No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

It was long held that there was no labour market in Rome, with the freeborn population viewed as an idle one. Carcopino, for example, described the recipients of the grain distributions as 'idlers, chronically out of work and well satisfied to be so', while Louis talked of a 'proletariat', able to 'live in idleness'. 1 This idleness was supposedly facilitated by two key institutions: the grain distributions, which fed the population at the expense of the state, and slavery, which enabled the freeborn to live a life of leisure while work was undertaken by slaves and ex-slaves. Thus while the existence of wage work in Rome (and in the Roman world in general) was recognised, it was viewed as a marginal activity, spasmodic and casual in nature. 2 Yet the free inhabitants of Rome could not live off public munificence alone. 3 While the grain distributions were relatively generous, adequately meeting the calorific requirements of more than a single adult male, the amount distributed was not enough to feed a family, and diets still had to be supplemented with other food. 4 Moreover, they were based on status rather than need and were open only to a subset of adult male citizens; the number of recipients was apparently reduced from 320,000 to 150,000 by Caesar, and fixed at just over 200,000 by Augustus in 2 BC. 5 Furthermore, while slaves and freedmen may dominate the record of occupational inscriptions from Rome, this should be viewed primarily as a consequence of the particular 'epigraphic habit' of this group, rather than forming an accurate reflection of the profile of

No abstract