4 ms·

While this is all true (and I think the parent is mostly a joke...), my understanding is that the Roman aristocracy that Tiberius was born into considered thems

While this is all true (and I think the parent is mostly a joke...), my understanding is that the Roman aristocracy that Tiberius was born into considered themselves Farmers in the same way that the modern American politician identifies with the Small Business Owner (or indeed, if you go far enough back, the Yeoman Farmer). It was more a moral/identity narrative than a thing they actually did. They certainly owned the villas but whether they engaged in any way with the actual work (even in the capacity of "boss") of such places... maybe their servants, or their wives...

ggm 3y ago
Surely Cato the Elder's writing on the economic exploitation of slaves points to a degree of detail in the disposition of cost/benefit against their production? Other fictional writing I read suggests engagement in "trade" was beneath the senatorial classes, and so acquisition of land and it's economic exploitation underwrote what was considered "acceptable" sources of revenue. Oddly, not entirely unlike the British Landed classes. They didn't like to admit that their land holdings had coal mines, where sheep gently grazing was acceptable.
- dmreedy 3y ago
  > Surely Cato the Elder's writing Cato was, incidentally, a novus homo, not born into a Patrician family. His father was a pleb and a soldier and a farmer, and he was as well. > Other fictional writing I read suggests engagement in "trade" was beneath the senatorial classes [...] Oddly, not entirely unlike the British Landed classes Yeah, the vibe I get was that this was a feature of most? pre-capitalist societies.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > Yeah, the vibe I get was that this was a feature of most? pre-capitalist societies. Yes, commerce and labor are both taboo for elites in most premodern societies. There are some obvious exceptions; the Phoenicians wouldn't have seen anything wrong with engaging in commerce.
    - inawarminister 3y ago
      Yeah, many trading cultures never had this injunction: for example Malay sultans rise and fall with the prosperity of their entrepots, exporting spices and rice and importing chinaware and Indian riches. * On the other hand... Confucianism puts merchants as one of the lower members of society, because they do not add value as artisans. Edo Japan famously had caste of samurai on the top, farmers on the middle, and merchants on the lowest.
  - scns 3y ago
    > a feature of most? pre-capitalist societies My prejudice would be that new money (by trade) is still looked down upon by old money (inherited/landowners/dynasties). By those with low self-esteem.
    - dmreedy 3y ago
      > By those with low self-esteem Exactly the prejudice such old money would (and to your point, still does) hold against "merchants".

ggm 3y ago

Surely Cato the Elder's writing on the economic exploitation of slaves points to a degree of detail in the disposition of cost/benefit against their production? Other fictional writing I read suggests engagement in "trade" was beneath the senatorial classes, and so acquisition of land and it's economic exploitation underwrote what was considered "acceptable" sources of revenue. Oddly, not entirely unlike the British Landed classes. They didn't like to admit that their land holdings had coal mines, where sheep gently grazing was acceptable.

dmreedy 3y ago
> Surely Cato the Elder's writing Cato was, incidentally, a novus homo, not born into a Patrician family. His father was a pleb and a soldier and a farmer, and he was as well. > Other fictional writing I read suggests engagement in "trade" was beneath the senatorial classes [...] Oddly, not entirely unlike the British Landed classes Yeah, the vibe I get was that this was a feature of most? pre-capitalist societies.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > Yeah, the vibe I get was that this was a feature of most? pre-capitalist societies. Yes, commerce and labor are both taboo for elites in most premodern societies. There are some obvious exceptions; the Phoenicians wouldn't have seen anything wrong with engaging in commerce.
  - inawarminister 3y ago
    Yeah, many trading cultures never had this injunction: for example Malay sultans rise and fall with the prosperity of their entrepots, exporting spices and rice and importing chinaware and Indian riches. * On the other hand... Confucianism puts merchants as one of the lower members of society, because they do not add value as artisans. Edo Japan famously had caste of samurai on the top, farmers on the middle, and merchants on the lowest.
- scns 3y ago
  > a feature of most? pre-capitalist societies My prejudice would be that new money (by trade) is still looked down upon by old money (inherited/landowners/dynasties). By those with low self-esteem.
  - dmreedy 3y ago
    > By those with low self-esteem Exactly the prejudice such old money would (and to your point, still does) hold against "merchants".