also to the aristocracy, which gradually loses the appellation of patricians to the appellation of ordo senatorius.
For a better understanding of what ordo really stood for, we need the sociological definition of the social class. It is complex, including several definitions that we selected, presenting in our study the most important ones.
“The social class is a very large group of people, who share common economic resources that strongly influence the life style. The class of an individual can be acquired.
The wealth possession, together with the occupation, represents the main reasons of the class differences.” 3
So, as a social class, ordo is: „a form of stratification in which the affiliation to different social groups and the relations between them are determined firstly by economic criteria. They are social groups, hierarchically arranged in a social system in which they define themselves as related to others and not as separate entities.” 4
Knights really formed a social group, being a constitutive part of the Roman social stratification, which was: „the hierarchical arrangement of a set of social groups on a scale constituted on one or several criteria.” The main criteria of a social class are „status honor – social estimation of the prestige…; it is always based on distance and exclusion…
Prestige is the one that forms the conditions, situations or status groups, while the factor that forms the classes is the economic interest.” 5
The economic factor is the main difference in the Roman society and implies:
„two major dimensions of the social class: property and control.”6
Exactly these two dimensions can be observed very well in the Roman society through the existence of the two orders: ordo senatorius and ordo equester; so, if one had the landed property, the other one detained the economic control, each of them having its own role in the Roman politics and economy, corresponding to „some special characteristics and professions, based on the consciousness of common interests…at Romans, the classes are differentiated mainly by wealth, the difference between wealth and income…The social class is a group of people, based on identical social interests and functions, an organization of people in order to exert some particular social functions.”7
Each of these two orders had its well-established role in the Roman society,
1 Ibidem, p.14.
2 Gehorghe Guţu, Dicţionar latin-român, ediţie revăzută şi completată, Editura Ştiinţifică, Bucureşti, 1993, p.285.
3 Anthony Giddens, Sociologie, Ediţia a III-a, traducere de Radu Săndulescu şi Vivia Săndulescu, Central European University Press, Editura Bic All, Bucureşti, 2001, pp.266-267.
4 *** Dicţionar de Sociologie, coordonatori Cătălin Zamfir, Lazăr Vlăsceanu, secretariat Alfred Bulai, Editura Babel, Bucureşti, 1998, p.99.
5 Ibidem, p.551.
6 Ibidem, p.225.
7 Petre Andrei, Sociologie generală, Ediţia a IV-a, colecţia Collegium-Sociologie, Editura Polirom, Fundaţia Academică „Petre Andrei”, Iaşi, 1999, pp.352-357.
according to the reform in the royalty time they had different military obligations, if we think about the number of centuries that each of them had to arm or about the political honors, the census or the participation to the civic life.
Each of them had its own type of wealth „from the evaluation parameters of the individuals’ social prestige.” 1
The notion of prestige also contributes to the definition of social class given to ordo equester, because the order members could inherit this privilege by birth or could obtain it due to some personal merits, prestige being: „socially attributed by the simple inheritance of some traditions and by occupying some social positions (status) or can be personally acquired through the successfully realization of some activities with social resonance…The factor that produces the most common hierarchy of the individual and social prestige is the occupation…”2
For the definition of the equestrian order we must take into account the fact that, according to the sociological theories, it is one of the social postures where: „...there existed the division of the social work and the incomes, inequality in wealth possession, life styles, cultural behavior or even differences in the moral authority hierarchy.”3
The Roman political regime was one based on social castes (the noticeable ones were the two social-political categories on top of the social hierarchy: the members of the senatorial order and the equestrian order), because there are features of castes in their actions in the city; „persons are ranked by heredity in some categories legally defined, politically known and functionally specialized…”4
The social hierarchy of Rome during the time of orders used to organize its social categories by „the partition of power, prestige and wealth… the goods mentioned inevitably represent the stake of competition between the society members.”5
The configuration of the existent classes and categories, which differ by the way of formation and working, is in rapport of interaction and interdependence, that is class structure. Classes can also be divided in possessor classes, which own the wealth and the acquisition classes, which have the monopoly on some services and the highest chances to accede to the power. There is also social stratification in the classes, based on some criteria as wealth, power, prestige, culture, education, profession and income, which can be treated in correlation or in rapports of competitiveness. 6
In any social system there is a certain hierarchy of status, tightly related to the social stratification, political, administrative and military organization. Each type of society imposes a certain type of classification criteria as: birth or social heredity, inheritance, political or military power, wealth, culture.7
The status is the position that a certain individual, group or social class occupies in
1 Dumitru Otovescu, Probleme fundamentale ale Sociologiei, Editura Scrisul Românesc, Craiova, 1997, p.182.
2 ***Dicţionar de Sociologie, coordonatori Cătălin Zamfir, Lazăr Vlăsceanu, secretariat Alfred Bulai, Editura Babel, Bucureşti, 1998, pp.443-444.
3 ***Larousse. Dicţionar de Sociologie, Coordonatori: Raymond Boudon, Philippe Besnard, Mohamed Cherkaoui, Bernard-Pierre Lécuyer. Traducere Maria Ţuţuianu. Completări privind sociologia românească dr. Maria Larionescu, Editura Univers Enciclopedic, Bucureşti, 1996, p.54.
4 Ibidem, p.42.
5 Ibidem, pp.128-129.
6 Dumitru Otovescu, Sociologie Generală, Colecţia Sociologie contemporană, Ediţia a II-a, Editura Beladi, Craiova, 2005, pp.356-365.
7 Ibidem, p.229.
a micro or macro-social system, at a certain moment and from which result some rights or duties. The general status included status of familial, professional, occupational, civic or religious orders. 1
The status could also be attributed by the force of circumstances that is nationality, gender, and wealth. There is also the acquired status, got by the individual through his efforts, the professional status. The professional status in the caste-based societies is imposed by heredity and is expressed through a specific symbolism, which illustrates the characteristic status of social categories. 2
Society is an integrated ensemble of unities, institutions and social processes
„conduit collective printability”.3
I will prove that the equestrian order falls under these sociological definitions, especially as the Roman political regime is one formed of social classes. Two of them were the most important ones, in fact they formed the social hierarchy: the senatorial order and the equestrian order. The Roman orders share their power, wealth and prestige, but, because of the territorial-political expanding of Rome, the knights will exceed both the wealth and the power of the senators, although they cannot exceed their prestige. They correspond very well to the definition of the social classes.
The equestrian order shared with the senatorial order these general characteristics of the social classes. Due to the imperial administration, knights were both possessor class and acquisition class, detaining practically the monopoly over the Roman finances.
So, the order had also a social prestige that is they detained a certain consideration, a certain role - the dynamic aspect of the status, the exercitation, the effective application of rights and obligations provided by the status in relation to other persons or institutions.
The status of the Roman knights was both of familial and extra-familial nature, that is, they could inherit it. As it happens in most of the cases, the knight and the senatorial rank could be inherited and at the same time they could acquire a professional status, superior to their social condition, as for example homines novi or primipili, former centurions who became knights due to their professional merits. The professional status of knights is expressed through a specific symbolism, represented by the knight ring and the angusticlavia.
To better understand the multitude of the social valences of the equestrian order, we will prove other influences of this order in the Roman society, through the influence that it had over the society components such as: social structure, organization, dynamic, order, change, development, control and factors.
The social structure – composition of social collectivities – is a system of component parts such as: social positions, subgroups, institutions, classes. The structure is the formation or the formation principles of a whole. 4
The social structure integrates only the relations that play an essential role, fundamental for the existence of a society, conferring it a specific quality. 5
The social organization is an ensemble of means that orders the conducts, actions, tendencies and aspirations of the members of a group. 6
The dynamic of the social reality is expressed through social phenomena, which
1 Ibidem, p.226.
2 Ibidem, pp.227-229.
3 Ibidem, p.250.
4 Ibidem, p.388.
5 Ibidem, p.389.
6 Ibidem, p.388.
represents an interlacing of series and groups of facts. The social phenomenon is produced by the social environment and institutions.
Social changes usually manifest themselves through the apparition of some new elements, functions and qualities and the disappearance of some old ones.
The social development is a positive-directed change of a social system, a contradictory and complex process. 1
The social control is the process through which a society imposes its will on the individuals and, in this way, it maintains its own internal cohesion. So, the social control presents a certain aspect of constraining. Through the social control the unity of a society is strengthened.
The main instruments of social control are: public opinion, law, belief, faith, education, custom, social religion, personal ideal, ceremonies, art, illusions, social evaluations and morality. 2
The equestrian order was, together with the senatorial order, a constitutive part of the social structure in the Roman society, through its subordinated institutions. The structure of the equestrian institutions – and I refer here to the whole imperial administration - was the exclusive domain of the Roman knights. This administration had certain principles and hierarchy.
The social positions of knights were different according to their salary and the accomplished missions. The quality of relations between knights was a specific and at the same times a special one.
Knights also contributed to the organization of the Roman society, especially through their conducts, aspirations and tendencies to appropriate, beside the economic power, the political one.
All the knights could (through their main representatives) produce social phenomena that determined social changes, as for example the praetorian prefects who attained to proclaiming emperors.
The economic dynamic of the Roman society was due firstly to the Roman knights, because they represented the drive force of the imperial economy through the administrative functions and the coordination of the provincial and commercial exploitations.
War was a successful business of the Roman knights, as through war they became a social class. By each war fought by the Roman power, the equestrian order has evolved and developed, as it administrated the conflict. So pax romana was the product of this social class, too.
The social development of the Roman Empire was due mostly to the Roman knights, who, by accumulating capital, became the main factors of social development.
The bankocracy of Rome was an equestrian one and, as Rome came to rule the world, the equestrian order was its tool of submission, exploitation and also of organization of conquests.
These are social characteristics of the equestrian order by the sociological definitions, which offers a precise image of its complexity and importance in the Roman society. In fact, this is a framing of the equestrian order in the sociology pattern.
1 Ibidem, pp.412-416.
2 Ibidem, pp.456-457.
Bibliography:
1. Agabrian, Mircea, Sociologie generală, Colecţia Universitaria 49, Seria Sociologie, Institutul European, Iaşi, 2003.
2. Andrei, Petre Sociologie generală, Ediţia a IV-a, colecţia Collegium-Sociologie, Editura Polirom, Fundaţia Academică „Petre Andrei”, Iaşi, 1999.
3. Bordet, Marcel, Istoria Romei Antice, Traducere: Maria Ivănescu, Editura Lider, Bucureşti.
4. *** Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la langue française LE MAXIDICO, Éditions de la Connaissance, Clé, Paris, 1997.
5. *** Dicţionar de Sociologie, coordonatori Cătălin Zamfir, Lazăr Vlăsceanu, secretariat Alfred Bulai, Editura Babel, Bucureşti, 1998.
6. Giddens, Anthony, Sociologie, Ediţia a III-a, traducere de Radu Săndulescu şi Vivia Săndulescu, Central European University Press, Editura Bic All, Bucureşti, 2001.
7. Guţu, Gheorghe, Dicţionar latin-român, ediţie revăzută şi completată, Editura Ştiinţifică, Bucureşti, 1993.
8. *** Larousse Dicţionar de civilizaţie romană, Jean-Claude Fredouille, profesor la Universitatea Paris X-Nanterre, traducere de Şerban Velescu, Editura Univers Enciclopedic, Bucureşti, 2000.
9. ***Larousse. Dicţionar de Sociologie, Coordonatori: Raymond Boudon, Philippe Besnard, Mohamed Cherkaoui, Bernard-Pierre Lécuyer. Traducere Maria Ţuţuianu. Completări privind sociologia românească dr. Maria Larionescu, Editura Univers Enciclopedic, Bucureşti, 1996.
10. Nicolet, Claude, Le métier de citoyen dans la Rome Républicaine, Éditure Galimard, Paris, 1976.
11. Otovescu, Dumitru, Probleme fundamentale ale Sociologiei, Editura Scrisul Românesc, Craiova, 1997.
12. Otovescu, Dumitru, Sociologie Generală, Colecţia Sociologie contemporană, Ediţia a II-a, Editura Beladi, Craiova, 2005.