What do you think?
Rate this book
Being a Roman Citizen
The status of citizen was increasingly the right of the majority in the Roman empire and brought important privileges and exemption from certain forms of punishment. However, not all Roman citizens were equal; for example bastards, freed persons, women, the physically and mentally handicapped, under-25s, ex-criminals and soldiers were subject to restrictions and curtailments on their capacity to act. Being a Roman Citizen examines these forms of limitation and discrimination and thereby throws into sharper focus Roman conceptions of citizenship and society.
- GenresHistory
252 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1993
1 person is currently reading
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 23, 2025
I bought this back in the mid-nineties, at Stanford Univerity book store, when I was fascinated by all things Roman and they still had all manner of exotic, academic books one couldn't find anywhere else (instead of the logo'ed sweatshirts and tees they have now) . It was shrinkwrapped and only when I got home did I discover my mistake: it's only meant for Roman historians.
So it has sat on the shelf unread for some twenty years until now. And I agree: really only of interest to Roman historians, maybe legal historians in general, and possibly someone who wants to set a legal thriller in ancient Rome. I could just see someone taking one of these obscure laws and making it the linchpin of an entire case.
Chapters are
1. The disabilities of Roman citizens (rights of men vs. women, children, slaves, freed and so on)
2. Birth: the freedman's condition
3. Dependence: the adult child
4. Gender: the independent woman
5. Behaviour: disgrace and disrepute (convicts and particular professions)
6. Participation: the handicapped citizen (deaf, mute, blind, insane)
7. Conclusion: face-to-face society
One thought was that it's amazing how much we do know about laws written so very long ago. The author uses both preserved texts and inscriptions that were put up in public places around the empire, but I guess a main reason is that laws are one set of texts that, like prayers, are constantly useful and referenced, and therefore worth preserving.
The other thought is that while one would imagine ancient peoples subject to skimpy laws and arbitrary judges, it really wasn't the case. The Romans quantified and clarified everything, citing precedents and changes in the law over the centuries much as is still done today. They covered all the situations, for example the different rights of the pater, the wife, her blood relatives, sons, grandsons, daughters, freedmen born free, freedmen born slaves, and on and on. One special category was "auctioneers, undertakers, ushers and umpires". Why are they a group? Because all would tend to get hired by the state from time to time - auctioneers for estate sales, undertakers for state-paid funerals, ushers for public events and umpires for the games. Therefore, no one in any of these careers could hold public offices. Part of it was no doubt a Roman penchant for organization, but also just the sheer number of people in the empire who needed justice dispensed.
This topic is probably not for most people, but if you can appreciate a magisterial treatment that uncovers every possible shred of evidence and organizes and ponders it in a believable and supportable way to present an amazingly comprehensive picture, you can stand back and simply marvel at this work.
So it has sat on the shelf unread for some twenty years until now. And I agree: really only of interest to Roman historians, maybe legal historians in general, and possibly someone who wants to set a legal thriller in ancient Rome. I could just see someone taking one of these obscure laws and making it the linchpin of an entire case.
Chapters are
1. The disabilities of Roman citizens (rights of men vs. women, children, slaves, freed and so on)
2. Birth: the freedman's condition
3. Dependence: the adult child
4. Gender: the independent woman
5. Behaviour: disgrace and disrepute (convicts and particular professions)
6. Participation: the handicapped citizen (deaf, mute, blind, insane)
7. Conclusion: face-to-face society
One thought was that it's amazing how much we do know about laws written so very long ago. The author uses both preserved texts and inscriptions that were put up in public places around the empire, but I guess a main reason is that laws are one set of texts that, like prayers, are constantly useful and referenced, and therefore worth preserving.
The other thought is that while one would imagine ancient peoples subject to skimpy laws and arbitrary judges, it really wasn't the case. The Romans quantified and clarified everything, citing precedents and changes in the law over the centuries much as is still done today. They covered all the situations, for example the different rights of the pater, the wife, her blood relatives, sons, grandsons, daughters, freedmen born free, freedmen born slaves, and on and on. One special category was "auctioneers, undertakers, ushers and umpires". Why are they a group? Because all would tend to get hired by the state from time to time - auctioneers for estate sales, undertakers for state-paid funerals, ushers for public events and umpires for the games. Therefore, no one in any of these careers could hold public offices. Part of it was no doubt a Roman penchant for organization, but also just the sheer number of people in the empire who needed justice dispensed.
This topic is probably not for most people, but if you can appreciate a magisterial treatment that uncovers every possible shred of evidence and organizes and ponders it in a believable and supportable way to present an amazingly comprehensive picture, you can stand back and simply marvel at this work.
Displaying 1 of 1 review