Ryan Davis Citizenship and Identity The question of Roman citizenship was a point of debate from the first time Rome started expansion. This continued at least until, as the Giessen Papyrus recounts, Caracalla granted Roman citizenship �to all throughout the world except the dediticii, local citizenship remaining intact.� The aims of all involved were not clear-cut; the non-citizens didn�t necessarily want to gain citizenship and the Roman citizens to withhold the citizenship. This was due to the consequences of being a Roman citizen, which were far-reaching in their scope. The notion of �being� Roman was a point of pride for the inhabitants of Rome and many who had gained the citizenship. It also brought its rewards. The Acts of the Apostles 22:22-29 recount Paul�s saving from flogging by cause of being a Roman citizen: 25b: (Paul speaking) �is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who has not even been found guilty of anything� 29b: The commander himself was alarmed when he realised he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains. This is an example of how the privilege of Roman citizenship offered some protection from more barbarous forms of justice. The author of Acts lived in Roman times and would have been well aware of the rights of a Roman citizen. Being a Roman citizen meant being �more Roman�. This had consequences for culture, both of the new citizens and for current. When the citizenship was still limited, Roman citizens were clearly at least Italian, but eventually the ethnic diversity of the Roman citizens was notable, Britons through Semitic people to Africans. The identity both of the provincials and of the Roman citizens was blurred and diluted. Tacitus records Claudius asking the Senate to allow the provincials, �intermingled with the Roman people, united by ties of affinity, by culture and behaviour, be one people with us.� Roman citizenship did no just affect the individual benefactor. The Lex Irni describes the rules for inheritance of citizenship: �� (Magistrates of Irni) are to be Roman citizens, along with their parents and wives and any children who are born in legal marriages and have been in the power of their parents, likewise their grandsons and granddaughters born to a son.� The rules are described in more detail, but the complexities of citizenship and the role of �improving� the status of you and your family was important. Citizenship was a prerequisite for the right to enter the Roman Senate. Though the power of this structure had diminished over time, it was still a prestigious and sought after establishment. The granting of citizenship to provincials had both support and opposition. Tacitus, in his Annals, records the proposal by Claudius to allow the citizens of Gallia Comata entry to the Senate. Here we get examples of opposition to new Senators (from existing Senators) and support for allowing provincial Senators (from Claudius). The Senators in opposition are quoted as saying: �Are we to see a flood of foreigners poured in on us, as if the city were taken by storm?� Claudius recounts that the peoples of the whole of Italy became citizens and provided Senators, he also says that they will be of benefit to Rome: �It is in the interests of the state that merit, wherever found, should be transplanted to Rome and made our own.� This source gives a clear indication of both sides of the coin for the Romans, the speeches may not be historically precisely recorded, but Tacitus was a Senator and would have had access to the records of debates and the crux of the arguments. Roman citizenship was not just a practicality; it was also a matter of honour and prestige, at least in the early stages of the empire. It was granted to those who had somehow earned it, either through connections, military success or other achievements. The �Tabula Banisitana�, when discussing Julianus the Zegrensian records an example where the rarity of granting of citizenship is mentioned: �� although Roman citizenship, except when it has been evoked by very great services, is not normally granted to members of those peoples by imperial indulgence.� Aelius Aristides records the honour and prestige of being a Roman citizen in his tract To Rome: �Most noteworthy by far and most marvellous of all is the grandeur of your concept of citizenship. � For you have divided the people of the empire into two classes: the more cultured, better born and more influential everywhere you have declared Roman citizens and even of the same stock; the rest vassals and subjects.� Aristides illustrates powerfully the status that citizenship conferred upon those who obtained it. Conversely, the loss of citizenship was a shameful act. Dio recounts Claudius stripping a Lycian envoy of his citizenship: �When the man failed to understand what Claudius said, he took away his citizenship with the observation that a man who didn�t understand the language of the Romans had no right to be one.� This was following dispute where Lycians had killed some Romans, so perhaps Claudius was being harsh in his actions but it was still a punishment intended to cause shame. The concept of citizenship within the Roman Empire was not limited to just being a Roman citizen. The conquest of other nations/ empires had led to many variations in local laws. Dio of Prusa�s Discourse is an example of how one could be both a Roman citizen and a citizen of a provincial city (though in this case, two provincial cities), gaining benefits and disadvantages of both: �I partake of both; for my grandfather, along with my mother, acquired from the emperor of that day, who was his friend, not only Roman citizenship, but along with it citizenship in Apamea too, while my father got citizenship here from you.� This made him a citizen in all three regards. Many inhabitants of the Roman Empire did not wish to be Roman citizens. The causes of this were varied, but they essentially boiled down to the fact that these people wanted autonomy and felt that the Romans were an oppressive regime, imposing slavery and destroying their local culture. Roman citizenship was a powerful symbol of the rule of the Romans. It was implicit that the Romans were the controllers. The Babylonian Talmud recounts the story of three Rabbis of opposing views on their Roman rulers and the consequences enacted by the Romans due to these views: ��Judah who exalted shall be exalted. Jose who remained silent shall be banished to Sopphoris. Simeon who reproached should be put to death.�� The Jews were hostile to the Romans and were notoriously prone to uprising and rebellion. Tacitus in his account of Agricola tells of how the Britons were subjugated to Roman rule at the loss of their individual culture, though they thought they were becoming civilised: �All this, in their ignorance, they called civilisation, when it was but part of their servitude.� In the same tract, Tacitus also recounts how the Briton leader Calgacus encouraged the Britons to fight saying how the Romans ravage the land and inhabitants: ��Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder drained the land dry, they lay waste the sea.�� This shows native resistance to Roman rule and all the trappings of such. Overall, being a citizen of Rome was more than just a title. It conferred considerable benefits on the benefactors but had a sting in its tale as it removed independence and the cultural identity. The Greco-Roman culture may have been attractive to some, but many did not feel this way.
