Brutus: Patrician or Plebian?

[Nephele]

Brutus the Liberator was definitely a Patrician (if he existed at all)

As far as I'm aware, it's Marcus J Brutus and his fellow tyrannicides who were regularly called the Liberators (Liberatores), not Lucius J. Brutus the Republic's founder.

 

I think if you delve a bit deeper, Asclepiades, you'll find that Lucius Junius Brutus (the consul of 509) was indeed known as the original "Brutus the Liberator", and that Marcus Junius Brutus was thus inspired, and similarly styled as a "liberator".

 

The Junia gens was not an isolated case.

There are many traditionally Plebeian names that appeared in the consular Fasti previous to the Lex Licinia Sextia (CCCLXXXVII AUC / 367 BC) that would require for their explanation the too convenient existence of many tiny Patrician gentes which became quickly extinct only for being almost immediately replaced by homonym (and long-lasting) plebeian gentes.

The Cassia gens is another good example.

 

The Cassia gens started out patrician, but then became plebeian. Smith's Dictionary offers the explanation that patrician Sp. Cassius Viscellinus (three times consul in 502, 493, and 486 BCE), left three sons, "but as all the subsequent Cassii are plebeians, his sons were perhaps expelled from the patrician order, or may have voluntarily passed over to the plebeians, on account of the murder of their father."

 

I'm not sure if all that nice explanation would survive the Occam's razor.

The obvious alternative explanation would be that there were at least some plebeian Consuls previous to the Lex Licinia Sextia, hardly surprising as there were indeed some plebeian (or more ephemeral Patrician gentes???) Decemvirs and Consular Tribunes.

 

I think I prefer Friedrich M

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Lady N.

I can't take credit for this explanation; it has been repeatedly quoted.

 

As William Smith was a true believer on an stringent Lex Licinia Sextia, he adopted multiple explanations for the presence of obvious plebeian names in the consular Fasti previous to CCCLXXXVII AUC / 367 BC, at least one explanation for each family and almost all different, for both the disappearance of the hypothetical patrician gens and the subsequent appearence of a homonym well attested and lon lasting plebeian gens; ie, for the Junia gens, the Cassia gens, the Antonia gens, the Genucia gens, the Sempronia gens and so on.

 

As we have excellent resources on ancient Roman Law at UNRV, we can easily check on the legal background (emphasis is mine):

From the Roman Law Index:

"Lex Licinia Sextia (367 BC) - by the tribunes C. Licinius Stolo and L. Sextius, set an upper limit of 500 iugera (300 acres) as the amount of public land which one person might occupy (limiting the power of the Patricii). Additionally, this law may have provided for one consul being a Plebeian, but the evidence is conflicting. Consuls with names of Plebeian origin had served before, and the Lex Genucia which has similar verbiage was passed only 25 years later".

 

...and from the Legal and Institutional Chronology of the Roman Republic we get that the main primary source on the Lex Licinia Sextia is Titus Livius Ab Urbe Condita Liber VI, cp. XXXV:

 

creatique tribuni C. Licinius et L. Sextius promulgauere leges omnes aduersus opes patriciorum et pro commodis plebis: unam de aere alieno, ut deducto eo de capite quod usuris pernumeratum esset id quod superesset triennio aequis portionibus persolueretur; alteram de modo agrorum, ne quis plus quingenta iugera agri possideret; tertiam, ne tribunorum militum comitia fierent consulumque utique alter ex plebe crearetur; cuncta ingentia et quae sine certamine maximo obtineri non possent.

 

"For the time being, C. Licinius and L. Sextius decided to become tribunes of the plebs; once in this office they could clear for themselves the way to all the other distinctions. All the measures which they brought forward after they were elected were directed against the power and influence of the patricians and calculated to promote the interests of the plebs. One dealt with the debts, and provided that the amount paid in interest should be deducted from the principal and the balance repaid in three equal yearly instalments. The second restricted the occupation of land and prohibited any one from holding more than five hundred jugera. The third provided that there should be no more consular tribunes elected, and that one consul should be elected from each order. They were all questions of immense importance, which could not be settled without a tremendous struggle".

 

Even if we accept Livius being entirely reliable on this one, I can't find such statement incompatible with the previous existence of some plebeian consuls, especially as Livius seems to accept the plebeian presence at equivalent magistratures (decemvires and consular tribunes); it's clear Patricians were used to Plebeian government long before 367 BC.

 

I tend to prefer parsimonious solutions: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything (Occam's razor). That's why I find far more plausible this sole explanation than the myriad required by traditional (ie, W. Smith) interpretation.

Edited August 19, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Nephele]

As William Smith was a true believer on an stringent Lex Licinia Sextia, he adopted multiple explanations for the presence of obvious plebeian names in the consular Fasti previous to CCCLXXXVII AUC / 367 BC, at least one explanation for each family and almost all different, for both the disappearance of the hypothetical patrician gens and the subsequent appearence of a homonym well attested and lon lasting plebeian gens; ie, for the Junia gens, the Cassia gens, the Antonia gens, the Genucia gens, the Sempronia gens and so on.

 

How interesting. However, I'm sure you must be aware that William Smith didn't write his famous dictionary entirely by himself, there having been a number of scholarly contributors to the dictionary. The article on the Genucia gens (for just one example), is signed by Dr. Leonhard Schmitz, Rector of the High School of Edinburgh. It seems that it was not William Smith alone who presented explanations for apparent plebeian names in the consular Fasti prior to 367 BCE. Dr. Schmitz offered the neither inconceivable nor implausible explanation that the Genucii probably became plebeians "in the usual manner, either by mixed marriages or by transition to the plebs."

 

Other classicists, such as T.R.S. Broughton and F. M

[ASCLEPIADES]

Consider that the explanations presented by the classicists I cited were not based on the sort of casual assumption that Occam's razor might shave. You may very well find the "parsimonious solution" to be the more plausible one, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you are correct in your choice.

And the number of quoted classicists doesn't necessarily mean that I am wrong in my choice either as such fact doesn't change the logical process; Occam's razor is not limited to "casual assumptions" and the evidence is there.

 

BTW, Diodorus Siculus reported a law analogous to the Lex Licinia Sextia as early as CCCV AUC / 449 BC (The Library of History, Liber XII, cp. XXV, sec. I-II):

 

"Since a great spirit of contention now threatened the state, the most respectable citizens, foreseeing the greatness of the danger, acted as ambassadors between both parties to reach an agreement and begged them with great earnestness to cease from the civil discord and not plunge their fatherland into such serious distress. In the end all were won over and a mutual agreement was reached as follows: that ten tribunes should be elected who should wield the highest authority among the magistrates of the state and should act as guardians of the freedom of the citizens; and that of the annual consuls one should be chosen from the patricians and one, without exception, should be taken from the plebeians, the people having the power to choose even both consuls from the plebeians".

Edited August 20, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Nephele]

And the number of quoted classicists doesn't necessarily mean that I am wrong in my choice either as such fact doesn't change the logical process; Occam's razor is not limited to "casual assumptions" and the evidence is there.

 

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong, either. Although the "evidence" you speak of relates to your interpretation of what has been recorded. And of course, one might say the same thing about the classicists cited. Although I rather believe these classicists have the edge.

 

BTW, Diodorus Siculus reported a law analogous to the Lex Licinia Sextia as early as CCCV AUC / 449 BC (The Library of History, Liber XII, cp. XXV, sec. I-II):

 

I think it should be noted, though, that translator C.H. Oldfather included a footnote stating that Diodorus was the only authority for this law. Also to be noted is the fact that Diodorus Siculus has been accused of making "strange mistakes in the chronology of ancient Rome", in addition to other errors. Although historian and author Jona Lendering, in his article on Diodorus, also credits him with having accomplished what he set out to do, which was not anything more than to produce an easily understandable collection of historical summaries.

 

But nice find, nonetheless!

 

-- Nephele

[M. Porcius Cato]

Let's see if I can summarize the historical argument for the patrician status of L Junius Brutus. First, he was a relative of the Tarquin kings, and thus must have been patrician. Second, the Licinian law that opened up the consulship to plebs was not passed until 367, thereby implying that all previous consuls--including Brutus--were patricians. Am I missing anything else?

 

I guess I'm left wondering whether (1) there is any evidence that the relatives of kings were necessarily patrician and (2) whether--having joined in the revolutionary expulsion of their king and given an unprecedented chance at participating in government themselves--the Romans would have balked at Brutus assuming the consulship merely due to some ancient scruples about his heritage.

 

The problem in the first argument is that we don't really know how Brutus was related to the Tarquins (or at least I can't find it)--for all we know he came from a local Roman plebeian house who married into the family to help cement the Tarquin arrivistes to their new home. The problem with the second argument is that it seems to ignore the historical context by which the Tarquins assumed power--i.e., as a ferociously aristocratic order that murdered the vastly more pro-plebeian king Tullius. Had Brutus been the plebeian noble to expel the Tarquins, it seems likely that he would have enjoyed formidable support from among the old supporters of Tullius as well as the more numerous Roman plebs.

 

Neither of these counter-arguments, of course, establish that LJB really was plebeian, but I don't think the case for his being patrician seems particularly well-grounded either.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Although the "evidence" you speak of relates to your interpretation of what has been recorded. And of course, one might say the same thing about the classicists cited. Although I rather believe these classicists have the edge.

Given the nature of most of our topics here at UNRV, virtually all the "evidence" we speak of relates to our interpretation of what has been recorded.

BTW, the quoted classicists that may have the edge here are two, because all the contributors of the XIX century W. Smith Dictionary were obviously not allowed to contradict themselves in such a fundamental point as the opening of the consular magistrature for the plebeians; then, Broughton is the only additional authority quoted.

I'm well aware we may quote hundreds of scholars here on both sides; eg, A. Bernardi, K. Von Fritz and A. Alf

[Nephele]

...then, Broughton is the only additional authority quoted.

 

And M

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, MPC.

I guess I'm left wondering whether (1) there is any evidence that the relatives of kings were necessarily patrician

That's an excellent question. In fact, most of the Roman gentes that claimed their descent from any of the Roman kings were actually plebeian. The main point here is not if such legendary claims may have been true or not; the point is that at least some Roman citizens from the late Republican period found it plausible.

 

The problem in the first argument is that we don't really know how Brutus was related to the Tarquins (or at least I can't find it)--for all we know he came from a local Roman plebeian house who married into the family to help cement the Tarquin arrivistes to their new home.

Actually we do know; and certainly their relationship didn't imply LJ Brutus was a Patrician.

Here comes Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita Liber I, cp. LVI:

 

comes iis additus L. Iunius Brutus, Tarquinia, sorore regis, natus, iuvenis longe alius ingenii quam cuius simulationem induerat .

 

"They had as a travelling companion L. Junius Brutus, the son of the king's sister, Tarquinia, a young man of a very different character from that which he had assumed".

[M. Porcius Cato]

"They had as a travelling companion L. Junius Brutus, the son of the king's sister, Tarquinia, a young man of a very different character from that which he had assumed".

 

So as son of the king's sister, Brutus' status as plebeian would have depended on his own father's status, no? And that just brings us back to the original problem: were the Junii plebs or not?

[Nephele]

"They had as a travelling companion L. Junius Brutus, the son of the king's sister, Tarquinia, a young man of a very different character from that which he had assumed".

 

So as son of the king's sister, Brutus' status as plebeian would have depended on his own father's status, no? And that just brings us back to the original problem: were the Junii plebs or not?

 

Which is why I'm interested in what various classicists have to say on the matter.

 

Asclepiades, despite your preference for thrashing this out yourself, you did mention A. Bernardi, K. Von Fritz and A. Alf

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

What I know on this issue I have tried to explain in previous posts on this same thread, especially the # 17.

 

I think the presence of many commonly acknowledged Plebeian names (Nomina) within the consular lists previous to 367 BC (an anomaly previously noted by some UNRV admins) might be better explained by a sole mechanism (the occasional allowance of some Plebs to the consular magistrature) than by the concurrence of multiple unrelated mechanisms(as a bare minimum, two for each Nomen; one explaining why the Patrician gens disappeared almost unnoticed, and the other explaining the almost immediate appearance of a homonymous and long-lasting Plebeian gens).

That's what I mean by the Occam's razor.

 

Additionally:

Even the obviously aristocratically biased Titus Livius accepted the presence of some Plebs among magistratures of consular rank previous to the Lex Licinia Sextia, like the Decemvirs and the Consular Tribunes.

Diodorus Siculus reported some legal provisions for the social extraction of the consuls long before that law.

And what Titus Livius informed us about the same law didn't preclude the potential existence of previous Plebeian consuls.

 

If we indeed adhere too tightly to the absolute absence of Plebeian consuls previous to CCCLVIII AUC / 367 BC (eg, as W. Smith did), we get some extraordinary interpretations; Lady N previously quoted Smith's explanation on the Cassia gens; a Patrician family would have been degraded to a Plebeian status as a way of punishment.

That might of course still be the case, but as far as I'm aware, it would be the only instance across all Roman history.

I think the well attested cases of plebeian transition done by some patricians for whatever reason (eg, the famous case of Publius Claudius [Clodius] Pulcher after his adoption by P. Fonteius for becoming apt to the Plebeian tribunate) make such explanation even less likely.

 

All that said, I think we should remember what Maty pointed out on this same thread; most Roman history previous to the sack of Rome by the Gauls circa CCCLVII AUC / 397 BC is fundamentally legendary.

Roman annalist history began just around Punic War II (late III century BC); by that time, the purported patrician-plebeian conflict was long over. In fact, the always reliable Polybius didn't even mention the Roman social orders in his description of the Roman constitution (or in most of his History, for that matter).

The plebeian names in old consular lists are hardly the only anomaly or contradiction that we will find within the account of this period; Titus Livius himself was painfully aware of such fact.

 

Then, I think the real importance of this topic is how much it may contribute to our understanding of the still obscure nature of the Patrician order (and consequently, of the Plebs) during the early republican period, as well as the Roman social conceptions of themselves, as it seems even they found it hard to understand the subtleties of such issues.

Edited August 21, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

"They had as a travelling companion L. Junius Brutus, the son of the king's sister, Tarquinia, a young man of a very different character from that which he had assumed".

 

So as son of the king's sister, Brutus' status as plebeian would have depended on his own father's status, no? And that just brings us back to the original problem: were the Junii plebs or not?

I'm afraid the available evidence on LJB's father is inconclusive too;

Here comes Dionysius of Halycarnassus, Roman Antiquities Liber IV, cp. LXV, sec. I-II:

 

"The father of Brutus was Marcus Junius, a descendant of one of the colonists in the company of Aeneas, and a man who for his merits was ranked among the most illustrious of the Romans; his mother was Tarquinia, a daughter of the first King Tarquinius... Tarquinius, after he had caused Tullius to be slain, put Junius' father also to death secretly".

 

Nevertheless, the same as MT Cicero, Mestrius Plutarchus acknowledged Marcus Junius Brutus (CJ Caesar's killer) descended from LJB in the very beginning of his Vita Brutus (cp. I, sec. I):

 

"Marcus Brutus was a descendant of that Junius Brutus whose bronze statue, with a drawn sword in its hand, was erected by the ancient Romans on the Capitol among those of the kings, in token that he was most resolute in dethroning the Tarquins".

 

Personally, I think this is as far as we can get on this issue.

Edited August 21, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Nephele]

Nevertheless, the same as MT Cicero...

 

I think it should be noted that Cicero was a sharp-tongued orator who often took sly jabs at even his friends. Despite Cicero's nod to his friend Marcus Junius Brutus' claim of descent from the consul of 509, within that same work which he dedicated to his friend Brutus he wrote of those who falsified their genealogies in order to connect themselves with nobler ancestors. It has been acknowledged (by M

[ASCLEPIADES]

Nevertheless, the same as MT Cicero...

 

I think it should be noted that Cicero was a sharp-tongued orator who often took sly jabs at even his friends. Despite Cicero's nod to his friend Marcus Junius Brutus' claim of descent from the consul of 509, within that same work which he dedicated to his friend Brutus he wrote of those who falsified their genealogies in order to connect themselves with nobler ancestors. It has been acknowledged (by M