some problems connected with the roman gens.pdf

8/12/2019 Some problems connected with the roman gens.pdf

1/31

The Academy of Political Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Science Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

Some Problems Connected with the Roman GensAuthor(s): George Willis BotsfordSource: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 1907), pp. 663-692

Published by: The Academy of Political ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2140985Accessed: 03-08-2014 12:14 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 83.49.46.72 on Sun, 03 Aug 2014 12:14:29 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2140985http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2140985http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apshttp://www.jstor.org/


2/31

SOME PROBLEMS

CONNECTED

WITH THE

ROMAN

GENS

A

a

supplement

o the

study

of the Roman

populus

made

in the

precedingvolume of this

periodical,'

the

present

paper will

consider a group of problems relating o the

Roman

genis,

for the

purpose not only of determining he nature

and historical bearings of this association but also of throwing

further

ight

on

the

patriciate.

A

currentview of the

gens

includes the

following

positions:

(i)

that it was

exclusively

patrician;

(2)

that the clientswere

dependents of the

associa-

tion as a whole, that they

bore the gentile

name of their

patron,

shared in the gentile

acra and were in

a

subordinate

capacity

membersof the

gens;

(3) that the gens was a corporation

with

a

formal

chief;

(4)

that

there were once exactlythree hundred

patrician

gentes, whose membershipwas

sufficiently

umerous

to make

up the entire citizen body; (5)

that they were

older

than the

state,

which was

formed

by

their

aggregation.

This

view

is held in whole or

in large part by

most modern cholars.

For

right r wrong it

must profoundly ffect heir conception

of

the

character nd

history

f

early

Rome. Whether t is

well

founded

and,

if

not,

what was the

real nature

of

the gens

with

referenceto the points here enumeratedwill be the subjectof

the

present

tudy.

First, however, t is

necessaryto attempt definition f the

gens.

Scaevola's

definition, uoted by Cicero,2

is as

follows:

"Those are

gentiles of one another3

I)

who have the

same

663

'XXI,

498-526.

2

Topica,

6,

29:

"

Gentiles unt

nter

e, qui eodem nomine unt. Non

est satis.

Qui ab ingenuis

oriundi unt.

Ne id quidem satis est. Quorum

maiorumnemo

servitutemervivit. Abestetiamnunc. Qui capitenon unt eminuti. Hoc fortasse

satis est. Nihil enim

video

Scaevolampontificem

d hanc definitionem

ddidisse."

Cf. Cincius,

n

Festus, pitome, 4: "Gentiles

mihi

sunt, ui

meo nomine

appel

lantur.

3

As

the word tself

ndicates, entiles

re

members f a

gens,

nd no

othermembers

are known o

the sources. If it

were

rue,

s

Mommsen, omisches taatsrecht,II,

p. 66, supposes,

hat herewere

dependent

members ottermed

entiles,

name

would

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/31

664

POLITICAL

SCIENCE

QUARTERLY

[VOL. XXII

name,

2)

who are born of free parents, 3)

none of whose

ancestorshave been in slavery, nd

(4)

who

have not suffered

capitis deminutio." Notwithstanding icero's satisfactionwith

its

completeness,

the statement is in some

ways defective.

Article

i

takes no account of those persons

who,

being

neither freedmen nor the descendants of

freedmen, ave ac-

quired the name of a given

gents

without

ecoming in any sense

membersof

it.

An alien on

receiving he

citizenshipwas

often

given

the

gentilicium f

the

person through

whose influence

he

favor

was granted, nd the sources offer o suggestionof a gen-

tile

relationshipbetween the new citizen and his benefactor.

Identity f name between old and new citizens

must

often,

oo,

have been

accidental.'

Article

4

makes no

allowance

for

those

simple

cases of

capitis

deminutio nvolved in a transfer

from one

family

o

anotherwithin

the

gens,

as

through dop-

tion.2

Then,

too,

the

definition

s

purely

practical,

nd

hence

has no reference o the history f the institution. The

Romans

believedthe membersof a gens to be usuallydescendantsof a

common

ancestor,

s

may be inferredfrom other

definitions

which nclude

a

theory

f its

origin;

and theirview s corrobo-

rated

by

the

meaning

of

the

word itself as

well

as

by other evi-

dence to

be

presented

in

the

course

of this

discussion. The

principle

f

blood

relationship, owever,

oes not

apply

to

those

who enterthe gens by marriage r adoption. Those

blood

rela-

tives,

on the other

hand,

were excluded

who

had suffered

ny

degreeof diminutionf the caputwhich ntailedeither otal oss

of

gentile rights-such

as

capture

n

war or sale

into

slavery-

or

transfer

romone

gens to

another.4

have been given

this

dependent elation,

r the juristswould

have defined t, or at

least ome

ancient

writer

ould

have mentionedt.

I

Many of the

Aemilii numerated n Pauly-Wissowa, eal-Encyclopidie

,

544

et

seq.,

could have had no connection

with the patrician

ens of that name, which

becameextinct

nder he early mpire.

2

Cf.

Michel,Du droit e cite romaine, p. i67 et seq.

Cf.

Varro,

De Lingua Latina,viii,

:

" Ut

in

hominibus

uaedam unt gnationes

ac gentilitates,

ic in

verbis;

ut enim

b

Aemilio homines rtiAemilii

c

gentiles,

ic

ab

Aemilii

nomine,"

etc.

Fest. ep.

94;

Isidorus, Etymologiae, x, 2, I;

5,

II;

Fustel

de

Coulanges,

Ancient

City, pp.

I4I

et seq.;

Michel,

op.

cit. p. I64.

'On

capitis

deminutio

see

Gaius ,

I59-i64

(commentby Poste, pp. 98

et

seq.);

Digesta, v,

5;

Roby, Roman Private

aw, 1, pp. 8o et

seq.



4/31

No.

4]

PROBLEMS

CONNECTED

WITH

THE

ROMAN

GENS

665

The

subject

of

Scaevola's

definition,

t will

be

noticed, s

not

gentiles

absolutely

but

gentiles

inter e-members

of the

same

gens. A person,for instance,who passed by adrogatio from

one gens

to

another emained

gentilis,

hough

not of his

native

association.

The

second

and

third

articles

were

framed

from

the

pointof view of those

who had no trace

of servile blood

in

their

veins,

n

order to exclude

from

gentile

association

with

themselves

heir

ibertini

nd

the

descendants

of the

latter,

who

often

bore the

gentilicium f the manumitter. Doubtless

the

membersof a gens took pains to keep alive in perpetuityhis

distinction

f birth.

As article

4

does not

deny gentilitas

to

a person excluded from

a

gents

y

adoption

into

another,

rti-

cles

2

and

3

do not

deny

it to libertini

and

their

descend-

ants. Debarred

from common

gentilitas

with

those

for

whose

benefit he definition as

framed,

hey

were

not on

that

ground

kept

from

gentile

connections

with one

another."

The laws of

the

Twelve

Tables

relating to

inheritance

nd

tutelage assumethe existenceof gentiles beyondthe circleof

the

determinable

gnates;

hence

they

conceive

of

the gens

as

a

group

of

families.

The

widest and

most

complete

type

was

an

association

of

families

of

the

Roman

form,

iving

apart

yet

bound

together

y

the

twofold

ie of

blood-real

or

assumed-

and

religion

n the

mutual

obligations

and

benefits f

inherit-

ance,

tutelage

and

general

helpfulness-open

to

males

outside

through

doption

only,

or

to

women

by

way only

of

marriage,

and retainingn perpetuity

ts

agnatic

ines

of

descentwith

the

exception

of

such

persons as

were

legally

transferred

o

other

gentes,

captured

in

war

or

sold

into

slavery.

Some

gentes

reached

this

degree of

extension;

others

fell

far

shortof

it.

1. The

Relation

of the

Gentes

to

the

Social

Classes

A

much

discussed

questionis

whether

he

gens was

an

exclu-

sivelypatrician nstitutionr common to the two great social

classes.

From

the

circumstance

hat

patricianism s

not

given

as an

element f

Scaevola's

definition,

e

may at

once

conclude

that

n

his

time

plebeians,too,

were

gentiles.

This

conclusion s

supported

by a

variety f

evidence.

1

Cf.

page

676

nfra.

2

Cf.

page

667,

n.

4 infra.



5/31

666

POLITICAL

SCIENCE QUARTERLY [VOL.

XXII

Several plebeian

gentes

re

mentioned,

ncluding

he

Minucia

and the Octavia,'

theLutatia,2 the Calpurnia,3

he

Domitia,4 he

Fonteia,s he Aurelia

6

and the Licinia.7 Some

gentes

comprised

both patrician nd plebeian families,

s the Cassia,8the Claudia,9

the Cornelia,1ohe

Manlia,""

he

Papiria,12

the Publilia or

Poplilia,

the Aebutia'4 and the

Servilia.15

Not

only

do

the sources

men-

tion

several

plebeian

gentes by name,

but they clearly mply n

other

ways the

existenceof such associations. Livy'6 expresses

the patriciansentiment

hat

"

it would seem an affront o the

gods for honorsto be vulgarized andfor he distinction etween

gentesto be confused at auspicated

comitia"

(by

the election of

plebeians to the consular

tribunate).

"

The distinction etween

gentes" can only mean the distinction

between patrician

and

plebeian gentes-an interpretationonfirmed

y

a

similar tate-

ment of Cicero"

to Clodius, who had passed by adrogation

from

patrician o

a plebeian gens:

"

You have disturbed the

I

Cicero, Brutus,6,

32;

Livy v, 16,

3; Suetonius, ugustus,. Whether hese

two enies had ever

been

patrician oes not affect he question

t issue.

2

ValeriusMaximus

X, 2, I.

3Cicero, De Ilaruspicum

Responsis, 5, 32,

mentions

acrfitcia

gentilicia

of the

Calpurnii.

4

Suet. Nero, . Cic.

De

Domo

Sua,

13,

35.

6

Fest.

ep.

23.

7

Varro,

De

Re

Rustica, ,

2,10.

8

Unless Sp.

Cassius, onsul 502,

493, 486 B.

C. and author f the first grarian

rogation,s a myth; cf.Drumann-Gr8be,

eschichte

oms, I, p. 94.

9

Cf. Cic. De Oratore, , 39,

176.

The patriciannd plebeianbranches re some-

times poken

of as distinct enies;

Suet. Tiberius,

.

10

Mommsen,

6mischeForschungen,, pp.

I

13

et seq.; Drumann-Gr6be,

p. cit.

H, p.

359-

"Cic.

Philippica,, I3, 32:

Gellius

x,

2,

I

I;

Fest.

ep.

I25.

12Mommsen,

om. Forsch.

, p. II6.

13L. Poplilius

Volscus, patrician;

Livyv,

12,

IO.

Q. Publilius

hilo, plebeian;

Livy viii, 15,

9.

I"This patrician ens

ncluded

n

Aebutiuswhowas plebeian

ribune

Cic.

De

Lege

Agraria, i, 8,

21)

and several otherplebeians; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa,Real-

Encycl. ,

442

et

seq.

15Mommsen, om.

Forsch.

, pp. II7 etseq.

16V, 14,

4:

"Comitiis

auspicato quae

fierent

ndignum

is

visum onores

olgari

discriminaque

entiumonfundi."

17

Dom. I3,

35:

"1

Ita

perturbatis

sacris,

contaminatis gentibus,

et

quam

deseruisti

et

quam poluisti.



6/31

No.

41

PROBLEMS

COATNEC7TLL)

WIT'/I

'IlE

ROMVA4N ENS

667

sacra

and contaminatedthe gentes,both

the one

you

have

de-

serted and the

one

you

have

defiled)" by your

admission

nto

it). To our other proofswe may add the considerationthat

the

very expression

rentes

atriciaeI

implies

the existence

of

plebeian geiztes.

It is natural

then that Varro should make

ge;itilitas

condition f men in general. In asserting hat there

were a

thousand gentile names, the same authority must have

included those of plebeians,

for

scarcely hundredbelongingto

patricians could have been known to him. By no means the

weakest argument n favorof the view herepresented s the fact

that

the laws of the Twelve Tables concerning nheritance, ute-

lage,4etc.-which applied not to the patricians lone, but to the

whole citizen body-assumed that every

citizen n full

posses-

sion

of his civil rightsbelonged

to a gcns.

A

passage often nterpreted gainst

the existence

of

plebeian

gentes is Livy x, 8, 9: "Vos

solos

gentem

habere." In

this

case the

plebeian speaker says

the

patricians

laim

that

they

lone

havegents not genztes). The speaker goes on to show how his

own

family

s

coming into

the

possession

of

an illustrious

edi-

gree;

he can

cite a fatherwho was consul, and his son will be

able to cite

a

grandfather.5

This

connection

hows that

gens

is

here

used in

the

sense of illustriousbirth,

s

is

sometimes

our

word

"

family."

Wherever a

nobility

xists

it

necessarily ays

greater

tress

on

descent and family han do the people, and

in

all countries the

nobles are in a far better

position

to

keep up

family

onnections hanare the

commons. Naturally, herefore,

at Rome

we hear

more of

patrician

han

of

plebeian genztes. But

I

Sallust, ugurtha, 5,

3; Livy ii, 27, I; 33,

9; vi, II,

2;

Gellius

x, 20, 5;

eJ/

iX,

2, I I.

2

L.

L.

viii,4, quoted p.

664,

nf.

3.

:j

IncertiAuctoris iber de

Praenominibus,.

4

It

will ufficeo

quote Gaius

ii, 7:

"

Si

nullus gnatus it,eadem

ex XII

Tabu-

larum entiles d hereditateniocat." Cf. Cic. In Verrem,, 45,

I15:

" Lege heredi-

tas

ad gentemMinuciam eniebat. The

Minucian

ens

was plebeian.

Its right o

the nheritance

n

question

ested

n

this

aw of the

TwelveTables.

5

Cf.

POLITICAL

SCIENCE QUARTERLY, XXI,

pp.

502

et

seq.

6

E.

g.

"

Family will

take a personeverywhere

;

C. D. Warner,

uoted by the

Standard

Dictionary,

.

v'.



7/31

668

POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

[VOL. XXII

in view of all the facts mentioned

above there should be

no

doubt as to the existence of the latter. Niebuhr,' however,

declared the gens to be an exclusivelypatrician nstitution,nd

he was followedby Schwegler,2 ange

3

and others.

Mommsen4

admits that the plebeians possessed gentilenames, gentile acra

and the ius gentilitatis, nd formed associations called gentes.

Yet in

his opinion these societies

were not reallygentes,but

stirpes.5 He does not state,

however,what quality s needed

in

the

plebeian

associations o

make

themgentes,

nd

he

neglects

o

explain on what principlehe

brands as inaccurate very appli-

cation of the word gens to plebeian

associations. He bases

his

distinctionbetween gens and

stirps on a passage in Cicero,6

which nformsus that when

the Marcelli by right f stirpsput

in a claim to inherit he estate

of a freedman's on, the patrician

Claudii

by right f gens asserted

a counter

claim.

The case is

complicated by the circumstance

that the deceased, who must

have died intestate nd without

heirs,was not himself a liber-

tinzus ut an ingenuus, nd hence stood in no known relation o

the Claudian gens or to any member f

it.7

Probably

t

was

the

vague nature

of

the

claim which led

to the litigation

between

the

two branches

of

the

gens.

The

question,however,

was cer-

tainly

not between

patricians

nd

plebeians,

but

between whole

gens

and a

particular amily stirps).

As

the

nearest

agnate

excluded the rest of

the

agnates,8

o

(the

Marcelli

must

have

insisted)

the nearest

group

of

gentiles

excluded

the rest

of

the

gentiles.9

The

patrician

Claudii

must

have claimed not the

I

R6mischeGeschichte,,

p. 337 (English translation,

p.

I64,

200).

2R6mische

Geschichte,, p.

612.

3

R6mische ltertilmer,

, pp.

214, 2I6.

4

R6m. Staatsr. II, pp. 74

el seq.; cf.

p.

I5,

where he states

hat

plebeians ame

to be called

gentileswhen he us gentilitatis as

extended o them.

s Cf.

Abriss es r6mischen taatsrechts,p. 9 et seq.

6

Orat.

i,

39,

176:

"

Quid?

qua

de re nter

Marcellos

t Claudios

patricios

entum-

viri udicarunt,

uom Marcelli

b liberti ilio tirpe, laudii

patricil

iusdem

hominis

hereditatem ente

ad se redisse

dicerent, onne

n ea

causa

fuit ratoribus e toto

stirpis t gentilitatisuredicendum

"

7

Cf. Roby,

Rom.

Priv.

Law, I,

p.

221,

n.

i.

8Ulpian, Fragmenta, 6,

I

(quoting

from he XII

Tables).

9

Cf. Lange,

R6m. Alt. I,

p.

2I8; Genz, Das

patricische

om, p.

I7,

n.

2.



8/31

No.

4]

PROBLEAMIS CONNECTED WITH THE

ROMAN GENS

669

whole

estate

but

their

hare

of it as

gentiles,

for

on no

known

principle

of Roman

law could the

right

of

inheritance

f

ple-

beians be set aside in favorof patricians. In thispassage stirps

designates

the

family;

but when

applied

to

the

gens

it

is

not

confined

o

plebeians.'

More

cogent

than

all

speculation

n

the

subject

is the fact

that

Cn. Cornelius

Scipio

Hispanus,

probably

praetor

in

139

B.

C.,

a

patrician,

referred

to

his

lineage

and

family

s

genus

and

stiips,2

and that

n the

earliest

extant

Latin

literature

tirps

has a

decidedly patrician

flavor.3

Having

ar-

rived at theconclusionthat thegenswas byno means an exclu-

sively patrician

nstitution,

e have

a

right

o infer

rom

he

law

of

the Twelve Tables here cited

that as

early

at

least as

the

decemviral

legislation

he state

regarded

as

gentilesall

citizens,

plebeian

as

well

as

patrician,

who were in

undiminished

posses-

sion

of

their

cap

ut.

Other

considerations

will

make

it

appear

probable

that

n

origin he

plebeiangenteswere

ittle f

any later

than the

patrician.4

II.

The

relation

of

the

gentesto

the

clients

A

closely

related

problem

s

whether n

any

sense

the

clients

were membersof

the

gentes.

As one

phase

of

the

question

we

may inquire

whether

hey

were,

as

some

have

asserted,

clients

of

the

gentes."

In

answer

t

is

first o be

noticed

that n

all the

passages

bearing

on

the

subject the

patron

s

an

individual,

not

a

family

r

gens.

According

to

Cicero,5

Romulus

distributed

theplebeiansin clientageamong the leadingmen.

Dionysius6

informs

s that

Romulus

placed

the

plebeians

as

a

trust

n

the

hands

of the

patricians,

llowing

each of

the

plebs

to

choose

whatever

patron

he

wished.

These are

illustrations f

the

1

Livy

, 59,

i,

speaks

of

the

Tarquinian

ens

as

stirps.

Sometimes hepatrician

gens is termed

implyfarmilia;

ivy , 7,

12; iX,

29,

8 el

seq.

In

Isid.

Etym. x,

5,

i

,

the ens

Cornelia

s at once

familia

and

stirps.

2Corpus nscriptionumatinarum,, 38:

"Virtutes

generis

mieis

moribusccumulavi,

Progenienm

enui,

facta

patris

etiei.

Maiorum

ptenui

audem,ut

sibei

me esse

creatum

Laetentur:

tirpemobilitavit

onor."

3

See

the

passages

collected

y Kohm, Altlateinische

orschungen

1905),

p.

2I.

4

Page

690

injra.

s

De

Republica,

i, 9, i6.

6

I1,

9, 2.



9/31

670

POLI7TCAL

SCIENCE

Q

UAR

TERL Y

[VOL.

XXII

universalusage of

ancient writers. In the cases here given and

in many others they

had ample opportunity

o mention the

gens, were it indeed the patron. If, assuming the patron to

have been

a

gens,

we should attemptto realize the customs of

the Romans,

we should

everywhere

fall into absurdities. On

that supposition

the death of

Hispala

Fecenia's

patron'

would

signify

he

extinction

f a

gens

Custom

required

the

patron

o

testify gainst cognates

in

favor

of a

client;

but

a

gens

could

not

have

cognates,

nor could it

testify.

The

principle

that

clients stood next to wards would be inconceivable if the

patron were

a

gens,

which

certainly

ould

not

be

a

guardian.

It would

be

impossible,

oo,

to conceive of

the

patron

as next

to the

father,4

f

the former

were

a

gens.

A law of

the Twelve

Tables devotes

to

destruction

the

patron

who defrauds

his

client.5

It is

difficult o see how

an

entire gens

could be thus

guilty

of

fraud,

nd

there is no

evidence

that

Roman

law re-

garded

the

gens

as

a

corporation apable

of committing mis-

demeanor or of suffering egal punishment. In this case it

would

be absurd to

consider the

patron

otherwise han as an

individual.

Only

when several

generations

of

clients

are con-

cerned,

and

it is

impossible

to

speak

of an

individual

patron,

s

reference

made to

the

family

r

house

of the

patron.

In this

connection

family

s not a

group

of

persons living

at

any

one

time

but rather

he ancestral ine of

patrons extending hrough

the

generations.6

The

traditional

ustoms

of

the

Romans here mentioned

take

it for

granted

that the

patron

was an

individual. These

proofs

are

sufficient,specially

as no

instancehas been

shown

in

which

the

sources

represent

the

family

r

gens

as a

patron.7

Since

1Livy xxxix,

,

7.

2

Cato,

in

Gell. v, 13, 4:

"

Adversus ognatos

pro cliente

estatur;

f.?

5.

3Gell. v, I3,

2;

cf.

? 4.

4Ibid. ?

4.

5

Servius,n VergiliiAeneidem ommentarius,i,609.

6

Plutarch,

Marius,5:

Toi

d'

Ep,VVIWV OIKOv

oo5

Mapiov

yoveIg

Kai

Maptov aiTirov

4

apX77

yEyovrvat

lrETarag.

'Suet.

Tib.

I

("

Patricia

gens

Claudia .

. Roman .

.

cum

magna

clientium

manu

commigravit

)

does

not state

that

the

clients

mentioned

eredependents

f

the

gens,

and

elsewhere

we are informed

hat their

patron

was Appius

Claudius,

he

chief

man

n

the

ens;

Livy i, i6, 4.



10/31

No. 43 PAROBLEMS CONVECTED

WITHI

THE ROMAN GENS

671

clientage was

hereditary,

owever, he

family

nd

gens

felt an

interest

n

the clients of a

member,

n

the same

way

in

which

they nterested hemselves in his property nd reputation. In

fact it

was the duty of

kinsmen to assist

a

patron

n

protecting

his clients.

But this

obligation

does

not

prove

that the

clients

belonged to the

family

r gens

in

any

stricter

ense

than

did

the

wealth or

prestige

of

individual

members."

Even in

the

patronage of states-in

which

the

hereditary

haracter of

the

relation is

necessarily

ccentuated-the

patron

is

as a

rule an

individual.2 Rarely patrons of a single community re men-

tioned,3

ut

in

some

instances

reference

may

be

to

a

special

commission,

probably

the

patron

and

his

advisers,

ppointed

to

look after ts

affairs;

and a

colony mighthave several

founders,

who

according

to custom became its

patrons.4

But

in any

case

a

plurality

f

patrons,

where

such

a

condition

existed, was

far

frombeing

gentile

patronage.

One

passage

bearing

on the

subject requires

especial notice.

Livys tellsus that the Syracusansbegged Marcellus to receive

them

and their

city

n

clientage

to

himself,

ut

makes

no

men-

tion

of his

family

r

gens.

Doubtless all

the

Marcelli

felt

the

honor and

to some

extent

the

responsibility

ttaching to the

new

position

cquired

by

one

of

their

number;

and

accordingly

C.

Claudius

Pulcher,

appointed by

the

Senate

in

95

B. C.

to

give

laws

to

a

certain

Sicilian town,

consulted

in

this

function

I

C. Caesar, nGell. v,

13,

6:

"

Neque clientes inesummanfamia eseripossunt,

quibus etiam

a

propinquis ostris

pem

ferre

or fieri)

nstituimus."

Genz,

Patr.

Rom,

I9,

supposesthat

this

statement

roves

he

clients

o

belongto

the

gens,

but

it

indicates he

opposite:

not onlymust

patron

id

his

clientsbut

also

the patron's

relatives;

he

relatives re

not

patrons

f the

clients n

question.

2C.

Fabricius,

onsul

n

278

B.

C., was

patron

f all the

Samnites;

Val. Max. iv,

3,

6:

"

Universos

Samnites)

n

clientela

abebat."

Appian,

Bellum

Civile, i,

4, 14

(cairTp

narratgr6uuF1v

ia7t

7T1 iV

'P6uy

irpoar7iryj),

distinctly tates hat

hepatron

was

some

one person, nd mentions abius

Sanga,

not

his

gens,

as

patron f

the

Allobroges. In

stating

hat hosewhoreceived he

surrenderf

conquered ommuni-

tiesbecame their atrons, icero,Off. ,

II,

35,had an excellent pportunityomen-

tion the

patronage

f the

gens,

had

such a

thing

xisted.

3

Livy

x, 20, I0.

Patronsof the

colony nd

town f

Pompeii are

mentioned;

lut.

Sulla,

21;

cf.

Mommsen, om.

Staatsr.

II,

p.

776,

n. I.

5XXVI,

32, 8.



11/31

672 POLITICAL

SCIENCE

QUARTERLY

[VOL. XXII

all the

Marcelli

who

were then

iving'

(not

the

whole

Claudian

gens). Claudius

was

appointed

because

he chanced

then

to

be

praetor, nd he chose all the Marcelli as advisers in thework

because

he needed

several

advisers

according

to custom,

and

because

the Marcelli

were interested

n Sicilian

affairs.

This

interest,

owever,

did

not make

the family

s a whole the

pat-

ron

of

Sicily.2

In

brief

the modern theoryof

a

gentile

patron-

age of protected

communities

inds

no support

in

the

sources.3

Only

the patronage

of freedmen,

ecause

of

its

involving

the

rightof inheritance, assed equally to the agnatic descendants

of the

nearestdegree,

all

of whom accordingly

ecame

patrons.4

This fact,

too,

so far as

it bears

on the question

at issue,

tends

to disprove

the

theory

of

gentile

patronage.

It

might

be

imagined

that a

man

was

patron

not

as

an indi-

vidual

but

as head

of

a

gens,

were

it not

that any person,

what-

ever

his station,

was

patron

of his

own libertini

nd that,

o

far

as

is

known,

he

gens

did

not have

a formal

head.5

Such

a

supposition ould findno evidence in itsfavor.

Having

disposed

of the theory

of gentile

patronage,

et

us

next

inquire

whether

clients

were

members

of their

patron's

gens.

A

point

might

be made

in favor

of

the

affirmative,

f it

could

be

established

that

clients

bore

the

gentile

name

of

their

patron.

That

in

historical

times

freedmen rdinarily

eceived

the

gentilicium

of their former

master

cannot

be disputed.6

I

Cic. Verr. i, 49,

122.

2The

statement

f

Cicero,

n

Caecilium, ,

I3 ("

Omnino

Marcellorum

omini

ota

illa provincia

diuncta

st ")

is

sufficiently

xplained

by

the fact

hat

he patronage

f

the

wholeprovince

was hereditary

n that family.

Similarly

decree

of

the

Senate

in

117

B.

C. (C.

I.

L. I,

n.

I99)

assigned

he

settlement

f

certain

isputes

n

which

Genoa

was involved

o two Minucii

Rufi,

descendants

f theQ.

Minucius

Rufus

who

had

subdued

the Ligurians

n

197

B.

C.

(Mommsen,

R6m.

Staatsr.

II, p. 1203,

n.

).

The

whole

Minucian

ens

was

not called

on.

3The

theory

s held

by most

modern cholars;

cf. Von Premerstein,

n

Pauly-

Wissowa,Real-Encycl. V, 36; Genz,Patr. Rom, p.

I9

et eq.; Bloch, Origines u

s6nat

romain, .

107;

Willerns,

e s6nat

de la

republique

omaine,

,

7.

Mommsen's

statement

R6m.

Staatsr.

II,

65)

that

he

patronage

f

a

conquered

ommunity

e-

longed

to

the

conquering

eneral

nd

to his

heirs

s nearer

he

truth.

4

Cf.

Roby,

Rom.

Priv.

Law, I,

pp.

82

c

seq.,

and

his

citations

rom

he Digest.

5

Cf.

page

677

infra.

Mommsen,

om.

Staatsr.

II,

pp. 77, 427.



12/31

No. 4]

PROBLEMS

CONNECTED WITH

THE ROMAN

GENvS

673

This

usage

did not

make

freedmenmembers

of

the

gens,

for

Scaevola's

definition dmits

among

the

gentiles

only

those

who

are bornof freemen.' That the giving of the namewas in-

tended

not for

fixing

the future

tatus

of

the

freedman,

ut

at

most

as

an

honor to the

patron,

s

proved

by

the

occasional

naming f

the

freedman

fter

friend f

the

master,2

nd

fur-

ther

by the

usual

namingof

naturalized

itizens fterthe

person

through

whose influence

the franchise

was

bestowed.3

Prob-

ably the

motive

was

often

mere

convenience. Sometimes a

freedmanderived his gentilicium from the cognzomenf the

emancipator.+

On

such caprice

no

legal

right

ould be

founded.

As

to

clients

who

were not

freedmen,only

one

example

is

cited to

prove that

they

bore their

patron's

name:

Livy and

Dionysius6

mention a M.

Claudius

who was

client of

Appius

Claudius

the

decemvir.

But

Marcus

may have been a freed-

man of

Appius,

or he

may

have

been a

plebeian

Claudius who

in some

way

had

come

into

clientage;

and there

s

strong

vi-

dence thatas a ruleordinary lientsdid not have the name of

their

patron.

Salonius was a

client of the

elder Cato.7

C.

Cicereius

was a

client,

perhaps

a

freedman,of

Cn.

Scipio.8

Mallius

Glaucia, a

freedman,

was a

clientof

T.

Roscius.9

Here

is

an

example of

even a

freedmanwho

did not

bear the

patron's

name.

Mucius was a

client

of

Ti.

Gracchus.'?

Licinius

was a

client f

Catulus."t

Marius was

a

client f

Herennius.'X

Satrius

Secundus

and

PinariusNatta were

clients

of

Sejanus.'3

Publius

Egnatius was a clientof

Soranus.'4

Although n some of these

'

Cf.

page

664

supra.

2

Cf.

Egbert,

atin

nscriptions,

.

Ioo;

Cagnat,

Cours

d'epigraphie

atine,

pp.

8o

ct

eq.,

Michel,

Du droit

e

cite

rom.

pp.

306

ct eq.

'

Egbert,

p.

cit.

p.

I02;

Cagnat,op.

cit.

p.

75;

Mommsen,

om.

Staatsr. .

64,

n.

i. It

was

especially

ecessary

hat a

foreigner

n

becoming

citizen

hould

re-

ceivea

Roman

name.

4Cagnat,

of.

cit. p. 8o.

s

III, 44, 5.

6

XI,

28.

I

Gell. xiii,

0,

8;

Plut. Cat. Mai.

24;

Pliny,N. H.

vii,

4,

6i.

8Val.

Max. iv,

5, 3.

9Cic. Pro

Roscio

Amerino, ,

19.

'

Plut.

Tiberius

Gracchus,

3.

11

Cic.

Orat.

ii, 6o,

225.

12

Plut.

Mar. 5.

I$

Tacitus,

Annales, v,

34.

I4

ibid.

xvi,

32.



13/31

674

POLITICAL

SCIENCE

QUARTERLY

[VOL.

XXII

cases the word client

may be

employed

in the loose sense

of

dependent,

n others the

use is certainly echnical. To

prove

that these instances re not exceptional it maybe well to men-

tion two

others of a more

general nature.

When Varro as-

serts hat the Aemilii were descendantsof

Aemilius,

he

certainly

excludesthe clients

from he use of the

Aemilian

name,

for

no

Roman could thinkof clients

as related to their

patron n blood

and

descent;

and when various Roman

writers2

peak

of

the

three

hundred and six Fabii with

their

five

thousand

clients,

they

certainly ive

us to understand

that

the

clients were not

themselves

Fabii. It is a

pertinent

act that

when

a conquered

people became

clients

of

the

conquering general they did not

take

his

name

or

enter his

gens.

If, too,

clients

usually

re-

ceived

the name of

their

patron

and entered

his

gens, the

patrician gentile

names

would in

historical

time

be

far

more

widespread than

we

find

hem;

all or

nearly all

patriciangentes

would

have

many plebeian branches, nd

the

plebeian members

of a gens would greatly outnumber the patrician members.3

We may conclude

that

as

a

rule clients did

not bear

the

gentiliciun

of

their

patron,

and therefore

ould

not

according

to

Scaevola's

definition e counted

among

his

gentiles.

It

might

be

urged

with

a

faint

appearance of reason

that

if

the

clientstook

part

in

the

religious

rites

of

the

gens,

they

were

in

a

degree

members

of

that

association.4 The

first

source

usually

cited to

prove

this

participation

s

Dion. Hal.

ii,

10, 2:

Toi)

de

re.airaC

Meet

rokC

avr6v

Trpo7raa ..

re

apyalC

Kai

yp7potopiat

Kai

raZc-

4XXatC

ak?

eu ra'

Koiva

da7ravalg 7,6v

ava?1a'uiwv

6g

roiC

y)et

7rpoC4KovraC

p,-rt

civ.

In

the

expenses

f

holding

ffices

nd of

performing

ublicduties

nd

in other

utlays

or

the

public good it is necessary

ortheclients

o

share

with heir

patron,ust

s do

kinsmen.

It

is

clear,

however, hat this

passage refers o

the patron'sex-

penses

in

public life and

not to

the expenses of

the

gens.

No

L. L.

viii, ,

quoted p.

664, n. 3.

2 Cf. Fest.

334,

6.

3

On

the

comparativelyreat

number f

clients,

ee

Premersteiu,

n

Pauly-Wissowa,

Real-Encycl.

V, 36 et

eq.

4

Cf.

Mommsen,

om. Forsch.

1,

pp.

371

e

seq.;

Bloch,Orig. u s6n.

rom.,

.

107;

Voigt, n Ber.

sachs.

Gesellsch.d.

Wiss.

XXX

(i878),

p.

163;

Premerstein,p.

cit.

P. 37-



14/31

No.

4] PROBLEMS CONNECTED

WITH

THE

ROMVAN GENS

675

mention n fact s made of the

goes;

for the expression

roicyvvel

rpOc5IKOV7ag,

as all

Greek cholars now,

means imply4

kinsmen."'

If it should be granted hat

4v,z

here signifies ens,makingthe

phrase equivalent to " those belonging

to the

gens,"

it would

certainly xclude

the clientsfrom

he

gens,

for the

passage

con-

trasts

7oiJg

rA6rac

with

roig$ yivm rpOC;KOVTra(.

In

any

case no refer-

ence is made to

gentile acra.

Dionysius2

tells us that the Fabii with a few clients

went

forth o performthe religiousrites

of their

gens. In this

case

the clientsmayhave accompanied theirpatronsto help protect

them

from

the Etruscans or merely

s servants. At all events

there s

no

intimation

f

their haring

n the saca_.

Elsewhere

Dionysius

states

that

it was as descendants of

the common

ancestor

of

the

gens, hence as blood

kinsmen, hat the members

of

the association joined

in

common offerings o

the gods and

in

honor and

love to the

spirits

f

the forefathers.3

This prin-

ciple would exclude

clients as well as all othersof alien blood.

If a patron took some of his dependentswith himas servants

to the

gentile

festival,

nd

even if

they chanced to receive food

from

the festive

table,

these

circumstanceswould

not make

them members

of

the

gens.4

In

fact Dionysius

expressly

ex-

cludes the clients

from

ny

share

in

the gens.5

The

case

of

Hispala Fecenia,

a

freedwoman, s

oftenused to

prove that women

of her

class

belonged to the gens

of her pat-

ron, and could

not marry

outside

of

that gens without special

'

Members f the

ens

would

be

roif

yertovrac

roV y}vovg.

2 X, 19, I.

3XI.

I4.

On

this

principle

Ftistelde

Coulanges,

Ancient

City,

pp.

131

et

seq.,

bases his treatment

f

the

gens.

4

In like mannert has

been assumed cf. Marquardt,

rivatlebener Romer,

p.

353)

that a freedman ad a

right o interment

n

his patron's-that

s, in the gentile-

tomb. The truth s that the tomb belonged to the

family ather hanto thegens

(p. 678), and the citations urnishedy Marquardt, bid.,

prove hat ntermentn the

family

ombwas

not a legal right

f a

freedman,

s it dependedwholly n the will

of

the

patron,

nd

that

t

did not

indicate

eintile

onnection, ut was only kindness

sometimes

hown

o mere

friends;

f.

Cic. Pro

Archia, ,

22;

Scholia Bobiensia, 58.

5

In

x,15, 2,

he contrasts

rovc

e7rtyovraC

ov peri-pov

yivovf-"

thosewho hared

in

their

ens

"-with the clients nd friends ho were o be conducted n addition n

the

proposedmilitary

ampaign.



15/31

676

POLI7TCAL

SCIENCE

QUARTERLY

LVOL.

XXII

permission,,

he purpose

of

the

law being,

as is alleged,

to

retain

hemn

nd

theirchildren

n dependence

on

the gens.

As

herpatronhad died, evidentlywithout gnatic descendants, he

was

under no

one's

inanzi

2_free to

all

appearance

from

the

genis

f her patron.

Under

these

circumstances

he

practor

at

her

request

appointed

a guardian

for her,

and

she

made

a will

in

which she bequeathed

all

herproperty

o

a friend.3

After-

ward

in return

for information

given

the

state

a plebiscite

granted

her the

right o alienate

her property,

o marry

utside

her gens-gentis

enzptio-and

to

choose

a

guardian,

ust

as

though

she had

been

permitted

y

the testament

f

a husband.4

From

these

statements

t

appears

that

without this

special

enactment

he

various

privileges

mentioned

would have

been

at

the disposal

of

her

husband,

f she

had one;

5

or if

not,

of

the

praetor

and

the

guardian

whom

he

appointed.

No

reference

s

made

to herbeing

in the power

of her

patron's

gentiles.6

The

gens

referred

o could not

be that

of her patron,

from

which

Scaevola's definitionxcluded her; but the state, ookingupon

her

as a free woman

legally

qualified

to

marry,7

ecessarily

assumed

that

she,

like every

free person,

had

a

gens

of

her

own,

consisting

of

whatever

kin she may

have possessed,

one

of

whom

could

have

claimed

the

right

o

guardianship

ver

her;

8

in other

words,

ibertini

had

potential

gentilitas

with

one

an-

other though

not

withtheir

patrons.

Lastly

the

clients

are

oftencontrasted

with

the

gens

and

its

members.

Livy9

mentionsC. Claudius with his gentiles and

his

clients.

Dionysius'O

states

that

two

Fabii,

after consulting

with

the

members

of their

gens,

promised

the Senate

that

they

would

themselves

voluntarily

ndergo

specified

danger,

aking

with

them

their

own clients

and friends.

He also

tells

uls

that

I

Cf.

Premerstein,

n

Pauly-Wissowa,

eal-Encycl.

V,

43.

2

Livy

xxxix,

, 7.

3 Ibid.

4Ibid. 19,

5. $ Cf.Gaius ,

150.

6The

Twelve

Tables granted

the guardianship

f

a freedwoman

o the

patron's

children,

ot

expressly

ut

by

implication;

Gaius

i,

I64

a.

It

gave

no

power

to

the

other gnates

of

the

patron,

not

to

speak

of his

gentiles;

f. iii,

48.

7

Livy,

ibid. 8

Gaius

i,

I55,

157.

9III,

58,

I.

'oIX,

15,

2.



16/31

No. 4] PROBLEMS CO.NAEC7'ED WITH THE ROMIAN GENS

677

the Fabii with few clientswent forth o their acra.1

Festus2

mentions the

three hundred and six

Fabii

and

theirfive

thou-

sand clients. Suetonius3speaks of themigration f theClaud-

ian gens

with a

great

band of clients.

In all these instances

clear line of distinction s

drawn

between

the gens

or

gentiles

and the

clients.

III.

The question

f organizationt

As

long

as the

gens

continued

to be a

mere

family

n the

Roman

sense, it necessarily

had the

organization

f

thatsociety

and was ruled by the pater familias. Several

patriciangentes

did not

progressbeyond this

stage.4

In

every such case,

how-

ever, it was not as a

gens but as

a

family

hat

the

association

was organized and governed. There

must have

been

many

an

instance,

oo, of the

dwindling

f

a

gens to a

single

individual

before ts complete

extinction,

n which

case

it

would

be absurd

to

speak

of

organization

or

government.

A

more

difficult

problem s thatof the gens composed of two or morefamilies.

Had

conditions

favored,

he

authority

of

the

father over his

descendants

might

have

developed

into an

authority

of

the

elder

over

his younger

brother;

and in

that

ase the

gentswould

have

inherited government

rom

he

family.

But

in

fact the

law declared the brothers

equally free on the death

of the

father,

nd

required

an

equal divisionof

the

hereditary state

among

them,

o that

every

son

became

the head of an

inde-

pendent family. These patresfaniliarum mighthave chosen

for their

gens any

kind of

government

n

which

they

could

agree.

But there s

no

evidence that they

adopted

any formal

government whatever. The

patres

maiorum

and

minorum

gentiu;n

were

not

heads

of

gentesbut senators

from,

r

belong-

ing to, the

greater

and lesser

gentes.5

Nowhere

in

history

do

the

patres appear

as

heads of

the

gentes

nor could

there

always

have been just one pater to a

gents.6

The gentis princeps-

I

IX,

19,

1.

t334,

5.

3Tib.

i.

'

Cf.

page

683

infra.

5Cic. Rep.

ii, 20,

35;

cf.

POL. SCI. QUART.

XXI,

P.

5I8.

6

From he

beginning f the

republict often

appened hat

herewere wo

atres,

senators,

ronm

gens,

as is

proved

by the histories f

various

en/es compiled

by

Bloch, Orig.du sen.

rom.pp.

145

et

seq.

For

the two

Claudian

enators t thetime

of

the

decemvirate,ee Livy

ii, 40, 58.



17/31

678

POLITICAL

SCIENCE

QUARTERLY

[VOL.

XXII

6

hyy6v

ro6

yivor-referred

to by several writers,'was usually

the

founderof the genis.

As under

the republic

princeps s

never

official, he livingprincepsor principesgentiscould onlybe the

most influential

man or menl

f the association.

The chief

man

might

unofficiallyecome

the leader

of

his

gentiles

and their

clientson a migration

r in

any other

enterprise.2

Gentile asssemblies,

cemeteries,3

acra4

and

customs

are

occasionally

mentioned, ut

on close

examination these institu-

tions often

ppear

to belong to families

r groups

of families

rather

than to the gens.

When a gens

branched into families,

it was

a common

custom for each family

o

make for itself

a

separatecemetery;

and

probably therefore ach

had distinct

sacra.6

In

gentes

omprisingboth patricians

nd

plebeians

the

assemblies,

so far

as

we know,

were

attended

by patricians

only,7

rom which

we

should infer

that they

were

an

affair f

the family,

ot of

the entire

ems.

The

agreement

o

which the

members

came

was sometimes

called decretum. Such

was

the

resolution f the patricianManlii to repudiatethe name Mar-

cus.8

The informal nature

of the agreement

appears

more

clearly

n

the

word

consensus.9 It

could

have

no

legal

force,

as

the

gens

possessed

no means

of

coercing

its

members;

and it

applied

onlyto the

familieswho entered into the agreement.

The purelymoral

natureof

the obligation

s shown by the

fact

that a

member

could

depart

from traditional

custom

without

consulting

his

gens.10

The

presidency

of

the assembly

is

re-

'Suet.

Tib. i; Dionysius

f

Halicarniassus

i, 69, i; cf.

Fest.

ep.

86.

2

Suet.

Tib.

i;

Livy i, i6, 4.

3

Cic.

De

Legibus,

i, 22,

55;

Val.

Max. ix,

2, 1;

Suet.

Ner.

50;

cf.

Lcrivain,

in

Daremberg

t Saglio,

Dict. II,

p.

1505.

4Cic.

Dom.

I3, 35;

Har.

Resp. 15,

32; Livy

v, 52, 3

et

seq.;

Fest. 45, 30;

C.

1. L.

I,

807; XlV,

2387.

5

Cic.

Tusculanae Disputationes,

, 7, 13:

"Calatini,

Scipionum,

Serviliorurn,

Metellorumepulchra'";cf.Marquardt, rivatl. . Rom.pp.

14, 353.

6

Cf.

ic.

De Officiis,, 17, 55.

7Gell.

ix,

2,

II;

Fest. ep.

151.

8Cic.

Phil.

i, I3, 32;

Livy

vi,

20,

14;

Fest.

ep. 125, 15 ;

Plut. Quaestiones

Romanae,

9I;

Gell.

ix,

2,

II,

9

Suet.

Tib.

1. 10

Cf.

Cic.

Leg.

ii,

22,

57.



18/31

No. 4] PROBLEMS CONNECTED

WIT

THE ROMAN

GENS

679

ferred to but once; we are

informed that the

Fabii were con-

voked by two

of their number-a circumstance

which

would

corroborate theview above expressed that the association had

no formal head. It can now

be seen that

a chief would have

little o do:

for there were no assemblies of

the

gens

as such;

the supervision f the cemetery

nd sacra fell

to the

component

families; apart

from the cemetery he gens

is not known to

have

possessed

property;'

and the claim of the gentiles

to

inheritance

nd tutelage was

settledby the courts.

The mutual

rights and

duties of the members, he peculiar

customsof

gentes

nd the place

of the institutionn society

and

in the

state

can all be explained

without magining t a corpor-

ate or formally organized

body. This is

true of historical

time;

3

and fromwhat is here

presented s to the history f

the

gens we may

safely nfer hat

it is true of the institution

rom

the

very beginning.4

IV. The number fpatriciangentes nd the average

nembershzi

A

passage in Dionysiuss

which to

manyscholars

seems

to

prove the existence

of three

hundred patrician gentesfor

early

Rome in

realitymakes no

referenceto gentes.

This fact has

already been

established.6 Equally unfounded

is the notion

'

Dion. Hal. ix, 15, 2.

The consul Fabius

spoke to the Senate for he

gens; Livy

ii, 48, 8.

2

The Ager

Tarquiniorurn

was probablyhe hereditary

ropertyf a single

family

(Livy ii,

5,

2); the

prata

Quinctia

(Livy

iii, 26, 8) were

so called probablybe-

cause thesefour ugera were

upposed to

have once belonged o the famous ictator

Cinciiinatus;

nd the prata

Alucia

(ibid.

ii,

I3,

5) mayowe their ame to a similar

cause.

In

nmoderninmeslaces

are often

amed afterfamilieswithout ver

having

been

their

roperty.

3

Mominsen, om. Staatsr. II, pp. 17

et

seq.;

Ucrivain,

n Daremberg t Saglio,

Dictionnaire es AntiquitEs recques t romaines,I,

p.

I504.

4

Mommsen,

p. cit. thinks

t mayhave had a chief n the

past. A corporate

har-

acter

at

least

for

early

time

s affirmed

y Herzog, Geschichte

und System

der

r6mischen taatsverfassung,, p.

I

, n. 4;

Genz, Patr. Rom,

p.

3I;

Lcrivain,

ibid.

pp.

I5io

Ct

eq.,

and

mostothermodern uthorities.

Necessarily

ll who

suppose

it

to have

preceded

the statemust assign to

it a corporate

haracter t least forthe

earliest eriod

of ts history.

D

II, 7,

4.

6

POL. SCI. QUART.

XXI,

p.

511.



19/31

68o

POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

[VOL.

XXII

that the Romans regarded each of the three hundred

senators

of the regal

period as the pater

of a

gens,

thus making

three

hundred in all.' As no other evidence has been offeredfor

this number,

t

cannot be considered even a reasonable

theory.

Mommsen

thought it probable

that at the

beginning of

the

republic there were

a hundred and

thirty-six. According

to

our sources3

Valerius

at that time added a hundred

and sixty-

four senatorsto make up the full

number three

hundred.4 If

before

this d/ectio here

were a hundred nd thirty-six

enators,

and if each gens was

represented

by a single senator,there

would have been at

the time a

hundred and thirty-six entes.

Although these numbers

may

be outrightinventions,

they

probably rest upon

evidence known

to the

ancients. It is

not certain,however,

that the

gentes

were

ever so

uniformly

represented

s Mommsen

supposes;

in fact so

far

back

as our

knowledge reaches,

we find

gentes

with

more than

one

senator.5

If this was the case

at the beginning

f the republic, here

were

fewer hana hundred nd thirty-sixentes.

Scarcely sixty patrician

gentes,6

or

by

the most liberal esti-

mate

scarcely seventy,7

re known

to us

by

name.

When we

reflect

that

in

an

intensely

aristocratic state

like

the

early

Roman republic

few nobles families could

have remained

in

obscurity,

we

are led to

believe

that an estimate

of about

a

hundred

would be

ample.

The fewerwe

assume,

the easier

it

will be

to

explain

the

rapid falling

off in

number during

the

republic. In spiteof the possibility f recruiting he class by

the

adoption

of

plebeians,

and

after

445

B.

C.

by intermarriage

I

Cf.

ibid. p. 500,

n.

2.

2R6m.

Forsch.

, pp.

I 2I

et

eq.;

Rom. Staatsr.

II, p.

I2,

n.

I.

3

Fest.

254, 24;

Plut. Poplicola, i.

4

That thesenew

members

were

plebeian,

r f

they

were, hat

hey emained

le-

beian

after heir dmission

s highlymprobable;

f.Willems,

en.

de

la

rep.

rom.

,

pp- 35 etseq.

Cf.

page

677 supra.

6Mommsen,

Rom.

Forsch. ,

p.

121;

Rom.

Staatsr.

II,

p.

12,

n. I.

7Lcrivain,

in Daremberg

t

Saglio,

Dict.

II, p.

1515,

followingWillems,

dds

to

Mommsen's

ist

seventeen

ames, omeof

them

verydoubtful; f. Bloch,Orig.

du

sen.

rom.

pp.

II

3

et

seq.



20/31

No.4]

PROBLEMS

CONNECTED

WITH

TIEROMAiV GEAS 681

with

hem,

he

gentes

of

the

patricians

vanished

one

by one

in

quick

succession.

Of

the

thirty-three

which,

according

to

Mommsen,' disappeared from historybefore the Licinian-

Sextian

legislation,

ix

are

mentioned

neither

by

the

fasti

nor

by

the

annals;2

hence

they may

have

become extinct

before

the

beginning f the

republic.

Fifteen

others,

vouched

for

by

the

annals or the

fasti,

disappeared

between the

beginning

of

the

republic

nd the first

ear

of the

decemvirate,

eaving

twelve

to

disappear

between that

date and

366

B.

C.3

Thereafter

he

processcontinued,withthe resultthatonlyfourteen re known

to

have remained t the close of

the

republic.4

At

a

time

when

patrician

nobility

was so

rare

that

Julius

Caesar

and

Octavianus

in

the interest f

religion

felt

compelled

to

raise

plebeians

to

that

rank,

few

f

any

patrician

gentes could

have

escaped

men-

tion

by

the extant

writers

f

the

period.

That

their

disappear-

ance from

history

was

generally

due

to

extinction s

confirmed

by

the

dying

out of

eight

of

these

fourteen

entes

before

the

principate f Claudiu*.5

The

rapidity

f

the

process

indicates

small

average

mem-

bership

of

the

gens. We are

astonished

therefore

o

hear

of

three hundred

and

six

Fabii,

all

patricians,

who

went

to

war

against

the

Etruscans.6

Schwegler7

noticed

that

this

gens

had

thus

far

furnished

but

three

consuls-the

brothers

Caeso,

Quintus

and

Marcus-who

took

their

turns n

holding

office,

as

though

here

could

have

been

no

great

number

of

members

to choose from.

Even

Dionysius8

wondered

how it

happened

1

Rom.

Forsch.

1,

pp.

107

et

seq.

2

Their

nly

monuments

re

the

tribes

o which

hey ave

their

ames.

3

Although

omputations

ay

ary n

detail

cf.

LUcrivain,bid.

p.

1515;

Bloch,

bid.

pp.

II3-122),

all

agree

s

to the

general act f

rapid

xtinction. Several

f

the

entes

mentioned

or

he

early

epublic

maybe

mythical,

n

which

ase a

corresponding

e-

duction

must

e

made

from

ur

estimate f

the

number

t that

ime.

4

Mommsen,

om.

Forsch.

,

p.

122;

Bloch,

Orig.

du

sen.

rom.

p.

114.

They

repre-

sentedabout thirtynownfamilies;

Mommsen,

p.

cit. When

Dionysius, ,

85,

3,

evidently

ollowing

arro,

tates

that

fifty

ouses

o[Koi)

of

Trojan descent

urvived

to

his own

time,

he

refers o

families

ather

hanto

gentes,

and

may nclude

plebeian

families,

ho

also

claimed

descent

rom

he

Trojans.

5

Bloch,

op.

cit.

p.

I I

6

Livy

i,

49,

3;

Dion.

Hal.

ix,

15.

7

R6m. Gesch.

II,

p.

527.

8IX,

22,

1.



21/31

682

POLITICAL SCIENCE

QUAR7TERL

Y

[VW)L.

XXII

that none of these matureFabii had

children.

In

spite of

the

statement f Livy that all were patricians, chwegler' believed

that most of themwereclients. Some explanationof the num-

ber is

necessary;

and it

may

be found

in the

statement

of

Livy2 that in

358

B. C.,

in

an

unsuccessful

war

conducted by a

Fabius against

the

Etruscans,

three

hundred nd seven

Roman

prisonerswere put

to

death by the enemy. Probably

this

fact

led some

chronicler Fabius Pictor?) to assert, n behalf of the

gens to which

the defeated commander belonged, that

a

hun-

dred years earlier similarnumberof Fabii had voluntarilymet

heroic death in war

with the

same

enemy.3

It

appears then

that the three hundred and

six

Fabii of

military ge

are

a

fiction, nd that the gens was in fact small.

Evidence that

as

a rule the genteswere small

is

afforded y

a

study

of

the

cognzomien.

Although

t

may

be

as old as

the Latin

language, its

position after that

of

the

tribe

proves that

its

regular nd official se arose after he institution f the Servian

tribes4 that is, not earlier than the last yearsof themonarchy

or the

beginning of the republic; it never became

a legal

necessity, nd

in fact several

well-known

lebeian gentes

never

acquired it.5 The kings,with

the

exception of

the

Tarquinii,

whose surnameswere doubtless invented n far later time,had

no

more than

two names; and it appears certain that the cog-

nomina of the fasti in the firstcentury f the republicwere

' Followedby Bloch, Orig. du s6n.rom.pp.

II2

etseq.

2VII,

15.

3

Cf. Pais, Storiadi Roma, , i,

p.

517. Much of thematerial

n

the

historyf the

fifthentury . C. is drawnfrom

hat f the fourth. Since the battle

f the Cremera

is representeds having een fought

bout the time f the battle

f

Thermopylae,

he

number

f

Fabii

may

bear somerelationo the number fSpartans;Cf.Pais, Ancient

Legends

of

Roman History 1905),

p.

29.

The

story, hen,may

be of

composite

origin.

No

importance ttaches

to the

conjecture

f Niese, Grundriss

er

r6mischen

Geschichte

i906),

p.

56,

that hetwo hundred nd sixty arquinii Diodorusxvi, 5,

8, or three hundred nd fifty-eight

ccording o Livyvii,

19,

2),

said to have been

put to death by the Romans n the Forum n

351,

were

not inhabitants

f

Tarquinii

but members

f

the

royal ens

of

thatname.

'Mommsen, Rom.

Forsch.

,

pp.

45

et

seq.; Lcrivain,

in

Daremberg

t

Saglio,

Dict. 11, p.

1510.

s Mommsen, 6m. Forsch. ,

p.

42.



22/31

No.

4]

PROBLEMS CONNECTED WVITH THE

ROMAN

GENS

683

inserted t a

later revision.' The cognomen iust

have

remained

a

second

personal name for long time

before

t

became

hered-

itary,2 nd even then t did notnecessarily ndicatea branching

of

the gens

into families. Only when

two

or

more

cognomina

appear in the

same

gents

withoutbeing common to all

the mem-

bers, have we

clear proof

of branching.3 By

such

indications

no patriciangens is known

to have

divided into familiesbefore

the fourth

century of the city.4 The

gentes

which

became

extinct

in

the

early republic

must have been

small.

Of

those

which survived

considerablenumber

failed to branch. Others,

more

fortunate n

offspring,ivided gradually nto

two, three,

or

more

families. The

most widelybranched was the

Cornelia,

which in the

fifth

entury f the city reached its full

comple-

ment of

nine families.S The low

average appears

from

the

circumstance

hat thefourteen atrician

gentes

urviving

o

the

time of

Cicero comprised

about thirty amilies.6 At no

time,

then,were

the gentes so

large as themyth

f

the

Fabii

would

lead us to suppose; in the first entury f the republicand

earlier they

were as a rule

single families, nd hence contained

few

members.

The

smallness of the

gens, to

which

these

considerations

point,

s

furtherproved

by the limitednumber

of

praenomina.

The gens

Aemilia had

eight,the Furia and the Cornelia

seven

each; the Claudia and the

Manlia six

each;

the

Fabia

five nd

'Ibid. pp. 47 el seq.; Bloch,Orig.du sen. rom., p.

128.

2Mommsen,

ibid.

p.

48; Bloch, ibid.,

pp.

125

et seq.,

128;

Genz, Patr. Rom,

pp.

8 et

seq.

The theory f Mommsen, bid.

pp.

54

el

seq.,

followedby Bloch,

ibid.

pp.

126

et eq., that the

cognomen

was for a

long time officiallyeserved o the patricians

seemsto be refuted y the considerations

eregiven regardingts late

introduction

intoofficial ocuments.

3Cf.

Michel,Du droit e cite rom.

pp.

223-226:

The entire

ens

could have any

nunmber

f

cognomiina.

All

the Furii had two,

Medullinus

and Fusus; Bloch,

op.

cit.,

p. 177.

'The

Cornelian

ens

was the first o show a branching nto families.

From he

originalMaluginenses, heCossi and then he Scipios eparated

n

the fourth

entury

of

the

city; Mommsen, p.

cit. p.

50;

Frohlich,

n

Pauly-Wissowa, eal-Encycl.

V,

1249.

5

Bloch,Orig. du sen. rom.pp. I83

et seq.

6

Cf. page

68i,

n.

4

supra.



23/31

684

POLITICAL SCIENCE

QUARTERLY

[VOL.

XXII

the Julia four.'

Within the family he

names

were

as a rule

still

more

restricted. This circumstance hows how few must

have been the individuals belonging to any one family; the

Cornelii

Scipiones,

for

nstance,

with

their

three

praenomina-

Gnaeus,

Lucius

and

Publius-counted

on

having

no more

than

three

sons to

any

one

father.

The

average number

f members

prominent nough to findmention

n

the annals

or

some problems connected with the roman gens.pdf

Documents