The importance of ancestry?

[Gaius Octavius]

"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.

 

Sorry to go

 

Weren't Romans supposed to die before being captured? If they escaped from captivity, weren't they supposed to wear some sort of cap to indicate their shame?

[Ingsoc]

Weren't Romans supposed to die before being captured? If they escaped from captivity, weren't they supposed to wear some sort of cap to indicate their shame?

 

The treatment of former POW was all depend of the circumstance in which they were captured, for example the Senate refuse to buy the freedom of the Cannaeprisoners as they their surrender as disgrace and a sign of cowardnece beacause some of their comrades manage to escape and return to Rome (Titus Livius, 22.59-61).

[docoflove1974]

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.

 

That's quite interesting, but quite logical...if I recall correctly, the notion of patriarchy was quite strong, such that most things would have to be 'approved' by the patriarch (or at the very least the father). But did this also go for plebs who were adopted by patricians? Did they have to get permission from the patriarch/father first? Or was it simply an obvious move and therefore didn't require permission?

[Ingsoc]

That's quite interesting, but quite logical...if I recall correctly, the notion of patriarchy was quite strong, such that most things would have to be 'approved' by the patriarch (or at the very least the father). But did this also go for plebs who were adopted by patricians? Did they have to get permission from the patriarch/father first? Or was it simply an obvious move and therefore didn't require permission?

 

All adoptions would have to be approved by the head of the family (pater familia) as he had the legal power (poestas) over his children. It's wasn't anything to do with the origin of the adopter and the adoptee.

[Pompieus]

The question of the transition to the plebians by the two Servilii brothers Gaius and Marcus (consuls of 203 and 202BC) and the problem that arose when the father turned up alive in the hands of the Gauls is discussed by Munzer in "Roman Aristocratic Families and Parties" and was touched on in a previous post (I forget where). Apparently BOTH brothers were plebians - the evidence for this involves priesthoods they both held early in life that were usually reserved for plebians, as well as the tribunate and plebian aedileship held by Gaius. Munzer thinks it unlikely that BOTH brothers would have independently transferred to the plebs without one of them remaining to continue the patrician line. He therefore proposes that it was the FATHER that made the transfer (he had a brother or cousin who remained patrician - unfortunately he was killed at Cannae). He says that the question that was put to a vote in 203 was not that the father had not approved the transfer of the sons to the plebs, but whether the sons were qualified to hold ANY office due to the previously unknown POW status of the father (which supposedly involved loss of citizenship(?!)) He accuses Livy of deliberate distortion to cover-up the unpleasantness.

[Nephele]

Munzer thinks it unlikely that BOTH brothers would have independently transferred to the plebs without one of them remaining to continue the patrician line. He therefore proposes that it was the FATHER that made the transfer (he had a brother or cousin who remained patrician - unfortunately he was killed at Cannae).

 

Indeed. While Munzer acknowledges Mommsen's scholarship in believing that the father of the Servilii Gemini brothers had been a patrician, Munzer does make what appears to be a good case for the father himself having made the transfer to plebeian status "around 220 or even earlier." (pages 130-131).

 

Pertaining to the rules of adoption brought up in this thread, Munzer explains: "The rule was that a son was allowed to change to another family by adoption only if the continuity of his own clan was adequately assured by remaining sons; in the change from the patriciate to the plebs this will have applied even more. From the outset it is thus hardly probable that each of the two brothers [Gaius and Marcus Servilius] would personally have taken the same step, especially at a time when the father's premature removal from the circle of his family and the losses on the battlefields of the Hannibalic War caused the patricians' small numbers to dwindle; it is far more likely that they inherited plebeian status from their father."

 

As perhaps an entertaining aside, Munzer's statement regarding the dwindling of the patrician numbers due to losses on the battlefield is further emphasized by the irrepressible Ambrose Bierce in his "Plebeian" entry for his Devil's Dictionary:

 

"

Plebeian

,

n.

An ancient Roman who in the blood of his country stained nothing but his hands. Distinguished from the Patrician, who was a saturated solution." -- Ambrose Bierce

 

And for those of you interested in Roman nomenclature, here's one additional bit of information about the Servilii Gemini brothers (which I've included in my notes for when I get around to doing the Servilii in my project on the surnames of the various gentes): These brothers inherited their cognomen of "Geminus" from their grandfather, Publius Servilius Geminus (consul of 252), who had been a twin. Munzer states (p. 128-129, based on Cicero's evidence) "that the resemblance of the two [Publius and his twin brother Quintus] was quite famous and had earned for them their surname [Geminus = twin], referred to, moreover, also by the representation of the Dioskuroi on later coins."

 

-- Nephele

[Pompieus]

True, true domina Nephele.

 

While perusing Munzer did you notice that he believed that our friend Gaius Servilius Geminus was the tribune who in 212BC was expected to quash the prosecution of the fraudulent army contractor and nefarious tax-farmer M Postumius from Pyrgi but was deterred by the indignation of the people, that he was the only consul who ever served with a colleague of the same "gens" (his patrician relative Gnaius Servilius Caepio), that the two Servilii tried to supercede Scipio in Africa, both left their provinces without permission, and saw that the brother of Gaius was elected consul to succeed them? And that Gaius so abused the office of dictator in 202 that it fell out of use until Sulla? The Livian tradition, Munzer says, has covered up this early attempt at dominatio(?)

 

By the way, since you have "Voting Districts" with its nice maps, can you tell which tribe included the Marrucini of Teate (modern Chieti in the Abruzzi) the home of the historian and consul of 40BC Gaius Asinius Pollio?

Edited April 26, 2008 by Pompieus

[Nephele]

True, true domina Nephele.

 

While perusing Munzer did you notice that he believed that our friend Gaius Servilius Geminus was the tribune who in 212BC was expected to quash the prosecution of the fraudulent army contractor and nefarious tax-farmer M Postumius from Pyrgi but was deterred by the indignation of the people, that he was the only consul who ever served with a colleague of the same "gens" (his patrician relative Gnaius Servilius Caepio), that the two Servilii tried to supercede Scipio in Africa, both left their provinces without permission, and saw that the brother of Gaius was elected consul to succeed them? And that Gaius so abused the office of dictator in 202 that it fell out of use until Sulla? The Livian tradition, Munzer says, has covered up this early attempt at dominatio(?)

 

I can see you're having as much fun with Munzer's book as I am. However, Broughton identifies a different Servilius as that Tribune of the Plebs in 212 -- Gaius Servilius Casca. Broughton also notes the fact that Munzer suggested that it was indeed Geminus who was this Tribune, and that "the cognomen Casca was inserted [by Livy] to veil disgraceful conduct in an eminent Servilius." Cover-ups abound!

 

By the way, since you have "Voting Districts" with its nice maps, can you tell which tribe included the Marrucini of Teate (modern Chieti in the Abruzzi) the home of the historian and consul of 40BC Gaius Asinius Pollio?

 

The map not only shows the tribe to be the Arnensis, but in the chapter that lists the tribes of Republican senatorial gentes and Italian communities, the Marrucini of Teate are included under the Arnensis. And, in the list of Republican senators with tribes, C. Asinius Pollio from the Marrucini (Teate) is listed as belonging to the Arnensis tribe. Do you not have this book, then? I can picture you having fun with this one, too.

 

-- Nephele

[Pompieus]

I wish! But I am so "thrifty" that it takes quite a while for me to convince myself to pay $150 for a used book- but I'm thinking about it!

 

I managed to get a look at "Voting Districts" years ago from the library of Congress ("The Great Library of Alexandria" (Va.) is sadly lacking in arcane Roman history books).

 

I have always been interested in Asinius Pollio and the Marrucini because my grandmother was born in Chieti.

[Nephele]

I have always been interested in Asinius Pollio and the Marrucini because my grandmother was born in Chieti.

 

Tying in with the title of this topic -- "The Importance of Ancestry" -- wouldn't it be intriguing if there were some way to determine whether Asinius Pollio was one of your own ancestors? Imagine having some of that Asinius Pollio DNA in your own make-up.

 

I don't know if you have the chronology of Pollio's military and political career (I'm guessing you already do), but here's what Broughton gives for him:

 

49: With Caesar at the Rubicon, and later an officer under Curio in Sicily and in Africa.

48: Served under Caesar at Pharsalus.

47: Tribune of the Plebs.

46: Served under Caesar in Africa.

45: Served with Caesar in Spain; and also that year was a Praetor.

44-43: Governor, probably Proconsul, of Farther Spain.

41: Triumvir agris dividendis, assigned in the confiscation of land and the settlement of veterans in the Transpadane region.

40: Consul, aided in reconciling Antony and Octavian at Brundisium. After he abdicated the consulship, Antony appointed him Proconsul in Macedonia that year.

39: Proconsul of Macedonia. On October 25th of that year he celebrated a triumph over the Illyrian Parthini, whose revolt he had subdued.

 

-- Nephele

[Pompieus]

Ha! more likely the ancestor of his sheep-keeper!

 

I found an interesting bio of Pollio on (of all places) "Google Books" in the form of a Phd dissertation by Elizabeth Denny Pierce at Columbia back in 1922! I wish I knew how to attach the link!!!!

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=KdX7WR19a...;hl=en#PPA18,M1

 

(?)

 

It includes his career but is mostly about his literary pursuits.

 

When in Italy some years ago I searched out the tiny towns where my grandfathers were born, and they both have literary associations too. One is very close to Aquino (ancient Aquinum) allegedly the birthplace of Juvenal (and even closer to Roccasicca - birthplace of Thomas Aquinas). And the other is a few kilometers from Venosa (ancient Venusia) birthplace of Horace.

[Nephele]

Ha! more likely the ancestor of his sheep-keeper!

 

 

I found an article titled "The Descendants of Asinius Pollio" by James H. Oliver for The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 68, No. 2 (1947). If you (or anyone else) would like a PDF file of it, just PM me your e-mail address and I'll send it. I haven't had a chance to read it yet myself, but I'll be doing that tonight.

 

-- Nephele