\"Year of Caesar and the Depend Adult Undergarment\"

[Epictetus]

I am currently reading David Foster Wallace’s magnificent novel Infinite Jest. In it, the names of years have been sold to corporate sponsors, so you have things like “Year of the Whopper”, “Year of the Trial-Size Dove Bar” and “Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment.”

This got me to thinking about the naming of years in Rome. (Who knows? Perhaps this also influenced Wallace.) We know consuls were expected to spend a great deal of money on the public when they ascended to the office and had the honour of giving their names to years. Do we have any evidence that the naming of consuls, or any particular consul, was primarily driven by monetary considerations?

[Nathan Ross]

David Foster Wallace’s magnificent novel Infinite Jest.

Great book! (although I never expected to see it mentioned on RAT...) mile:

Do we have any evidence that the naming of consuls, or any particular consul, was primarily driven by monetary considerations?

That would be interesting - nothing springs to mind though. I believe all senatorial positions carried financial obligations; Quaestors and Aediles both had to pay for games. But since, in the principiate at least, there never seems to have been a shortage of candidates I would assume that the fabulously rich families of the latus clavus were happy to compete for the privilege...

Things were different in the later empire, of course, when we hear of wealthy men (initially the more precarious decurion class, later the senators) shirking their responsibilities and attempting to withdraw from public life, and legislation to try and force them to step up and shell out. Plus the more blatant tokenism of the later era, with 14-year-olds being made consul and so on...

But I suppose what we'd be looking for is direct evidence that Senator X was chosen as consul solely because he was offering (or could be made to offer) more to the imperial fisc than Senator Y: a sort of competitive financial bidding for office, in other words. That would need a lot more combing through sources than I care to do at the moment, but hopefully somebody might have some clues...

[Lyceum]

What do you mean? Do you mean about how Roman years were named? If so they were named after the first consul, yes, he gave his name to the year. Roman Calenders are a fascinating topic and lots and lots of great research has been done on them. Feeney's book is the most recent high profile if not the most technical and well loved.

As for why consuls were chosen there were a myriad of complex factors, including things like fictive genealogies etc which make it very difficult to understand what little evidence we have. Basically might be worth looking specifically into some of the more anthropology inspired work on Rome in this area though something more general like, say, Fowler's "Roman Republics", might have something to.

Not I'm talking Republic(s)/Principate not high Empire which is completely different and we have lots of nice evidence and studies.

[Epictetus]

I’ve been thinking about wealth and its obligations in the Empire recently, especially as I’m also reading Peter Brown’s Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (I’ll post more about this book as I progress).

The nobles were expected to use their wealth for their communities, but this was tied to honours. If they were given the honour of an office, they had to reciprocate with spending money. But this was a delicate balancing act. Sometimes the wealthy tried to avoid this. Aelius Aristides’ letters of frantic begging to be judged as a sophist, so he wouldn’t have to serve as a magistrate, is one of the best examples.

What I’m curious about is if any consuls were chosen precisely because of their wealth and what they could spend on the public. Think of it as a 2,000 year old version of naming rights.

I can’t think of any specific examples either, but this wouldn’t surprise me.

[Lyceum]

Ah, I see.

Well, a proper liturgy system was evident in some Greek polities like Athens from the Classical period onwards and if you have time and want to take a break away from Rome you can explore some of the legal machinery and forensic speeches from the 5th/4th centuries. Fascinating stuff. Especially whenever people tried to avoid paying their dues.....

Rome was, as always, considerably more complex to understand. You have to understand that in general offices were unpaid whereas it was simply fas/pietas etc to spend lavishly on them so straight away it was expensive as hell. Hence why towards the end of the Republic money lending got so insane, why prosopographies show Senatorial families moved in and out of the that rank unless they were exceedingly wealthy etc.

We probably ought to view Roman political spending as part of a wider net of power legitimisation stategies, establishing cultural hegemony, conspicuous consumption etc. In other words, where as there may have been a sense of obligation towards the populi (which was heavily strengthened under the Empire) we should first and foremost examine this behaviour in how Rome's elite players could use it to differentiate amongst themselves.

Its hard to over estimate the sheer prestige of having Baths, Roads, Temples, Libraries named after oneself or one's families come election time. Seriously, without understanding Roman Religions generally and the power of the ancestor more specifically in social/political discourse there is no chance of understanding Rome.

Its hard to phrase in modern terms, but a lot of Roman culture makes sense when subjected to this paradigm even though we (thankfully) don't quite view politics and society like this anymore. It does make your respect for the various novi homines rise magnificently though, doesn't it, when you understand the sheer obstacles they faced?