Nephele Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Out of curiosity, I decided to compile a statistical listing of what I shall presume to have been the most powerful and influential gentes of Rome during the time of the Republic. I'm basing this assessment on the number of magistrates produced by each gens. The following list contains the gentes of magistrates listed in volumes I and II of Broughton's The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (509 BCE to 31 BCE), including consuls, praetors, aediles, tribunes, quaestors, etc. 262 gentes are represented here, listed from 1st place to 41st place, in descending order of rank. Gentes that contributed equal numbers of magistrates share the same ranking. Gentes that contributed only one magistrate, during the years covered, have not been included on this list. The first number appearing before a gens is the ranking of that gens on the list. The second number represents the number of members from that gens who are listed in Broughton's as having been magistrates during the covered years of the Republic. Notes on names: While Norbana isn't strictly the name of a gens, I've included it on this list because members of this family tended to use Norbanus as their nomen gentilicium anyway. Those Norbani listed in Broughton's had appended the cognomina of Balbus and Flaccus to their name, thus further indicating that Norbanus, while not originally a nomen gentilicium, nevertheless developed into one through usage as such. Claudia and Clodia have been combined, as these are variations of the same name. Likewise with Caelia/Coelia, Plautia/Plotia, and Quinctia/Quintia. In each instance where spelling variations of the same name have been combined, I've included in parentheses the number of magistrates listed in Broughton's originally assigned to each name. One may ask: "What is the value of such a list?" Well, besides giving me something amusing to do this weekend, this list may not only serve to illustrate which gentes may have been the most influential during the time of Rome's Republic, but also indicate the degree of each gens' influence in comparison with other gentes. 1 185 Cornelia 2 92 Claudia (81) / Clodia (11) 3 78 Valeria 4 72 Fabia 5 64 Licinia 5 64 Servilia 6 62 Manlia 7 56 Aemilia 8 53 Junia 9 52 Papiria 9 52 Sempronia 10 50 Furia 10 50 Marcia 10 50 Postumia 11 47 Caecilia 12 43 Sulpicia 13 39 Julia 13 39 Minucia 14 36 Quinctia (34) / Quintia (2) 15 35 Atilia 16 34 Calpurnia 16 34 Fulvia 17 30 Plautia (27) / Plotia (3) 18 29 Pompeia 19 28 Octavia 20 27 Aurelia 21 26 Pomponia 22 24 Cassia 22 24 Porcia 22 24 Terentia 23 23 Annia 23 23 Popillia 24 22 Aelia 24 22 Appuleia 25 20 Antistia 25 20 Lucretia 26 19 Fonteia 26 19 Oppia 26 19 Coelia (10) / Caelia (9) 27 18 Baebia 27 18 Domitia 27 18 Hostilia 27 18 Memmia 27 18 Verginia 28 17 Acilia 28 17 Genucia 29 16 Antonia 29 16 Aquillia 29 16 Livia 29 16 Sergia 29 16 Titia 29 16 Veturia 30 13 Publicia 30 13 Titinia 31 12 Mucia 31 12 Pinaria 31 12 Rutilia 31 12 Scribonia 32 11 Aebutia 32 11 Fannia 32 11 Flavia 32 11 Maria 32 11 Plaetoria 32 11 Sextilia 33 10 Attia 33 10 Decia 33 10 Juventia 33 10 Maenia 33 10 Mamilia 33 10 Nautia 33 10 Opimia 33 10 Publilia 33 10 Quinctilia 33 10 Sicinia 33 10 Tullia 33 10 Vibia 34 9 Aufidia 34 9 Cloelia 34 9 Cosconia 34 9 Curtia 34 9 Herennia 34 9 Horatia 34 9 Lucilia 34 9 Lutatia 34 9 Manilia 34 9 Menenia 34 9 Sextia 35 8 Atinia 35 8 Carvilia 35 8 Duillia 35 8 Flaminia 35 8 Hortensia 35 8 Mummia 35 8 Nonia 35 8 Rubria 35 8 Volumnia 36 7 Considia 36 7 Decimia 36 7 Gabinia 36 7 Lollia 36 7 Poetelia 36 7 Silia 36 7 Trebonia 36 7 Villia 37 6 Caninia 37 6 Curia 37 6 Didia 37 6 Fundania 37 6 Gegania 37 6 Icilia 37 6 Laetoria 37 6 Mallia 37 6 Munatia 37 6 Otacilia 37 6 Papia 37 6 Peducaea 37 6 Perperna 37 6 Pupia 37 6 Sestia 37 6 Tremellia 38 5 Anicia 38 5 Ateia 38 5 Caedicia 38 5 Canuleia 38 5 Cluvia 38 5 Curiatia 38 5 Egnatia 38 5 Fabricia 38 5 Laelia 38 5 Matiena 38 5 Naevia 38 5 Ogulnia 38 5 Petillia 38 5 Roscia 38 5 Voconia 38 5 Volcatia 39 4 Aburia 39 4 Allia 39 4 Antia 39 4 Apustia 39 4 Aurunculeia 39 4 Calidia 39 4 Cincia 39 4 Cominia 39 4 Cornificia 39 4 Gallia 39 4 Gellia 39 4 Helvia 39 4 Magia 39 4 Metilia 39 4 Numitoria 39 4 Petronia 39 4 Sentia 39 4 Septimia 40 3 Afrania 40 3 Albinia 40 3 Arria 40 3 Asellia 40 3 Asinia 40 3 Aulia 40 3 Autronia 40 3 Caesetia 40 3 Catia 40 3 Cestia 40 3 Cocceia 40 3 Coponia 40 3 Coruncania 40 3 Crepereia 40 3 Decidia 40 3 Fufia 40 3 Gratidia 40 3 Insteia 40 3 Laberia 40 3 Maelia 40 3 Norbana 40 3 Rabiria 40 3 Rupilia 40 3 Salonia 40 3 Saufeia 40 3 Siccia 40 3 Stertinia 40 3 Tarquitia 40 3 Vargunteia 40 3 Velleia 40 3 Vergilia 40 3 Vettia 40 3 Volusia 41 2 Afinia 41 2 Albia 41 2 Aliena 41 2 Ampia 41 2 Ancharia 41 2 Apronia 41 2 Arrenia 41 2 Arruntia 41 2 Axia 41 2 Caepasia 41 2 Caesia 41 2 Carisia 41 2 Cicereia 41 2 Cispia 41 2 Cossutia 41 2 Critonia 41 2 Cupiennia 41 2 Digitia 41 2 Duronia 41 2 Egnatuleia 41 2 Epidia 41 2 Erucia 41 2 Falcidia 41 2 Folia 41 2 Fufidia 41 2 Furnia 41 2 Herminia 41 2 Hirtuleia 41 2 Labiena 41 2 Larcia 41 2 Ligaria 41 2 Livineia 41 2 Lucceia 41 2 Maecilia 41 2 Maevia 41 2 Maiania 41 2 Mania 41 2 Mindia 41 2 Nasidia 41 2 Nigidia 41 2 Novia 41 2 Numicia 41 2 Numisia 41 2 Occia 41 2 Pedia 41 2 Procilia 41 2 Pullia 41 2 Quintia 41 2 Rabuleia 41 2 Raecia 41 2 Remmia 41 2 Saenia 41 2 Sallustia 41 2 Salvia 41 2 Scantinia 41 2 Scantia 41 2 Scaptia 41 2 Serria 41 2 Sosia 41 2 Statia 41 2 Thoria 41 2 Tillia 41 2 Tituria 41 2 Trebellia 41 2 Tuccia 41 2 Turia 41 2 Turullia 41 2 Valgia 41 2 Varia 41 2 Ventidia 41 2 Venuleia 41 2 Vibullia 41 2 Vinicia 41 2 Volteia 41 2 Volusena -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 This is a wonderful list Nephele! Far more comprehensive than any other similar list that I've seen. When compiling this list, did you happen to preserve information (e.g., in a spreadsheet) about the dates of the magistracies of each magistrate? I ask because I wonder about the prominence of certain families, such as the Valerii and Fabii, who seem to be highly prominent in the early and middle republic, but much less so in the late republic. Depending on what information you preserved when generating the list, we could answer a number of interesting questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted September 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 This is a wonderful list Nephele! Far more comprehensive than any other similar list that I've seen. Thank you, MPC! When compiling this list, did you happen to preserve information (e.g., in a spreadsheet) about the dates of the magistracies of each magistrate? I ask because I wonder about the prominence of certain families, such as the Valerii and Fabii, who seem to be highly prominent in the early and middle republic, but much less so in the late republic. Depending on what information you preserved when generating the list, we could answer a number of interesting questions. No, I didn't make a note of dates, but it wouldn't really have helped much here, regarding your suggestion. The problem with this is that, while Broughton drew on numerous sources in recording Republican magistrates, their years of office, and their offices held, he explains that "earlier periods are sketchily treated" due to less information being available. And so more names (with accompanying offices held) appear under Broughton's annual lists towards the end of the Republic, than at the beginning. Broughton apologizes in the preface to his work by stating: "The present collection is not designed to serve as a complete prosopography of the Roman Republic, the necessary scale of which would take us too far afield, but may help to clear the way for one." I just now compiled a list of dates for first office held by each of the Valerii and Fabii cited in Broughton's volumes and, as I imagined (due to the reasons given above), the occurrence of names is pretty evenly distributed over the period of time covered. For the Valerii, 32% of their names appear as having held office during the 1st century BCE, 20% during the 2nd century, 20% during the 3rd, 13% during the 4th, 10% during the 5th, and 5% during the 6th. For the Fabii, 19.5% of their names appear as having held office during the 1st century, 22% during the 2nd, 22% during the 3rd, 19.5% during the 4th, and 17% during the 5th. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 I didn't make a note of dates, but it wouldn't really have helped much here, regarding your suggestion. The problem with this is that, while Broughton drew on numerous sources in recording Republican magistrates, their years of office, and their offices held, he explains that "earlier periods are sketchily treated" due to less information being available. Aha! I think we have different questions in mind for the data. My question boils down to: "Of the known magistracies for a given time interval, what % were held by each gens {Valerii, Fabii, etc}." For this problem, it's OK that the number of known magistracies varies from year-to-year or even for data to be sparse in the early years since the data is sparse for ALL gentes across ALL magistracies. I think the question you had in mind in your calculations was, "Of the magistracies held by a gens, what % were held at each time interval" For this problem, it wouldn't be OK for the number of known magistracies to increase systematically, since the bias would lead families that held a stable number of magistracies to appear to rise in prominence, families that declined in prominence to appear stable (clearly what we're seeing the data for the Fabii and Valerii), families that rose in prominence to appear to rise faster than they did in actuality. Is this clear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted September 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Aha! I think we have different questions in mind for the data. My question boils down to: "Of the known magistracies for a given time interval, what % were held by each gens {Valerii, Fabii, etc}." Ah, I think I see what you mean now. In which case, I would need to compile data based on magistracies on a year-to-year basis, rather than by occurrence of name alone over the entire span of the Republic. As with the consular lists, which show us definitively which gentes contributed the most members to that particular office, and when. I put together my list chiefly from names as they appear in Broughton's index, cross-referencing them with the body of Broughton's work as an additional check, to give an overview of the frequency of appearance of the individual gentes holding office throughout the entire period of the Republic. I'll consider going over each of the annual lists individually, and compiling gentes that way (which will take considerable more time than a mere weekend!) -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 I think it will be useful to put the names in some sort of historical context. Also, the order in which you enter the names doesn't matter, as long as there is a field in your spreadsheet or database for the year in which a given magistrate held his office. It's too bad the Broughton work isn't a searchable text file on a CD or the web. It's hard to believe that Oxford really makes so much money off these volumes that it's more profitable to distribute the information via paper, ink, and muscle than via electrons, phosphors, and fingertips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted September 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 I think it will be useful to put the names in some sort of historical context. Also, the order in which you enter the names doesn't matter, as long as there is a field in your spreadsheet or database for the year in which a given magistrate held his office. Good suggestions all. It should be an interesting project, if I can designate some time for it. It's too bad the Broughton work isn't a searchable text file on a CD or the web. It's hard to believe that Oxford really makes so much money off these volumes that it's more profitable to distribute the information via paper, ink, and muscle than via electrons, phosphors, and fingertips. Well, Broughton's work was first published by the American Philological Association about a half-century ago, so the APA has a lot of catching up to do with modern technology, if they should ever be inclined to make the entire work available as a searchable text file on a CD or the web. That would be amazing, if they did, and I'd certainly pay money for a subscription. I'm sure others would, too, since the hard copy text is so expensive and difficult to come by. With your love of the Republic, MPC, I could see you really enjoying these volumes. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 To add a little context to Nephele's names, I did a quick analysis of the patrician/plebeian breakdown. Of the 2890 names on the list, about 70% (2018) were plebeian and 30% (871) were patrician. This proportion roughly corresponds to the proportion of republican history in which the consulship was open to plebeians (i.e., 345 of the 478 years between 376 and 31 BCE). Proportionately speaking, it is as if the first 133 years of Roman history were totally dominated by patricians, whereas the next 345 years were totally dominated by plebeians. What the patricians lacked in numbers, however, they more than made up for in productivity, with the average patrician family producing nearly 5 times the number of magistrates as the average family. For all the gentes listed, the average number of magistrates per family was 11 (i.e., 2890 magistrates divided among 62 families). For patricians, the average number was 54.5 ( 871/16) magistrates per family, with all but three patrician families (Nautia, Quinctillia, and Cloelia) producing more than 11 magistrates per family. In contrast, for the plebeians, the average number of magistrates was 8.2 per family, with only one family (Licinia) producing more than was average for the patricians. Possibly, this large patrician/plebeian disparity comes from the fact that patrician gentes (with their many branches) were larger than plebeian ones. It would be interesting to see the breakdown by branch. To better visualize the difference between the patricians and plebs, look at the top half of the distribution. Note how it follows the standard Pareto distribution (almost identical to individual differences in UNRV posts, btw). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted September 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Intriguing -- and exciting, MPC! It would be interesting to see the breakdown by branch. I can get that information for you, although it may take a couple of days to compile. I'd very much like to see what else can be projected from all this! -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 You two are doing a magnificent job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted September 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 You two are doing a magnificent job. Thank you, GO. It's my interest in Roman nomenclature which led to a desire to find out how the various gentes statistically contributed to the Republican magistracies (and compared with each other). Combined with MPC's interest in the patrician vs. plebian influences on Roman history, this may result in an interesting joint effort here. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCLEPIADES Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 (edited) Salve, amici! Congratulations, this list is going to be an extraordinary tool and it should be posted in the "government" section of UNRV. For getting the statistical analysis even better, I think some precisions might be in order: - Broughton's list is inevitably incomplete; 2890 names over 478 years give us around six magistrates/year (6,05). A typical year of the late Republic would have had 34 annual magistrates (2 consuls, 8 praetors, 4 aediles and 20 quaestors) plus censors and the extraordinary ones, like dictators. - Patrician names frequently encompass several plebeian branches; that is specially true for the largest gentes, like the Cornelii, the Claudii and the Valerii. - Conversely, some "plebeian" nomina may include patrician magistrates, as the Cassii and the Tullii. - Some minor gentes of the early Republic may be underrepresented; for one, I couldn't find the Romilia gens (T. Romilius Rocus Vaticanus, consul in 455 BC and one of the Decemviri). - Even if the consulship was closed for the plebs until CCCLXXVIII AUC / 376 BC, other magistratures were open to them at least since CCCXXXIII AUC / 421 BC (quaestorship). - We can't be sure that patrician families were larger than the plebeian, as we have virtually only the records of their magistrates (ie, plebeian families could have been even larger, but underrepresented at the Senate). Anyway, I may be wrong. Any correction would be welcomed. I hope this stuff may be useful. Edited September 24, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 I hope this stuff may be useful. I don't mean for this to sound rude, but No--your comments aren't useful. But they could be very useful IF you would follow up your own suggestions with specific contributions. For example, we all know that patrician names cover plebeian branches as well, so if you want to be helpful, go make a list of the patrician and plebeian branches of the 16 patrician gentes, publish the list here, and compute what the new numbers should be. That would be helpful. Similarly, we already know that the consulship was closed for the plebs until 376 but that other magistracies were open to them. This comment really doesn't change anything in our list or commentary. If you want to turn this observation into something useful, then go look at the magistracies between 509 and 376 and between 376 and 31 and report back how many plebs (and from which gentes) were represented in each of the non-consular magistracies in each of these two time periods. That would be helpful. You're also right that we can't assume family size from the list of magistrates alone. Again, if this comment is going to improve our knowledge rather than just fret about its epistemological status, then there has to be a list of non-magistrates as well, coded for year, for family, and for patrician/plebeian status. Compiling this list would also be helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted September 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 (edited) Salve, Asclepiades. I'll try to address those points you brought up: - Broughton's list is inevitably incomplete; 2890 names over 478 years give us around six magistrates/year (6,05). A typical year of the late Republic would have had 34 annual magistrates (2 consuls, 8 praetors, 4 aediles and 20 quaestors) plus censors and the extraordinary ones, like dictators. This is true that Broughton's annual lists are incomplete -- but it should be noted that T. Robert S. Broughton of Bryn Mawr College (with some collaboration on Volume I with Marcia L. Patterson of Kent Place School) compiled his annual lists of Republican magistracies from many sources (not all of these being complete, themselves). He also discarded those sources that proved to be unreliable or invented. Most of the reliable records for the early period of the Republic included only the major magistrates, and this is why these earlier, annual lists are much shorter than those lists of the later period of the Republic, which included the minor magistrates as well. Broughton's bibliography of primary and secondary sources for his work is extensive, including general histories and standard works of reference, collections of fragmentary texts and legal documents, inscriptions, coins, books and articles, - Patrician names frequently encompass several plebeian branches; that is specially true for the largest gentes, like the Cornelii, the Claudii and the Valerii. Very true, and this is why MPC suggested that a listing of the branches would be helpful. As we know, for example, that the Balbi and Galli branches of the Cornelii (who appear in Broughton's annual lists) were plebian. This is what I'll be working on next, for this little project. - Conversely, some "plebeian" nomina may include patrician magistrates, as the Cassii and the Tullii. Any patrician Cassii or Tullii will appear only in the earliest years of the Republic, and thus far as I can see there is only one record of a patrician Cassius having held a magisterial position: Sp. Cassius Viscellinus (or Vescellinus), consul in 502 BCE. - Some minor gentes of the early Republic may be underrepresented; for one, I couldn't find the Romilia gens (T. Romilius Rocus Vaticanus, consul in 455 BC and one of the Decemviri). Romilius is included in Broughton's, but because he was the only representative of his gens, I did not include Romilia on my initial list. (See my notes in the first posting in this thread.) I will probably add back into my statistics all of those gentes that contributed only one member to the magisterial lists. - Even if the consulship was closed for the plebs until CCCLXXVIII AUC / 376 BC, other magistratures were open to them at least since CCCXXXIII AUC / 421 BC (quaestorship). Broughton's includes all of these magistracies. And, even in the less complete lists of the early Republic, the office of Tribune of the Plebs is consistently included. - We can't be sure that patrician families were larger than the plebeian, as we have virtually only the records of their magistrates (ie, plebeian families could have been even larger, but underrepresented at the Senate). I'm not certain that MPC was stating that patrician families were larger than the plebian, when he wrote: "What the patricians lacked in numbers, however, they more than made up for in productivity, with the average patrician family producing nearly 5 times the number of magistrates as the average family." I may be wrong, but I interpreted "productivity" to mean contributions of existing family members to the magistracies -- not "productivity" as in generating more offspring. -- Nephele Edited September 24, 2007 by Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 - We can't be sure that patrician families were larger than the plebeian, as we have virtually only the records of their magistrates (ie, plebeian families could have been even larger, but underrepresented at the Senate). I'm not certain that MPC was stating that patrician families were larger than the plebian, when he wrote: "What the patricians lacked in numbers, however, they more than made up for in productivity, with the average patrician family producing nearly 5 times the number of magistrates as the average family." I may be wrong, but I interpreted "productivity" to mean contributions of existing family members to the magistracies -- not "productivity" as in generating more offspring. Asclepiades had me right, but he was referring to another of my comments: "Possibly, this large patrician/plebeian disparity comes from the fact that patrician gentes (with their many branches) were larger than plebeian ones. It would be interesting to see the breakdown by branch." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.