ROMAN URBAN TOPOGRAPHY in Britain and the western Empire

Civic Pride: a factor in Roman town planning S S Frere
A variety of motives may lie behind the erection of public
monuments, ranging from piety to self-advertisement,
from political propaganda to love of animals. These
motives are often penetrated or revealed in literate periods
by evidence such as wills or the inscriptions carved on the
monuments themselves to make explicit the name of the
donor and his reasons for expenditure; but in the absence
of such evidence, as at prehistoric monuments or in
Roman Britain, there is room for considerable divergence
of interpretation. We must also always remember that
Civic Pride can be both corporate and individual.
In studying the ancient world it is provident to keep in
mind the relatively small populations forming the communities
of that time, in which personal knowledge of the
majority of other citizens was-far more widespread than it
is today, and personal reputation was correspondingly
more intimate and more vivid. We have to make the
imaginative leap back to the ethos of a pre-industrial
society, where the responsibilities of a landlord for his
tenant or of the rich for expenditure on public purposes
were far more powerful social obligations than they are
today, and where the absence of journalists placed far
greater emphasis on deeds than on words in the attraction
of political support. In the modern world these attitudes
have been eroded by high taxation and by other forms of
legislation based on the theory that the state can provide
more uniformly and more efficiently — a theory whose
validity in its turn is now beginning to be in doubt.
In the ancient world, of course, public expenditure by
the rich was not always the product of voluntary benevolence,
because for many centuries there had existed the
system of ‘liturgies’ as they were known in the Greek east,
or munera in the Latin west, a system not unlike in its
effects the surtax of more recent times; by it certain duties,
often involving expenditure, were regularly and compulsorily
shouldered by the rich. On the whole these duties
were principally connected with transport and food
supply, with public entertainment, or with membership
of delegations, and are not therefore of prime concern to
us here; nor are the compulsory contributions payable by
successful candidates for office.
Two questions are more relevant: (1) what expenditure
in addition to compulsory burdens was voluntarily undertaken
by the rich; and (2) whether ‘civic pride’ can be
included among the motives for the spending. We have to
remember that although altruism certainly existed, as it
still exists today, there were clearly other motives too,
connected with self-advertisement and the search for
popularity for political ends; altruism and private interest
cannot always be easily distinguished. One can identify
both streams of motive, for instance, in the so-called
Marble of Thorigny, an inscription from Vieux in Normandy,
the capital of the Viducasses (CIL, 13, 3162;
Pflaum 1949). Here T Sennius Sollemnis in outlining his
early 3rd-century career tells us that he was the son of
34
Sollemninus, had been four times elected IIvir, and had
served all public offices including augur in his civitas as
well as having undertaken seven munera (or compulsory
public expenditures) there. He had been flamen perpetuus
in his home civitas as well as priest of the Imperial Cult at
Lyon, where he had given a very expensive gladiatorial
show (another compulsory duty). He goes on to say that he
had completed the bath building begun by his father and
had bequeathed capital for its future maintenance. The
gift of the bath building was not a compulsory munus but
an act of benevolence in keeping with his social position.
But in making the gift he was no doubt also strengthening
the political standing which eventually brought him to the
highest position in Roman Gaul, the imperial priesthood
and presidency of the Council of the three provinces.
Public benefactions by an individual might take one of
two forms. Many gave money for public festivals and
games, or for public banquets and distributions of cash,
no doubt preferring or needing the immediate popularity
which this ephemeral expenditure secured them. A good
example is attested in a letter to the city of Ephesus from a
proconsul of Asia, written in 104:
Aquilius Proculus, vir clarissimus, to the magistrates,
council and people of Ephesus, greeting.
Knowing Vibius Saturninus to be an excellent
citizen in all other respects, and knowing also that on
many occasions previously he has provided many
quite exceptional demonstrations of his munificence,
I held him, as was right, among the most
intimate of our friends; and now, since he has
undertaken to adorn the city magnificently with the
greatest and most notable benefactions . . . and has
devoted 20,000 denarii for distributions and lotteries
for the citizens, I consider that you too, in
consideration of the benefits which he has already
bestowed upon you and those which he now promises,
acted properly in repaying his munificence and
good will by granting him the honours which you
have decreed . . . (Abbott & Johnson 1926, no 71).
But a sounder and more sceptical view is expressed in a
letter from Antoninus Pius to the same city, written in
145:
The emperor . . . Antoninus Pius . . . to the magistrates,
council and people of Ephesus, greeting. The
munificence which Vedius Antoninus generously
bestows upon you I have discovered, not so much
from your letter as from his. For wishing to secure
assistance from me towards the embellishment of
the public works which he has promised you, he
made plain how numerous and how splendid are the
buildings which he is adding to the city; yet you do
not appreciate him as you should. For my part, I