Autarchy and the Rural Economy in the Early Roman Empire: The Literary Evidence

David Hollander

Iowa State University

“Whoever buys what his farm could supply him with,” Pliny the Elder declares in his Natural History, “is a worthless farmer” [18.40].  Scholars used to interpret such remarks as evidence for self-sufficient behavior.  This interpretation conformed well with the view, forcefully championed by Polanyi and Finley, that the ancient economy was ‘embedded’ in social relations and not primarily governed by market forces (Polanyi, 1957: 71; Finley, 1999: 110).  Recently, however, new evidence for rural monetization has raised doubts about the validity of this interpretation (Howgego, 1992: 20; Von Reden, 2002: 148).  Some historians now argue that the literary sources used as support for the concept of autarchy present an idealizing rural fantasy and that ‘real’ peasants regularly used coinage to buy and sell goods at local markets (Paterson, 1998: 158; Horden & Purcell, 2000: 272).  A survey of recent work on the ancient economy indicates that no new consensus currently exists.  Many historians continue to accept the idea of ancient rural self-sufficiency, though its precise nature has become increasingly ill-defined.  Some scholars, for example, consider it a local or regional phenomenon rather than a domestic one (Hopkins 1995/6: 61).  Others have suggested that self-sufficient behavior was limited to staple foods (de Ligt, 1993:130).  Since the vast majority of Greeks and Romans were directly engaged in agriculture, the extent to which they were autarchic is of critical importance for our understanding of the ancient economy in general.  The more dependent that farm households were on external exchange, the greater their aggregate demand as consumers and the more substantial their collective impact on (and exposure to) macroeconomic phenomena such as inflation and changes in the supply and circulation of money.  Therefore, in order to build a more effective model of the ancient economy, it is essential to gauge the extent to which rural households interacted with the market.

My paper, part of a broader study of household management in the Roman world, examines the early Imperial literary texts usually interpreted as promoting self-sufficiency.  In addition to considering Pliny’s treatment of Roman agriculture, I will focus in particular on passages from Petronius and Columella.  In the Satyricon Petronius portrays Trimalchio as practicing near absolute self-sufficiency.  One of his guests, for example, warns “you must not suppose… that he [Trimalchio] buys anything. Everything is home-grown” [38].  Columella’s description of the ideal farm seems to advocate a similar kind of extreme self-sufficiency since he expects such a property to have woods, willow groves, reed thickets, olive groves, vineyards, copses, gardens, pastures and a quarry [1.2.3-5].  When viewed in their proper context, I argue, passages such as these cannot be viewed as even advocating autarchy much less as evidence for its practice.