The importance of ancestry?

[G-Manicus]

I see where for the ruling class the ability to trace your roots back to significant historical figures was given much weight. The entire Patrician class seemed to care just about nothing else it seems!

 

But what about if you were one of the many males who were adopted into a Patrician family? Did you still get to claim the same impressive ancestry as your adopted family? Did you get to invoke ancestors from both your birth and adopted families? For example, would the Emperor Tiberius have been able to claim a connection to Aenaeus and Venus as he was adopted into the Julians? Or would "Scipio the younger" be able to invoke Scipio Africanus even though he was adopted into that family? Because he was born into the Aemilii Pauli clan, would he have been able to claim that ancestry as well?

Edited April 22, 2008 by G-Manicus

[G-Manicus]

Also, would an adoptee's birth and adopted ancestry both be taken into account when arranging marriages?

[Maty]

Very much so. The adoptee did not fully abandon his connections with his birth family - the key is in the -anus ending on the name. ('anus' has a sense of 'old' or 'former'.) So Scipio the younger is generally called Scipio Aemilianus by historians. This is the same reason that the pre-Augustus is called Octavian - its an Anglicization of Octavianus.

 

This means that it was important for the adoptee to advertise to prospective political allies (and to Roman aristos marriage was a way of cementing political alliances)that he came with an extra set of family credentials. An even more extreme case during the civil wars was a character called Metellus Scipio who simply used both his adoptive and family names together. But note when the highly Claudian Clodius got adopted by a nobody to become a tribune he never used that name. In the same way, Octavian insisted on being called Julius Caesar, as there was not a lot of mileage in the Octavius name.

 

So, yup, who adopted you was important, but so is who you were pre-adoption, and the name you took depended on the relative importance of the birth and adoptive family.

[G-Manicus]

Very interesting, Maty. Thanks.

 

Would the adoptee still have a relationship with his birth family? I would think it would be somewhat awkward since the Patricians would all travel in the same social and career circles.

[docoflove1974]

Along these same lines: would a patrician family ever adopt a plebeian? Or would that be out of the question with regard to social ranks?

[G-Manicus]

Along these same lines: would a patrician family ever adopt a plebeian? Or would that be out of the question with regard to social ranks?

I'm going to guess that was unheard of. The whole point of adopting was to bring in a male whose ancestry had the proper gravitas so as to dignify your own ancestry.

 

(Of course there were instances of it being the other way around where a Plebian would adopt a Patrician so that they could stand for tribune. Eg: Clodius).

Edited April 22, 2008 by G-Manicus

[docoflove1974]

That's about what I would gather, too, G-Manicus, but was curious as to the social structure in that case. My thought is that should a Patrician family decide to adopt a Plebeian, it would 'lower' their status...as if to say that they mind being associated with 'riff-raff', so to speak.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Lets not forget that the Patricians were a dying breed so to speak, they were becoming a dwindling force in Rome. Where as the Plebeians were getting bigger, wealthier and more powerful. So I'm guessing that at some stage the Patrician clans would have been only too willing to adopt from a wealthy Plebeian family in order to bolster their ranks. The adopted Plebeians would now carry the patrician name as would their children and so forth.

 

I'm sure that in the beginning the patricians would have rather chopped off their right arm than adopt a lowly Plebeian but as time went b and the number of children grew smaller and smaller maybe they were forced to swallow their pride in order to continue their Patrician name.

[Nephele]

Along these same lines: would a patrician family ever adopt a plebeian? Or would that be out of the question with regard to social ranks?

 

Yes, they would, and it needn't necessarily have been a step down, as there were plebeian families (such as the Livii) who were counted among Rome's aristocratic families.

 

Perhaps the most famous example of a plebeian adopted into a patrician gens is that of Octavius' adoption by Julius Caesar. Although, Suetonius does tell us that the once-patrician-turned-plebeian Octavii were restored to patrician rank by Caesar (most likely on the occasion of the adoption of the young Octavius).

 

I was only able to find two other examples of plebeians having been adopted by patricians, so perhaps it wasn't a common occurrence. Or, perhaps more likely, (as Maty stated earlier in this thread) "the name you took depended on the relative importance of the birth and adoptive family" -- and those from families whose names didn't provide much "mileage" simply didn't bother affixing the -anus ending to their birth name and adding it to their adoptive name.

 

The two that I did find were: Mamercus Aemilius Lepidus Livianus (consul of 77 BCE, a member of the plebeian Livii adopted by the patrician Aemilii Lepidi) and Quintus Fabius Vergilianus (a member of the plebeian Vergilii adopted by the patrician Fabii, who served as a legate under Appius Claudius Pulcher in Cilicia from 53 to 51 BCE).

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Octavius]

What about manumitted slaves? Gaulish senators?

[Pompieus]

Freedmen and new citizens might take the Nomen of a patrician family that had sponsored their citizenship, but they were not members of the family. There were many Gallic aristocrats in the first century AD named Iulius but they were not members of the patrician Iulii. That's probably why there were both patrician and plebian Claudii, Iunii etc.

[docoflove1974]

Freedmen and new citizens might take the Nomen of a patrician family that had sponsored their citizenship, but they were not members of the family. There were many Gallic aristocrats in the first century AD named Iulius but they were not members of the patrician Iulii. That's probably why there were both patrician and plebian Claudii, Iunii etc.

 

Did they put a suffix on the name of the sponsoring family, in this case? Much like the -anus on the adopted names?

[Gaius Octavius]

Freedmen and new citizens might take the Nomen of a patrician family that had sponsored their citizenship, but they were not members of the family. There were many Gallic aristocrats in the first century AD named Iulius but they were not members of the patrician Iulii. That's probably why there were both patrician and plebian Claudii, Iunii etc.

 

The point that I apparently did not make clearly, is, could manumitted slaves or Gaulish senators be adopted by the by patricians or anyone else?

[Nephele]

Did they put a suffix on the name of the sponsoring family, in this case? Much like the -anus on the adopted names?

 

No, freedmen and sponsored citizens would generally use their existing name as their new cognomen, which would be added to the adopted praenomen and nomen gentilicium of their former master or sponsor. This is why we find thousands of different cognomina in Latin inscriptions, but comparatively fewer nomina gentilicia.

 

For example, the Jewish historian Joseph ben Matthias became Titus Flavius Josephus upon becoming a Roman citizen, using a Latinized version of his existing name, which he added as a cognomen to the adopted praenomen and nomen gentilicium of his patron, Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianus.

 

The point that I apparently did not make clearly, is, could manumitted slaves or Gaulish senators be adopted by the by patricians or anyone else?

 

The fictional Ben-Hur notwithstanding (as you'll recall, he gets adopted by Quintus Arrius in the story), I think that the Romans, particularly the patricians, were more inclined merely to sponsor their manumitted slaves and foreign associates. As clients of the patron family, such sponsored individuals gained a certain amount of prestige and protection, and the patons received their clients' favors and attention.

 

It's my understanding that adoption was generally reserved for those who were already related in some way -- either by blood or by political ties -- to the adopting family.

 

-- Nephele

[Ingsoc]

Along these same lines: would a patrician family ever adopt a plebeian? Or would that be out of the question with regard to social ranks?

 

Yes, they would, and it needn't necessarily have been a step down, as there were plebeian families (such as the Livii) who were counted among Rome's aristocratic families.

 

I think the whole view of the plebian with contempt by the patrician cease to exist during the middle republic, the earlist mention of a patriacian turn plebian that I found is of Gaius Servillius (Consul in 203 BC)

 

"The consul C. Servilius had done nothing worth recording in Etruria, nor after his departure for Gaul. In the latter country he had rescued his father C. Servilius and also C. Lutatius after sixteen years of servitude, the result of their capture by the Boii at Tannetum. With his father on one side of him and Lutatius on the other he returned to Rome honoured more on personal than public grounds. A measure was proposed to the people relieving him from penalties for having illegally acted as tribune of the plebs and plebeian aedile while his father who had filled a curule chair was, unknown to him, still alive. When the bill of indemnity was passed he returned to his province." (Titus Livius, 30.19)

 

Livius seem to be mistaken of his account, it's that Servillius crime was to be adopted into a plebian family (the Servii were patricians) without the agreement of his father who he thought was dead.