The history of the growth of paternalism in the Roman Empire is still to
be written. It would be a fascinating and instructive record. In it the
changes in the character of the Romans and in their social and economic
conditions would come out clearly. It would disclose a strange mixture of
worthy and unworthy motives in their statesmen and politicians, who were
actuated sometimes by sympathy for the poor, sometimes by a desire for
popular favor, by an honest wish to check extravagance or immorality, or
by the fear that the discontent of the masses might drive them into
revolution. We should find the Roman people, recognizing the menace to
their simple, frugal way of living which lay in the inroads of Greek
civilization, and turning in their helplessness to their officials, the
censors, to protect them from a demoralization which, by their own
efforts, they could not withstand. We should find the same officials
preaching against race suicide, extravagant living, and evasion of public
duties, and imposing penalties and restrictions in the most autocratic
fashion on men of high and low degree alike who failed to adopt the
official standards of conduct. We should read of laws enacted in the same
spirit, laws restricting the number of guests that might be entertained on
a single occasion, and prescribing penalties for guests and host alike, if
the cost of a dinner exceeded the statutory limit. All this belongs to the
early stage of paternal government. The motives were praiseworthy, even if
the results were futile.
With the advent of the Gracchi, toward the close of the second century
before our era, moral considerations become less noticeable, and
paternalism takes on a more philanthropic and political character. We see
this change reflected in the land laws and the corn laws. To take up first
the free distribution of land by the state, in the early days of the
Republic colonies of citizens were founded in the newly conquered
districts of Italy to serve as garrisons on the frontier. It was a fair
bargain between the citizen and the state. He received land, the state,
protection. But with Tiberius Gracchus a change comes in. His colonists
were to be settled in peaceful sections of Italy; they were to receive
land solely because of their poverty. This was socialism or state
philanthropy. Like the agrarian bill of Tiberius, the corn law of Gaius
Gracchus, which provided for the sale of grain below the market price, was
a paternal measure inspired in part by sympathy for the needy. The
political element is clear in both cases also. The people who were thus
favored by assignments of land and of food naturally supported the leaders
who assisted them. Perhaps the extensive building of roads which Gaius
Gracchus carried on should be mentioned in this connection. The ostensible
purpose of these great highways, perhaps their primary purpose, was to
develop Italy and to facilitate communication between different parts of
the peninsula, but a large number of men was required for their
construction, and Gaius Gracchus may well have taken the matter up, partly
for the purpose of furnishing work to the unemployed. Out of these small
beginnings developed the socialistic policy of later times. By the middle
of the first century B.C., it is said that there were three hundred and
twenty thousand persons receiving doles of corn from the state, and, if
the people could look to the government for the necessities of life, why
might they not hope to have it supply their less pressing needs? Or, to
put it in another way, if one politician won their support by giving them
corn, why might not another increase his popularity by providing them with
amusement and with the comforts of life? Presents of oil and clothing
naturally follow, the giving of games and theatrical performances at the
expense of the state, and the building of porticos and public baths. As
the government and wealthy citizens assumed a larger measure of
responsibility for the welfare of the citizens, the people became more and
more dependent upon them and less capable of managing their own affairs.
An indication of this change we see in the decline of local
self-government and the assumption by the central administration of
responsibility for the conduct of public business in the towns of Italy.
This last consideration suggests another phase of Roman history which a
study of paternalism would bring out--I mean the effect of its
introduction on the character of the Roman people.
The history of paternalism in Rome, when it is written, might approach
the subject from several different points. If the writer were inclined to
interpret history on the economic side, he might find the explanation of
the change in the policy of the government toward its citizens in the
introduction of slave labor which, under the Republic, drove the free
laborer to the wall and made him look to the state for help, in the
decline of agriculture, and the growth of capitalism. The sociologist
would notice the drift of the people toward the cities and the sudden
massing there of large numbers of persons who could not provide for
themselves and in their discontent might overturn society. The historian
who concerns himself with political changes mainly, would notice the
socialistic legislation of the Gracchi and their political successors and
would connect the growth of paternalism with the development of democracy.
In all these explanations there would be a certain measure of truth.
But I am not planning here to write a history of paternalism among the
Romans. That is one of the projects which I had been reserving for the day
when the Carnegie Foundation should present me with a wooden sword and
allow me to retire from the arena of academic life. But, alas! the
trustees of that beneficent institution, by the revision which they have
lately made of the conditions under which a university professor may
withdraw from active service, have in their wisdom put off that day of
academic leisure to the Greek Kalends, and my dream vanishes into the
distance with it.
Here I wish to present only an episode in this history which we have been
discussing, an episode which is unique, however, in ancient and, so far as
I know, in modern history. Our knowledge of the incident comes from an
edict of the Emperor Diocletian, and this document has a direct bearing on
a subject of present-day discussion, because it contains a diatribe
against the high cost of living and records the heroic attempt which the
Roman government made to reduce it. In his effort to bring prices down to
what he considered a normal level, Diocletian did not content himself with
such half-measures as we are trying in our attempts to suppress
combinations in restraint of trade, but he boldly fixed the maximum prices
at which beef, grain, eggs, clothing, and other articles could be sold,
and prescribed the penalty of death for any one who disposed of his wares
at a higher figure. His edict is a very comprehensive document, and
specifies prices for seven hundred or eight hundred different articles.
This systematic attempt to regulate trade was very much in keeping with
the character of Diocletian and his theory of government. Perhaps no Roman
emperor, with the possible exception of Hadrian, showed such extraordinary
administrative ability and proposed so many sweeping social reforms as
Diocletian did. His systematic attempt to suppress Christianity is a case
in point, and in the last twenty years of his reign he completely
reorganized the government. He frankly introduced the monarchical
principle, fixed upon a method of succession to the throne, redivided the
provinces, established a carefully graded system of officials, concerned
himself with court etiquette and dress, and reorganized the coinage and
the system of taxation. We are not surprised therefore that he had the
courage to attack this difficult question of high prices, and that his
plan covered almost all the articles which his subjects would have
occasion to buy.
It is almost exactly two centuries since the first fragments of the edict
dealing with the subject were brought to light. They were discovered in
Caria, in 1709, by William Sherard, the English consul at Smyrna. Since
then, from time to time, other fragments of tablets containing parts of
the edict have been found in Egypt, Asia Minor, and Greece. At present
portions of twenty-nine copies of it are known. Fourteen of them are in
Latin and fifteen in Greek. The Greek versions differ from one another,
while the Latin texts are identical, except for the stone-cutters'
mistakes here and there. These facts make it clear that the original
document was in Latin, and was translated into Greek by the local
officials of each town where the tablets were set up. We have already
noticed that specimens of the edict have not been found outside of Egypt,
Greece, and Asia Minor, and this was the part of the Roman world where
Diocletian ruled. Scholars have also observed that almost all the
manufactured articles which are mentioned come from Eastern points. From
these facts it has been inferred that the edict was to apply to the East
only, or perhaps more probably that Diocletian drew it up for his part of
the Roman world, and that before it could be applied to the West it was
repealed.
From the pieces which were then known, a very satisfactory reconstruction
of the document was made by Mommsen and published in the _Corpus of Latin
Inscriptions_.[88]
The work of restoration was like putting together the parts of a picture
puzzle where some of the pieces are lacking. Fragments are still coming to
light, and possibly we may have the complete text some day. As it is, the
introduction is complete, and perhaps four-fifths of the list of articles
with prices attached are extant. The introduction opens with a stately
list of the titles of the two Augusti and the two Cæsars, which fixes the
date of the proclamation as 301 A.D. Then follows a long recital of the
circumstances which have led the government to adopt this drastic method
of controlling prices. This introduction is one of the most extraordinary
pieces of bombast, mixed metaphors, loose syntax, and incoherent
expressions that Latin literature possesses. One is tempted to infer from
its style that it was the product of Diocletian's own pen. He was a man of
humble origin, and would not live in Rome for fear of being laughed at on
account of his plebeian training. The florid and awkward style of these
introductory pages is exactly what we should expect from a man of such
antecedents.
It is very difficult to translate them into intelligible English, but some
conception of their style and contents may be had from one or two
extracts. In explaining the situation which confronts the world, the
Emperor writes: "For, if the raging avarice ... which, without regard for
mankind, increases and develops by leaps and bounds, we will not say from
year to year, month to month, or day to day, but almost from hour to hour,
and even from minute to minute, could be held in check by some regard for
moderation, or if the welfare of the people could calmly tolerate this mad
license from which, in a situation like this, it suffers in the worst
possible fashion from day to day, some ground would appear, perhaps, for
concealing the truth and saying nothing; ... but inasmuch as there is
only seen a mad desire without control, to pay no heed to the needs of the
many, ... it seems good to us, as we look into the future, to us who are
the fathers of the people, that justice intervene to settle matters
impartially, in order that that which, long hoped for, humanity itself
could not bring about may be secured for the common government of all by
the remedies which our care affords.... Who is of so hardened a heart and
so untouched by a feeling for humanity that he can be unaware, nay that he
has not noticed, that in the sale of wares which are exchanged in the
market, or dealt with in the daily business of the cities, an exorbitant
tendency in prices has spread to such an extent that the unbridled desire
of plundering is held in check neither by abundance nor by seasons of
plenty!"
If we did not know that this was found on tablets sixteen centuries old,
we might think that we were reading a newspaper diatribe against the
cold-storage plant or the beef trust. What the Emperor has decided to do
to remedy the situation he sets forth toward the end of the introduction.
He says: "It is our pleasure, therefore, that those prices which the
subjoined written summary specifies, be held in observance throughout all
our domain, that all may know that license to go above the same has been
cut off.... It is our pleasure (also) that if any man shall have boldly
come into conflict with this formal statute, he shall put his life in
peril.... In the same peril also shall he be placed who, drawn along by
avarice in his desire to buy, shall have conspired against these statutes.
Nor shall he be esteemed innocent of the same crime who, having articles
necessary for daily life and use, shall have decided hereafter that they
can be held back, since the punishment ought to be even heavier for him
who causes need than for him who violates the laws."
The lists which follow are arranged in three columns which give
respectively the article, the unit of measure, and the price.[89]
Frumenti K̄M̄
Hordei K̄M̄ unum Ⅹ̶ c(entum)
Centenum sive sicale " " " Ⅹ̶ sexa(ginta)
Mili pisti " " " Ⅹ̶ centu(m)
Mili integri " " Ⅹ̶ quinquaginta'
The first item (frumentum) is wheat, which is sold by the K̄M̄
(kastrensis modius=18½ quarts), but the price is lacking. Barley is
sold by the kastrensis modius at Ⅹ̶ centum (centum denarii = 43 cents)
and so on.
Usually a price list is not of engrossing interest, but the tables of
Diocletian furnish us a picture of material conditions throughout the
Empire in his time which cannot be had from any other source, and for that
reason deserve some attention. This consideration emboldens me to set down
some extracts in the following pages from the body of the edict: