古罗马零售业的组织结构

The Structure and Organization of the Retail System in Rome

illustration by Oliver Frey

The retail trade in Rome was evidently a thriving sector of the urban economy and a fundamental component of the urban infrastructure. The retail network was also diverse, encompassing many distinct but complementary modes of sale. Customers could purchase goods from shops, or direct from producers in the commercial units that lined the streets of the city; specialist retailers and producers of goods tended to cluster together in particular streets or districts of Rome, enabling producers, retailers, and consumers to find each other quickly and efficiently, while at the same time facilitating the establishment of interdependent credit relationships and contracts between producers and retailers. The network of fixed shops and workshops was complemented by a system of markets, including the permanent purpose built market structures of the macellum, the high-frequency periodic markets of the nundinae, the numerous commercial fora in the city, and the low-frequency mercatus held in conjunction with religious festivals in Rome. As the population of the city of Rome grew in the late Republic, and the urban economy became necessarily more complex, the nundinae, and in particular the commercial fora, may have taken on more of a wholesale function, but retail and wholesale functions were not mutually exclusive in the Roman world. Indeed, consumers could potentially bypass retailers entirely and go to the quayside or the gates of the city, with their associated horrea, portus, and open commercial spaces, in order to purchase items directly from producers and importers. Traders in these districts were probably selling to a wide variety of consumers, including wholesalers, retailers, and those who wished to buy goods for consumption within their household; this practice was probably particularly prevalent among those with large households, who had the need, the finances, and the necessary storage space to buy goods in substantial quantities.

Other more informal modes of retail were also widespread. Street sellers and ambulant hawkers, for example, were commonplace in Rome. They congregated at central nodes in the city, such as at the circuses, amphitheatres, theatres, bathhouses, temples, and the like, but were also found across Rome, enabling consumers to purchase everyday food, as well as some manufactured goods, in their local neighbourhoods. Auctions also appear to have been a popular mode of sale, cropping up in many different commercial arenas, including not just the more formal auction rooms of the Atria Licinia, but also in the districts around the quayside and gates of the city, in the macella, and the fora; other more informal auctions most probably took place in suitable open spaces within neighbourhoods, or on street corners in Rome. Auctions were a popular means of sale because the overheads were low and they enabled sellers to gauge the demand for particular goods at any one time, thus ensuring that the best possible price was obtained; auctions were also important for the redistribution of second-hand goods in Rome, where the value of goods could be particularly difficult to assess.

The diversity of the retail trade in Rome reflects the variety of commodities sold, since certain forms of retail are especially suited to the sale of particular commodities. Fresh fruit and vegetables, for example, are particularly suited to sale in markets, on street stalls, or by ambulant hawkers. Their perishability means that they cannot be stored for any length of time, but must be sold to consumers almost immediately; the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables also varies seasonally and is, to a certain extent, unpredictable. Flexible and low-cost forms of retail, which can respond quickly to changes in supply and demand, are thus ideal for the sale of fresh food items. Similarly, livestock brought into Rome ‘on the hoof’ was particularly suited to sale in open market spaces, particularly in the various specialist commercial fora of the city.

Other, less perishable, foodstuffs, such as wine, garum, olive oil, grain, olives, cured meat, and the like, could be stored for at least some time before sale; these foodstuffs were thus more suitable to sale from fixed establishments than were fresh items. Certain food items also required further processing before sale. Grain, for example, was very often milled and baked into bread before it reached the final consumer: the process required specialist facilities and equipment, and thus took place in dedicated baking establishments. The bread could then be sold in a shop attached to the bakery, or from street stalls or by ambulant hawkers. Similarly, meat could be processed and sold in macella or tabernae lanienae, but could also be cooked and distributed ready to eat via bars or by ambulant hawkers. Different foodstuffs were thus better suited to certain modes of distribution; sale through markets and stalls was particularly appropriate for fresh food, while less perishable foodstuffs, or those which required further processing before sale, were typically retailed in more fixed locales, although it was possible to reach additional customers by sending out ambulant hawkers.

The manufacture of goods also typically required specialist facilities and equipment, and thus a workshop in a fixed location. Since goods that were manufactured in the city were very often sold directly to the consumer by the craftsman, such workshops also doubled as showcases for a craftsman’s skills, and as shops for his products; areas outside workshops could also be used to display completed products. Crafts-men-retailers may also have widened their potential customer base by selling their products in periodic markets, a phenomenon well documented in medieval Europe, or by entrusting others to sell their wares for them in other locations. Such practices are naturally more suited to certain types of commodities than others. The sale of items such as shoes and cloth, for example, is documented in Roman markets and streets; such items are comparatively easy to transport and would have a relatively high turnover, as the aggregate demand for shoes and clothing generated by the concentration of consumers in the city would be considerable. Bulky or heavy items, however, and those that were purchased only very rarely or had a particularly specialized clientele, such as large pieces of furniture or marble sculpture, were unlikely to be sold beyond the workshop or shop; similarly, although items such as jewellery would be easy to transport to market, issues of security and the specialized nature of the goods in question make their sale in markets or from street stalls unlikely. Such concerns also hold for manufactured goods that were imported into the city: some of the less valuable and less bulky items could be sold through markets or by street sellers, while others were more suited to sale through fixed shops or direct from the horrea in which they were stored upon arrival in the city.

The structure of the retail network was not, however, dictated solely by the nature of the commodities sold. Patterns of consumption in the city also played a crucial role in shaping the retail system. All residents of Rome were consumers, although their level of engagement with the market varied, as did the nature of their consumption. The consumption habits of the wealthy, for instance, naturally differed significantly from those of the poorer residents of the city. The urban households of the elite were to a certain extent supplied with staple goods directly from their suburban or rural properties, although this was supplemented by the purchase of additional food in the city, such as fresh fruit and vegetables, meat and fish, together with imported herbs and spices and other luxury items; those outside these households, however, were entirely divorced from the land and relied solely on the retail sector to provide them with food. Outside the elite sphere residents ranged across a spectrum of wealth in Rome, from the comfortably off to the desperately poor, all of whom were served by the retail trade. The result was a retail system unparalleled in antiquity in its complexity, which was not just a product of the intrinsic differences between the items sold, but also of the social and economic diversity of the city’s population.

Consequently all residents of Rome purchased food in the city, but not very often through the same means: indeed, the process of acquisition and the context of consumption said as much about you in Rome as the food that you ate. Meat and fish, for example, could be procured in several different ways. Rare single fish were auctioned in the macella, fetching high prices from wealthy bidders; less desirable fish from the polluted Tiber were sold to poorer consumers, most likely by market traders and street sellers, since such modes of retail have minimal overheads and thus keep the price of goods low. Similarly, high-quality meat, such as that of ‘wild’ boars hunted on elite villa estates, or that of sacrificial victims, as well as other animals, was offered for sale in the macella, while other residents could buy meat from the butchers scattered throughout Rome.

Focusing solely on the purchase of raw fish and meat, however, assumes that all residents of the city had the means to prepare and to cook their food; since many of the poorest lacked such facilities, and perhaps the means to purchase the necessary fuel to prepare meals, much of their food had to be purchased ready to eat. The meat (and perhaps fish, although there is less evidence for this) eaten by these residents was, therefore, primarily purchased in bars, or from street vendors and hawkers, and took the form of cheaper cuts of meat and prepared items, such as sausages, blood pudding, tripe, and the like. Different food retailers thus served the needs of distinct consumers in various ways, a practice that has broader resonance across the retail sector.

Retailers of manufactured goods could similarly tailor their businesses to suit the consumption patterns of their customers. In general, the operating costs inherent in the sale of goods on a market or street stall, or from a hawker’s tray or basket, are low, but the provision of a fixed shop entails more complex organization and incurs higher overheads in terms of rent, furnishings, decoration, lighting, and the maintenance of permanent premises; these costs would be reflected in the prices charged for goods. Practical concerns notwithstanding, if retailers were selling cheaper manufactured goods to the poorer consumers of the city, they would have adopted a mode of sale that suited their potential purchasers, whose main concern would have been price. Craftsmen who retailed their products directly from their workshops could also keep the cost of goods as low as possible by avoiding the inevitable price increase as a product passes through the hands of a series of middlemen. Those who sold more expensive manufactured goods to wealthier consumers could afford to pay the overheads inherent in the maintenance of a shop, as well as to absorb the high cost of renting or purchasing shops located along one of the more central streets or shopping areas of the city, such as the Vicus Tuscus or the Via Sacra. The financial returns of renting a stall in a structure such as the Saepta in the first century AD must also have been worth the initial investment, as presumably was the potential inconvenience of visiting wealthy consumers in their homes.

The structure and organization of a retail system evidently reflect not just the products sold, but also the consumers that it serves. Thus while one way to approach an analysis of the retail trade would be commodity driven, exploring the means by which different types of goods were sold, this study is deliberately structured in such a way that it focuses on the distinct retail mechanisms and institutions within Rome, and the different functions that they performed, not only in terms of the commodities sold, but also of the consumers served. Taking this approach, the book aims to place the retail trade firmly within the context of the wider urban economy and demonstrate that a retail system is inextricably linked to the broader social and economic environment in which it operates. This includes not only the critical relationship between retail and patterns of consumption, which are governed by factors such as income levels, the nature of the labour market, social structure, and cultural conventions, but also between retail and the supply of goods, a relationship that is in turn influenced by the structure and organization of production, the transport infrastructure, and so on.

Political systems also impact upon the retail trade. Rome, for example, was a privileged city at the head of a vast Mediterraneanwide empire, and rather than relying entirely on the free market to supply the city, the state intervened in the supply of key foodstuffs, particularly grain, which was distributed monthly free of charge to the plebs frumentaria. The annona affected not just the supply of food, but also the demand for goods in the city, since it had the effect of freeing up some of the income of the plebs frumentaria for the purchase of additional food and consumer goods. The aggregate demand for goods generated by the size of the population of Rome—itself a consequence of empire—also ensured an almost guaranteed market for goods, which meant that the city was at the centre of trade networks, while the political pre-eminence of Rome resulted in a concentration of elite wealth that drove a considerable trade in luxury goods. The retail network of Rome thus reflected wider issues in Roman society and its economy.

Alongside state intervention in the importation of key foodstuffs into Rome, some efforts were made to control prices in the city, at least in times of crisis: particular attention was paid to the price of grain.[note1] We might also expect that the sumptuary legislation of the late Republic and Tiberius’s attempts to regulate the annona macelli annually had some effect on the prices charged in the macella, although there is no evidence for this. For the most part prices in the city were subject to market principles, fluctuating in response to supply and demand.[note2] Horace’s description of wandering through Rome asking the price of vegetables and flour would only make sense if prices varied, and the widespread use of auctions and haggling to settle on a price also indicates the fluctuating value of goods and services in the city.[note3]

For the most part, the retail trade appears to have been largely unplanned, evolving in response to the needs and desires of the population, and their means to consume. It was, however, subject to certain institutional controls. Particular goods or modes of distribution, for example, were subject to taxation. Augustus instituted a tax on auction sales, which was later revoked by Gaius, although the latter subsequently introduced a new tax on foodstuffs sold in the city; this unpopular tax, the details of which are unclear, was later revoked, most probably by Nero. Augustus also instituted a tax specifically on the sale of slaves, and Nero shifted the responsibility for this tax from the buyer to the seller.[note4] The retail trade was no doubt also affected by the customs boundary that surrounded Rome from at least the late first century, enabling taxes to be levied on all goods imported into the city for sale. A clearly-delineated customs border, marked out by boundary stones in the second century AD, facilitated the collection of taxes, while the practice of announcing auction sales in advance presumably simplified the process of ensuring that the appropriate taxes were paid.

Implementing a more general tax on the sale of foodstuffs must have been more problematic, which perhaps explains Gaius’s use of the Praetorian Guard to collect, or at least enforce, payment.[note5] The mobility of ambulant food vendors and the temporary nature of many stalls probably meant that street sellers could avoid payment of any tax more readily than those who traded in fixed locations. Indeed, beyond a concern with keeping the streets passable and maintaining the dignity of certain public spaces, street traders themselves appear to have been largely unregulated. It would have been easier to levy taxes on food sold in fixed establishments such as cookshops, which were also subject to various regulations concerning the nature of the food sold, particularly in the first century; these regulations were initially enforced by the aediles, but at some point control passed into the hands of the urban prefect. Similarly, while the aediles were responsible for the regulation of markets and the enforcement of standard weights and measures in the late Republic and the early empire, this role was later undertaken by the urban prefect. The retail trade was, therefore, subject to some regulation and attention on the part of the authorities in Rome, particularly in the early empire when various taxes were levied on retail sales, although the distributive sector was by no means stymied by such interventions; on the contrary, it appears to have flourished.

A functioning distribution system was vital to the survival of the city of Rome and its residents; as this study has demonstrated, by far the greater part of this distribution was organized through the thriving retail network. Such a network was complex, reflecting both the range of products sold and the range of social groups served, with numerous different but complementary institutions working together to supply the population of the city. Retail also provided many in Rome with their livelihood; this is not necessarily the ‘city of shops [and]... nation of shopkeepers’ hypothesized by Purcell, since the tabernae on which this statement is based are much more than shops, while the retail network itself was comprised of a much wider variety of locations and mechanisms of sale, but this was certainly a city characterized by commerce.[note6] Slaves, freed, and freeborn worked in commercial structures such as horrea, tabernae, and macella, but were also found buying and selling in the more open spaces of the quayside, fora, and streets of the city, as well as in the arcades, colonnades, and porticoes. The retail trade was one of the most visible manifestations of the urban economy in Rome, with retailers throughout the city competing vigorously for the attention of potential customers. Shops and workshops spilled out over their thresholds, stallholders blocked the paths, ambulant vendors wandered the neighbourhoods, live animals were driven through the streets to market, and auction sales took place in public spaces: the shopper in ancient Rome was spoilt for choice.

Notes

1. For interventions in the price of grain see e.g. Tac. Ann. 2. 87, 15. 39. See also discussion in Erdkamp, P. 2005. The Grain Market in the Roman Empire. Cambridge.: 240–257, 283–306. Diocletian’s Price Edict governing the maximum price that could be charged for goods and services was not issued until AD 301 and was quickly rescinded; for a text and translation, see Rees, R. 2004. Diocletian and the Tetrarchy. Edinburgh.: 139–145.
2. Cf. Harris, E. M. 2002. ‘Workshop, Marketplace, and Household: The Nature of Technical Specialisation in Classical Athens and its Influence on Economy and Society’, in P. Cartledge, E. E. Cohen, and L. Foxhall (eds.), Money, Labour and Land. Approaches to the Economies of Ancient Greece*. Cambridge: 76f for the market dictating prices in classical Athens.
3. Hor. S. 1. 6. 111–14
4. Dio 55. 31. 4; Tac. Ann. 13. 31. Dio gives a figure of 2% for this tax, Tacitus gives 4%.
5. Suet. Cal. 40.
6. Purcell, N. 1994. ‘The City of Rome and the plebs urbana in the Late Republic’, in J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and B. Rawson (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History,ix. The Last Age of the Republic 146–43 BC. 2nd edn. Cambridge.: 659.

Extract from C. Holleran, Shopping in Ancient Rome: The Retail Trade in the Late Republic and the Principate. Oxfor Universty Press, 2012. p.258ff