Plebeians and Patricians

[Pompieus]

Most of the patrician families had died out or, at least were in no position economically to compete for the consulship during the late republic, and Augustus attempted to remedy this by creating new patrician families.

 

Most of the patrician families had died out? What's the basis of such a claim? And how many new patrician families did Augustus create anyway? Wasn't this mostly a reward for his cronies?

 

 

Like any good politician Augustus rewarded his supporters, but he also wanted to be seen as a good traditional Roman and tried to restore the number of patrician families. As to the fate of the old patriciate all there is for evidence is the consular fasti. After the civil wars the Iulii are obviously prominent, and there are still some Cornelii (mosty "suffectus" though) some Aemilii and Claudii, a couple of Valerii and a lone Fabius, Sulpicius and Marcius (wasn't Servilius Vatia a pleb?). Patrician names are not numerous, and the old names (Manlius, Postumius, Quinctius, Furius, Papiius: not to mention the really old ones like Foslius, Nautius, Veturius, Sergius, Cloelius etc) are absent. No?

[M. Porcius Cato]

As to the fate of the old patriciate all there is for evidence is the consular fasti.

But that's just not true. The consular fasti don't tell us whether the gens had died out, only whether they continued to gain consular imperium. If the old patrician families died out, we should hear no more of the Valerii (e.g.) from any of our sources-- letters, coins, histories, etc.

[georgious]

The quality of "nobility", according to M. Gelzer (and I think still mainly accepted today) belonged to descendants of all those who at some time had held the highest public office viz. dictatorship, consulship or consular tribunate.

 

The definition of "equestrian" is variable. It originally meant those citizens registered in the 18 "equestrian centuries" who performed their military service on horseback. Later it meant those Romans of wealth who chose not to pursue public office and entrance to the senate (a "middle class"?).

 

The "patricians" were definitally a hereditary, rather than an economic class. Consider the economic straights to which Sulla (a patrician Cornelius) was reduced in his youth, and the desperate measures Catilina (a patrician Sergius) was willing to take to restore his families' status. Most of the patrician families had died out or, at least were in no position economically to compete for the consulship during the late republic, and Augustus attempted to remedy this by creating new patrician families.

The book by Gelzer you must be reffering is Romishce Aldeienpartein-I do not know German I just reproduce haphazardly the title I remember- a book that had as a main thesis that Roman political parties were actually factions of nobles. It is a thesis. The point is that supreme offfices were opened to rich plebeians who were incorporated in the emerging nobilitas.Patrician comes from pecus-pecoris which means sheep and signifies those that had large amounts of cattle which gave them a position of economic and therefore social dominance in the archaic roman community.Another bastion of patrician privilege and power was the monopolization of the priesthood as well as the knowledge of procedural law which become known to the plebeians-the furmulae- through Maximus Coruganius. This is a theory of course, the one I was taught in law school.AS for the Equestrian they were actually an upper-middle class, including rich tax-farmers-who lobbied in Rome for Wars of conquest and were at loggerheads with reasonable governors of provinces-by Roman standards-such as luculus.They were very important for the functioning of the Empire-for example during Augustus the governor of Egypt could not be a senator but an equis- a knight.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Patrician comes from pecus-pecoris which means sheep and signifies those that had large amounts of cattle which gave them a position of economic and therefore social dominance in the archaic roman community.

An imaginative etymology, but almost certainly wrong. "Patrician" is most likely derived from patres, meaning father, which was how the senate was collectively addressed.

[Pompieus]

Matthias Gelzers book is Die Nobilitat des romischen Republik first published in 1912. Romische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien was published by Friederich Munzer in 1920; both are available in English now. These are the seminal works in this area, and were used by Syme, Taylor, Badian, Holmes, Gruen et al as the basis for their work. While some of the specific conclusion reached by the German scholars of the last age have been challenged (such as the co-option of dominant families in allied towns by leading Roman families), the general theses are still accepted by scholars are they not?

 

Niether work denies that non-patrician families could gain access to the magistracies and thus entered the ruling nobilty.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Matthias Gelzers book is Die Nobilitat des romischen Republik first published in 1912. Romische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien was published by Friederich Munzer in 1920; both are available in English now. These are the seminal works in this area, and were used by Syme, Taylor, Badian, Holmes, Gruen et al as the basis for their work. While some of the specific conclusion reached by the German scholars of the last age have been challenged (such as the co-option of dominant families in allied towns by leading Roman families), the general theses are still accepted by scholars are they not?

 

The differences between Gelzer and Gruen are too numerous to list, but you're right that no one disagrees that non-patrician families could gain access to the magistracies. Calling the magistrates of the Roman republic 'nobility,' however, obfuscates much more than it clarifies.

[Nephele]

As to the fate of the old patriciate all there is for evidence is the consular fasti.

But that's just not true. The consular fasti don't tell us whether the gens had died out, only whether they continued to gain consular imperium. If the old patrician families died out, we should hear no more of the Valerii (e.g.) from any of our sources-- letters, coins, histories, etc.

 

That's a good point, MPC, that the consular fasti shouldn't be the only source on which to rely when taking a census of patricians. But... although the Valeria gens didn't die out, isn't it also true that not every branch of the Valerii was patrician?

 

I think it's interesting that Harvard classics scholar, Mason Hammond (who recently passed away), based his similar conclusion (that the patricians were dying out) on the composition of the Roman Senate throughout the years of the Empire.

 

Hammond cited the "traditional view" (held by historians from Tacitus to Gibbon) that the patrician families had been decimated under imperial persecution, but Hammond's own assertion was that the patrician families had been dying out anyway, simply due to the fact that they weren't perpetuating themselves. In fact, Hammond stated that even senatorial families of plebian status experienced a population decline for the same reason.

 

In his article titled "Composition of the Senate, A.D. 68-235" (The Journal of Roman Studies, 1957), Hammond illustrated the decline of patricians of Republican ancestry in the Roman Senate by providing statistical averages under the various emperors, starting with 16 percent under Augustus and declining to 4.5 percent under Nero. He further stated that the same decline was also seen among those families that had been elevated to patrician status under Augustus and Claudius. Of those 26 families, only 16 were still represented under Nero's rule, 9 under Vespasian, and a mere 6 under Trajan.

 

Perhaps Hammond was making the same error as those who might rely on the consular fasti as an indication that the patricians were dying out -- and that the Senate alone might not be the best indicator of the population status of a social class. But (and this is my own conclusion, perhaps wrong but what the heck I'll throw it out there anyway) considering that membership in the Senate was viewed as a birthright by patricians, perhaps it might logically follow that the representation of patricians in the Senate at any particular time might therefore be a fairly likely indication of the prevalence of patricians in the general population.

 

Side note to P. Nonius Severus: What a great link you provided for a listing of the Roman gentes! Many thanks -- I've bookmarked that one.

 

And, while on the subject of great links, I'll mention another great one since it applies to the question of the etymology of the word "patrician", and confirms what MPC wrote earlier in this thread (that the word is derived from the Latin word for "father"):

 

Etymology Online

 

Authoritative sources used for Etymology Online are cited here.

 

-- Nephele

[Pompieus]

Matthias Gelzers book is Die Nobilitat des romischen Republik first published in 1912. Romische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien was published by Friederich Munzer in 1920; both are available in English now. These are the seminal works in this area, and were used by Syme, Taylor, Badian, Holmes, Gruen et al as the basis for their work. While some of the specific conclusion reached by the German scholars of the last age have been challenged (such as the co-option of dominant families in allied towns by leading Roman families), the general theses are still accepted by scholars are they not?

 

The differences between Gelzer and Gruen are too numerous to list, but you're right that no one disagrees that non-patrician families could gain access to the magistracies. Calling the magistrates of the Roman republic 'nobility,' however, obfuscates much more than it clarifies.

 

Perhaps. However, Gelzers book defines the term as used by the Romans in the literature.

[Primus Pilus]

I would just like to add my own voice to others that suggest we should not really be equating modern economic classes "lower, middle, upper" with the Roman social classes of Plebs, Patricii and Equites. The Roman classes certainly had implications with wealth, but they are oriented far more with social rank than with wealth.

 

Modern economic class may carry a social stigma depending on the perception of the particular class, but wealth is the criteria for the modern labels. I'm not lamenting the comparison, as it's perfectly understandable to make it, but it's not quite accurate either and can tend to skew any discussion.

 

ie. There are no wealthy members of the modern lower class while there were in fact many economically wealthy Plebes. Members of the modern upper class would lose that standing if they lost their wealth while in Rome, a patrician was always a patrician, even if fallen from economic grace.

 

Does this mean that Patricians can be equated in some sensibilities with a ruling nobility? Certainly, but it doesn't mean that the ruling authority was limited only to Patricians either. (Much is era dependent of course).

 

In any case I digress from the nature of this evolving discussion.

 

Perhaps. However, Gelzers book defines the term as used by the Romans in the literature.

 

What literature does Gelzer site for a source on this? Admittedly, the later historians such as Livy probably lacked some understanding of the origination of the word, but they relate the context of Patrician with Pater and they certainly would've had access to any literature that Gelzer did.

 

Granted, I think all can concede that a Patrician was a member of the original founding 'sheep-owning' tribes, but I can not personally relate the connection of the words Pater and Pecus-Pecoris.

 

Perhaps Mr. Dalby can shed some light on this?

[Pompieus]

I would just like to add my own voice to others that suggest we should not really be equating modern economic classes "lower, middle, upper" with the Roman social classes of Plebs, Patricii and Equites. The Roman classes certainly had implications with wealth, but they are oriented far more with social rank than with wealth.

 

Modern economic class may carry a social stigma depending on the perception of the particular class, but wealth is the criteria for the modern labels. I'm not lamenting the comparison, as it's perfectly understandable to make it, but it's not quite accurate either and can tend to skew any discussion.

 

ie. There are no wealthy members of the modern lower class while there were in fact many economically wealthy Plebes. Members of the modern upper class would lose that standing if they lost their wealth while in Rome, a patrician was always a patrician, even if fallen from economic grace.

 

Does this mean that Patricians can be equated in some sensibilities with a ruling nobility? Certainly, but it doesn't mean that the ruling authority was limited only to Patricians either. (Much is era dependent of course).

 

In any case I digress from the nature of this evolving discussion.

 

Perhaps. However, Gelzers book defines the term as used by the Romans in the literature.

 

What literature does Gelzer site for a source on this? Admittedly, the later historians such as Livy probably lacked some understanding of the origination of the word, but they relate the context of Patrician with Pater and they certainly would've had access to any literature that Gelzer did.

 

Granted, I think all can concede that a Patrician was a member of the original founding 'sheep-owning' tribes, but I can not personally relate the connection of the words Pater and Pecus-Pecoris.

 

Perhaps Mr. Dalby can shed some light on this?

Mostly he used men called nobilis by Cicero with some Sallust, plus (with reservations) Livy, Varro, Gellius and Pliny.