Contractors in Ancient Rome

[Faustus]

The Importance of the Contractor in the Social Structure of Ancient Rome (And Other Societies Ancient and Modern)

 

Here is a subject of interest to me. In it I am posing questions and making statements without any firm answers or sources. It is posed as

Edited October 13, 2007 by Faustus

[Nephele]

Greetings, Faustus. Have I got a book for you. Check out Vicki Le

[Faustus]

Greetings, Faustus. Have I got a book for you. Check out Vicki Le

[caldrail]

Was Rome the First Capitalistic society?

I haven't the faintest idea, but Rome certainly was capitalistic. It was the most developed capitalist society of the ancient world and made a virtue of that way of life.

 

How much and in what ways was capitalism in Rome limited if it was?

Caveat Emptor. Since the buyer must beware, then contracting is a sort of inxurance policy that you get what you pay for, since you're able to sue in a roman court for failure to uphold the contract. Since the romans were suing each other at the drop of a hat, clearly there were plenty of tricksters around and possibly not too many laws to prevent such abuses?

 

Was capitalism in Rome a channel for talent (encouraging it with status, monetary rewards, incentives, survival, etc.) much as artist's (and the sciences') Patrons like the Medici were later?

It was, with the priviso that men of quality and standing didn't dirty their hands with grubby business deals. Of course they did, and used agents or slaves to do the work. For middle class romans business success was essential to their future prospects, as without wealth they couldn't rise (or raise their kids) to the senate. For lower class romans, success meant getting fed. Slaves sometimes ran businesses on behalf of their masters and I suspect this sort of position was something the would go to great lengths to be successful at. The alternative? Hard labour or worse?

 

Could the talent needed in all fields to accomplish the needs of Rome have been distributed without the freedom of the marketplace? (thus was it a free market system?)

Romans were hardly socialist. Their society functioned on patronage, the ancestor of fuedalism, where one man agrees to serve another in return for support and preferential treatment. Distibution of talent was n't even close to their thinking. Far from it, it was better to have good men in your service.

 

Is the Free Market the founding force for actual freedom? The leader in "free" market services is the (trader) contractor (including the "general contractor" and the "subcontractor")

No, since not everyone has the capital or talent to create business, therefore some people must necessarily work for others and so relinquish some of their freedoms in order to survive.

 

Wouldn't contractors have then enjoyed more freedom than the bureaucratic types of the Empire?

Perhaps, but since they generally wanted to part of the roman system and do well out of it, they conformed and behaved pretty much s bureaucratic types. There must have been maverick individuals however but I wonder how much actual freedom they had, since 'In Rome, Do As The Romans'. In other words, if you don't fit in you get squeezed out.

 

And: (seemingly unconnected) Is the trading "instinct" the seminal value of freedom's rise in Greece?

There's been a tv series about ancient greece that discussed the rise of democracy. I would say trading has little to do with it.

 

1. MONEY CHASES TALENT ( my own phrase used to "mentor" young would be contractors) This leads to, and translates into the First Value for a Contractor's survival:

Yes, although this should be modified to MONEY CHASES PERCEIVED TALENT AND THOSE WHO FIT IN YOUR POCKET.

 

2. The first value of the successful contractor is to recognize talent. Without that skilled (talented) help no contractor can long succeed against competition, and therefore without which cannot survive. Without "LIVING" that value there is no sustained survival for a Contractor or even a Sub-Contractor; it is their life-blood.

Don't forget patronage. It wasn't a totally free market. If a certain supplier of garum can do odd jobs for you, then you buy his wares, even if there are more talented sellers around, especially if those more talented sellers can part you from your purse all the easier.

 

3. Contractors not only find talent, they distribute talent into the free market-place.

I don't think they searched for talent in such a way. Talent was useful but skilled men weren't going to share those skills easily. Therefore a few talented men and a lot of slaves doing what they're told become the norm.

 

4. Talent brings new ideas and techniques, those too are spread into the marketplace of skills, tools, and methods available

The roman marketplace was nowhere near so forward looking. New ideas and techniques tended to be localised and retained by the inventor in order that he can corner the market. There was no porfit in sharing skills.

 

5. Some were considered greedy, ruthless, opportunists, and are even so today. These seem to be the skills that work to drive (many if not most) contractors to accomplish their goals. (the virtue of selfishness?)

Yes. Some indiviuals in human societies, not just romans, are of a mindset to exploit others.

 

6. We hear a lot about Contractors in ancient Rome; Even tax collecting was "let" out to contractors. (Why? ~~ a partial answer: though some would say tax collecting is not a talent; they perhaps should try collecting money from citizens and strangers, organize the resulting collections, and see how far short they fall in their endeavor, if bereft of talent.)

Romans liked their leisure time, and if you were given an onerous boring duty, why not pay some other scmuck to do the legwork?

 

7. What was the effect of slavery vis-

[Nephele]

Is the Free Market the founding force for actual freedom?...

No, since not everyone has the capital or talent to create business, therefore some people must necessarily work for others and so relinquish some of their freedoms in order to survive.

 

But, what would they be doing, otherwise, if they didn't live in a Free Market state? Those without means to be their own masters will always have to work for others to survive, regardless of where they live. Even in communistic societies, one works for the collective, if not for a single "master."

 

The Free Market is the founding force for freedom because it offers opportunities to become one's own master. Even those lacking in capital or talent to create their own businesses nevertheless have more freedom of choice (in regard to consumer goods and services).

 

-- Nephele

[ASCLEPIADES]

Was Rome the First Capitalistic society?

I haven't the faintest idea, but Rome certainly was capitalistic. It was the most developed capitalist society of the ancient world and made a virtue of that way of life.

Salve, Amici.

 

Then, a couple of questions:

 

- Can you give us an operative definition (or maybe a group of definitions) for "Capitalism"?

 

- Why most historical accounts of Capitalism begin at most at the end of the Middle Ages?

[Faustus]

Was Rome the First Capitalistic society?

I haven't the faintest idea, but Rome certainly was capitalistic. It was the most developed capitalist society of the ancient world and made a virtue of that way of life.

Salve, Amici.

 

Then, a couple of questions:

 

- Can you give us an operative definition (or maybe a group of definitions) for "Capitalism"?

 

- Why most historical accounts of Capitalism begin at most at the end of the Middle Ages?

 

Salve ASCLEPIADES

 

Thank you for the questions: (sorry getting back to you took so long, I had to go out and check on the progress of my subcontractors, and catch things up)

 

Being the author of the topic I will offer my own uninformed definition of Capitalism in the context in which I originally intended in the post:

 

-Capital - The financial means either in monetary form or in property value used as leverage to finance projects. and

 

-Capitalism - a society in which the principal means of financing capital projects (construction, manufacturing, science, even art) are largely in the private sector or are privately held by the citizenry, or by government figures acting as private citizens, and/or the government acting in the same capacity, in regards to public projects, or public works projects, and contracting with those private "capitalists" defined above to realize those projects in cooperation with private entities.

 

The monetary capital can be money issued by the government, or can be promissory notes issued by individual, banks, or government(s) which promise payment monetarily or in kind upon completion of these capital projects.

 

-(Why most. . .) (Durant's CAESAR AND CHRIST CH. XV (sub.ch. VIII.) The Economy and the State)

The Roman economy was a system of laissez faire tempered with state ownership of natural resources-mines, quarries, fisheries, salt deposits, and considerable tracts of cultivated land.(68)

 

Public works were normally let out to private contractors under such strict state supervision that they were usually well done, and with minimum of corruption.(70) About AD 80 such enterprises were increasingly carried out by the emperor's freedmen with the labor of governmental slaves. At all times apparently, the mitigation of unemployment was one purpose of these state undertakings. (71)

 

The aediles supervised retail trade under an excellent system of regulations, but, if we may believe an irate character in Petronius, they were no better than similar officials in other times;

Edited October 15, 2007 by Faustus

[Faustus]

Greetings, Faustus. Have I got a book for you. Check out Vicki Le

Edited October 15, 2007 by Faustus

[Nephele]

After I got the book I was stirred to go look up a local stone carver from a local mill (the owner of which mill I had built a house for back in '86) to carve this Hemicyclium or cavity sundial

 

That's brilliant! Thanks for posting that picture! I don't think I'd seen one of those before, and you carved that yourself? I think I've got another book that pertains to ancient Roman contractors for you, but it's at work. I'll hunt it out later and post here about it.

 

-- Nephele

[Faustus]

After I got the book I was stirred to go look up a local stone carver from a local mill (the owner of which mill I had built a house for back in '86) to carve this Hemicyclium or cavity sundial

 

That's brilliant! Thanks for posting that picture! I don't think I'd seen one of those before, and you carved that yourself? I think I've got another book that pertains to ancient Roman contractors for you, but it's at work. I'll hunt it out later and post here about it.

 

-- Nephele

 

Sorry for any misunderstanding. That is a photo of an ancient Hemicyclium which came tangentially from the topic on first century AD waterclock (or clepsydra).

 

I was searching for something to have carved for my yard. A month or so back Urbs AED. was asking about a memoriam to his father, who'd passed away and so began my search for an apt model to carve from for my own memoriam likewise. For this poster it became Cape Diem, and my research is completed. Now for the action. I've found my carver to duplicate the ancient Hemicyclium the picture of which I posted. It will be complete before the end of November with my own modifications. (I have a limestone cylinder 9" dia. x 39" l to use as a pedestal which had been carved on by my own "pater " 65 years now past).

 

I hope that straightens out any misunderstandings I may have created. . .

 

Valete -

[ASCLEPIADES]

Notes: (68) Pliny, Nat. Hist., ii, 5; (69) ibid., II, 30; (70) II, 33; (71) II, 6, 64; (72) II, 90-92; (73) II, 63; (74) XXXIV, 39

 

I hope that helps, Valete -

That helps indeed, gratiam habeo.

But I had some problems when I was checking out your Plinian notes.

On the translation by Bostock & Riley (Perseus-Tufts Classic Collection online), the titles of the referred chapters are:

 

BOOK II. AN ACCOUNT OF THE WORLD AND THE ELEMENTS.

 

[Nephele]

Sorry for any misunderstanding. That is a photo of an ancient Hemicyclium which came tangentially from the topic on first century AD waterclock (or clepsydra).

 

I was searching for something to have carved for my yard. A month or so back Urbs AED. was asking about a memoriam to his father, who'd passed away and so began my search for an apt model to carve from for my own memoriam likewise. For this poster it became Cape Diem, and my research is completed. Now for the action. I've found my carver to duplicate the ancient Hemicyclium the picture of which I posted. It will be complete before the end of November with my own modifications. (I have a limestone cylinder 9" dia. x 39" l to use as a pedestal which had been carved on by my own "pater " 65 years now past).

 

I hope that straightens out any misunderstandings I may have created. . .

 

Valete -

 

Oops, I think I may have read your original posting on the hemicyclium too quickly, and misunderstood. Sorry! The one you eventually have carved is going to be magnificent, I'm sure -- and I'd like to see a picture of that one when it's done!

 

Okay, here's that other book I'd mentioned, Faustus, that may interest you: Roman Builders: A Study in Architectural Process, by Rabun Taylor (Assistant Professor of History of Art and Architecture at Harvard University).

 

There are several sections in the book that mention ancient Roman contracts and contractors, but in his introduction to the book Taylor differentiates between the simplest building contract type in Roman law, called the stipulatio, and the more, complex, general Roman practice of the standard type of public building contract, called the locatio conductio.

 

An example of the simple stipulatio is given in the form of Cato the Elder's arranging for the construction of a villa, with the price "calculated not by labor, or even by materials, but simply by counting the number of roof tiles used on the building at one sestertius per tile. This contract appears to open-ended. There is no deadline; a season of work presumably sufficed." (Although, in his notes, Taylor states that deadlines could nevertheless be set in a stipulatio.) "No price is fixed, only the formula for calculating it. The tile count and calculation were undertaken after completion by disinterested assessors (mensores), described by the agricultural writer Columella as 'those who measure structures after they have been built and reckon up the cost of the finished work by applying a method of calculation.' The stipulatio remained a popular form of private contract, but its weaknesses -- especially with regard to timely completion -- are well documented in the legal sources."

 

In contrast to the private stipulatio, Taylor cites the late second century BCE Puteoli contract as an example of the more complex, public building contract, the locatio conductio: "It gives a deadline for the conclusion of work. It calls for surety from the contractor against failure to complete the project properly, and it specifies terms of payment -- in this case, half the total sum when the estates of the sureties were registered, the other half upon completion. The sum itself is also specified in this document."

 

Taylor also describes in this section the ancient Romans' bidding process for public contracts, citing Plutarch, who wrote: "When they give public notice of intent to let contracts for the building of temples or colossal statues, listen to the proposals of artists competing for the commission and bringing in their estimates and models, and then choose the man who will do the same work with the least expense and better than the others and more quickly." Sounds familiar, regarding the way we do things today.

 

-- Nephele

[Faustus]

Notes: (68) Pliny, Nat. Hist., ii, 5; (69) ibid., II, 30; (70) II, 33; (71) II, 6, 64; (72) II, 90-92; (73) II, 63; (74) XXXIV, 39

 

I hope that helps, Valete -

That helps indeed, gratiam habeo.

But I had some problems when I was checking out your Plinian notes.

On the translation by Bostock & Riley (Perseus-Tufts Classic Collection online), the titles of the referred chapters are:

 

BOOK II. AN ACCOUNT OF THE WORLD AND THE ELEMENTS.

 

[caldrail]

- Can you give us an operative definition (or maybe a group of definitions) for "Capitalism"?

probably, but I guess it would get pulled apart very quickly on these forums! Actually there are people who can define it better than I. Given the differences in emphasis of roman business a general understanding is sufficient surely? Or otherwise you get bogged down in an arguement over definitions.

 

- Why most historical accounts of Capitalism begin at most at the end of the Middle Ages?

Because the middle ages saw western culture drag itself out of the dark ages and on toward a more sophisicated society that was increasingly properous and wealthy. Farming during the dark ages was very inefficient and unreliable, yet by the end of the medieval period we see farmers becoming wealthy landowners in their own right.

 

Is the Free Market the founding force for actual freedom?...

But, what would they be doing, otherwise, if they didn't live in a Free Market state? Those without means to be their own masters will always have to work for others to survive, regardless of where they live. Even in communistic societies, one works for the collective, if not for a single "master."

 

The Free Market is the founding force for freedom because it offers opportunities to become one's own master. Even those lacking in capital or talent to create their own businesses nevertheless have more freedom of choice (in regard to consumer goods and services).

No. It opens the possibility of freedom for those who succeed in business. Thats a restricted subset of society and thats always been the case. Those are willing to take financial risks and exploit others often reach a point where they can enjoy their success. For those compelled to work for them, those freedoms are unavailable, and one could argue that they have lost freedom by the necessity to work for others. As for working for the state in communistic societies, that has no freedom whatsoever, since that situation is foisted open society and those who operate freely do so because they are bucking the system, and therefore risk an even greater loss of freedom than those who obey the rules. Further, those in higher echelons of such societies usually rise by manipulating their contacts within the hierarchy, not because their business skills are any good.

 

In roman times we see shades of this (I'm not suggesting the romans were communists!). If you want to advance your interests its all very well getting wealthy on business success, but you would find your freedoms curtailed by the expectations of those senior to you. For instance, a merchant who gets above himself in the eyes of the upper classes isn't going to get certain lucrative contracts. Those will go to merchants who know their place. Advancement in roman society is very much a case of influence with influential people, and this impinges on the roman business world.

[Faustus]

Sorry for any misunderstanding. That is a photo of an ancient Hemicyclium which came tangentially from the topic on first century AD waterclock (or clepsydra).

 

I was searching for something to have carved for my yard. A month or so back Urbs AED. was asking about a memoriam to his father, who'd passed away and so began my search for an apt model to carve from for my own memoriam likewise. For this poster it became Cape Diem, and my research is completed. Now for the action. I've found my carver to duplicate the ancient Hemicyclium the picture of which I posted. It will be complete before the end of November with my own modifications. (I have a limestone cylinder 9" dia. x 39" l to use as a pedestal which had been carved on by my own "pater " 65 years now past).

 

I hope that straightens out any misunderstandings I may have created. . .

 

Valete -

 

Oops, I think I may have read your original posting on the hemicyclium too quickly, and misunderstood. Sorry! The one you eventually have carved is going to be magnificent, I'm sure -- and I'd like to see a picture of that one when it's done!

 

Okay, here's that other book I'd mentioned, Faustus, that may interest you: Roman Builders: A Study in Architectural Process, by Rabun Taylor (Assistant Professor of History of Art and Architecture at Harvard University).

 

There are several sections in the book that mention ancient Roman contracts and contractors, but in his introduction to the book Taylor differentiates between the simplest building contract type in Roman law, called the stipulatio, and the more, complex, general Roman practice of the standard type of public building contract, called the locatio conductio.

 

An example of the simple stipulatio is given in the form of Cato the Elder's arranging for the construction of a villa, with the price "calculated not by labor, or even by materials, but simply by counting the number of roof tiles used on the building at one sestertius per tile. This contract appears to open-ended. There is no deadline; a season of work presumably sufficed." (Although, in his notes, Taylor states that deadlines could nevertheless be set in a stipulatio.) "No price is fixed, only the formula for calculating it. The tile count and calculation were undertaken after completion by disinterested assessors (mensores), described by the agricultural writer Columella as 'those who measure structures after they have been built and reckon up the cost of the finished work by applying a method of calculation.' The stipulatio remained a popular form of private contract, but its weaknesses -- especially with regard to timely completion -- are well documented in the legal sources."

 

In contrast to the private stipulatio, Taylor cites the late second century BCE Puteoli contract as an example of the more complex, public building contract, the locatio conductio: "It gives a deadline for the conclusion of work. It calls for surety from the contractor against failure to complete the project properly, and it specifies terms of payment -- in this case, half the total sum when the estates of the sureties were registered, the other half upon completion. The sum itself is also specified in this document."

 

Taylor also describes in this section the ancient Romans' bidding process for public contracts, citing Plutarch, who wrote: "When they give public notice of intent to let contracts for the building of temples or colossal statues, listen to the proposals of artists competing for the commission and bringing in their estimates and models, and then choose the man who will do the same work with the least expense and better than the others and more quickly." Sounds familiar, regarding the way we do things today.

 

-- Nephele

 

Interesting Nephele,

 

Those are the two methods used today. I.e a subcontractor shows up on the job, a concrete finisher for instance, and does the work, and then measures up after. and presents a bill for the work. If there is a disagreement it is handled forthwith. If disagreements are common with a specifice (sub) contractor, then usually the (general) contractor will part company with the sub and find another source. These agreements are managed with a one time handshake which projects into the future until the relationship changes. This applies to any work (brick, block, shingles, ceramic tile, etc.) that can be calculated by count or measurement, and assumptions are made. . . .It is not done with more complicated work that involves "variables". If there are too many variables and they can't be distilled out of the process as reasonable extra charges, then the sub may procede by the hour as a Casual Hourly Worker, and as long as trust is maintained it works out fine. Almost always though, after a time, disputes come about, and the two part company as business associates. ( the stipulatio)

 

(Your material suggests that this is exactly what happened back then.)

 

Therefore it can be seen that this arrangement does not apply to complex structures, or even to ordinary "countable" or "piece" work if the relationship between the two principals has not yet been tested by experience. Neither does it apply between the (general) contractor and the "end "customer, except in unusual cases. Too many problems can arise, and therefore disputes that would land both in court. I.e. I wouldn't undertake to do that even with a good friend, or relative. It spells trouble for everyone. Then, a complete set of specifications come into play, and are rigidly abided by. (the locatio conductio)

 

It appears that these are arrangements do naturally evolve out of relationships where trust speeds thing along to mutual satisfaction. This is true today, and not surprising was true in Rome 2,000 years ago.