Plebeians and Patricians

[M. Porcius Cato]

Most UNRV participants are aware that the common use of "plebeian" to refer to the poor and "patrician" to refer to the rich is a modern invention that does not conform to the ancient Roman concepts. For the Romans, the patrician/plebeian distinction was a hereditary marker, not an economic marker. But the question is--who were the patricians? Who were the first plebeians?

 

According to Forsythe, the 16 original patrician clans were the

1. Aemilii ..... 9. Nautii

2. Claudii .... 10. Postumii

3. Cloelii .... 11. Quinctilii

4. Cornelii ....12. Quinctii

5. Fabii .... 13. Servilii

6. Furii .... 14. Sulpicii

7. Julii .... 15. Valerii

8. Manlii .... 16. Veturii

During the middle republic, three clans could be firmly added to the list: the Folii, certain Papirii, and Sergii. What's interesting is that none of these three clans were among the prominent plebeian families, suggesting that they hadn't been elevated by some novel mechanism. So, where did they come from?

[Divi Filius]

But the question is--who were the patricians? Who were the first plebeians?

 

I remember Forsythe tying these distinctions to the priesthoods: pointing to a far less secular time in Roman history when a number of families dominated the orders.(?)

 

The Plebians could have simply been the rest? The emerging wealthy families from these could point to the secularizing and expanding of Rome under later periods.

 

I havnt read Forsythe in a while so I may have to double-check what he said.

 

So, where did they come from?

 

Middle Republic. Rome is expanding. Perhaps they are high nobility from other Italian(or Latin) cities?

[caldrail]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the name Servilii a sign of lowly origin? I'm not disputing your list of patricians, merely pointing out that some patrician families weren't always so well off.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

This is what I have been able to ascertain (Mostly from Livy and Dionysius).

 

The original patricians came from the three tribes settled in the hills in and around Rome as they eventually joined together: The Ramnes (Latins), Tities (Sabines), and Luceres (Estruscans). These tribes had been united as Romans at different times during Romulus' reign.

 

Apparently Tarquinius Priscus did admit some plebeian families of importance into these three original tribes. The kings had the power to do this but essentially needed the consent of the other patricians to do so. Tullus Hostilius also added some of the nobles from the Alban Mount into the ranks of the patricians as well.

 

At this point in history only patricians were citizens. If you weren't a patrician and live in Rome you were a plebeian or client. Then as the years grew on plebeians were accepted to be as part of the "people" and citizens but there is no distinctive time frame for this.

 

From then on if you were born a patrician, you remained a patrician regardless of office-holdings, membership in the senate, or wealth...once a patrician, always a patrician (P. Clodius Pulcher excepted of course).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the name Servilii a sign of lowly origin? I'm not disputing your list of patricians, merely pointing out that some patrician families weren't always so well off.

 

Caldrail-

 

The Servilii were added when the nobles from Alba were added to Rome as mentioned in Livy 1.30. There is no mention of their financial status (however the early Servilli were known to worship a copper coin!) but it should be noted that even amongst patricians there was a pecking order. The members of the first two tribes considered themselves above those of Luceres, added-plebeians, and the Albans.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the name Servilii a sign of lowly origin? I'm not disputing your list of patricians, merely pointing out that some patrician families weren't always so well off.

 

Julii weren't so well off or know in the mid-Republic, but hey, look what happened.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

During the middle republic, three clans could be firmly added to the list: the Folii, certain Papirii, and Sergii. What's interesting is that none of these three clans were among the prominent plebeian families, suggesting that they hadn't been elevated by some novel mechanism. So, where did they come from?

 

During the Republic, a gens could be elevated to patrician via a lex curiata from the comitia of the same. I don't have any specific examples yet but I will continue to look.

 

Did these names also come from Forsythe (I have never read him)? Also, what is the consenus on the "Middle Republic" I have always seen it as after conquest of Italy to the time of the Gracchi...is that universal? If so, then there is evidence of these families being patrician well before the middle republic.

 

I couldn't find any Folii but I think their name is often confused with the Folsii. If so, we can see one as Consualr Tribune in 433 BC and supposedly patrician: Folsius Flaccinator

 

In the case of the Papirii, there seems to be evidence from Dionysius that there were patrician branches as early as the time of the kings:

Gens Papiria

 

And finally the Sergii have a member as Consul in 437 BC:

Gens Sergia

[Divi Filius]

I think this confusion could simply be a byproduct of not yet solidified social order which could not have been understood by historians of the later republic.

 

Also, what is the consenus on the "Middle Republic" I have always seen it as after conquest of Italy to the time of the Gracchi...is that universal?

 

I always saw it as the period of the Samnite war, ending with the defeat of Pyrrhus.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Also, what is the consenus on the "Middle Republic" I have always seen it as after conquest of Italy to the time of the Gracchi...is that universal?

I always saw it as the period of the Samnite war, ending with the defeat of Pyrrhus.

 

Interesting...I have started a new topic on period of the Republic in this thread.

[Julius Ratus]

There were Plebian branches some of the Patrician gentes weren't there? Ex.: Clodii.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

There were Plebian branches some of the Patrician gentes weren't there? Ex.: Clodii.

 

Yes, there is quite a lot of evidence of this. One of the great sites I found that shows the breakdowns is : Les gentes romaines. It is in French, but once you figure out "patricienne" and "pl

Edited April 2, 2007 by Publius Nonius Severus

[Virgil61]

...For the Romans, the patrician/plebeian distinction was a hereditary marker, not an economic marker...

 

Of course I'm sure you'll agree that it beganas an economic/political marker and, as family fortunes tend to change over time, became a hereditary marker for the more powerful segments of society.

 

Perhaps what, 5-10% or so of the population was patrician? While some perhaps 5-10% of the plebeian group gaining economic and political power over generations (as 'respected' families) replacing or matching that of patrician families who'd fallen from fortune.

 

It's a guess of course, the percentages may be off but it's not far-fetched. And at least at the level of the political and economically powerful it would point towards their being a mixed bunch. Of course those who were unlucky enough to never have their family lines 'bubble up' remained plebes .

 

Still the Romans weren't above using origins to denigrate others. I think it was Livy who was keen to point out that at Cannae, Varro was of plebeian background as if that were some part of the fault.

[M. Porcius Cato]

...For the Romans, the patrician/plebeian distinction was a hereditary marker, not an economic marker...

Of course I'm sure you'll agree that it beganas an economic/political marker and, as family fortunes tend to change over time, became a hereditary marker for the more powerful segments of society.

It's possible, but I don't think it's likely. The patricians go back to the founding of the city, when Rome was just a village of huts. Given iron age culture, differences in family wealth and status are caused by family size (hence the fertility gods). My guess is that the patricians were simply the first big families in Rome--fertile and large in number, therefore wealthy and high status (for a bunch of people living in huts, that is). Since Rome welcomed immigrants, it was natural that there would be an us/them distinction. Just look at small towns in Appalachia that are the same way, with large long-established (but never particularly wealthy) families taking ferocious pride in their "roots" and seeking to maintain political and religious influence in their communities.

 

EDIT: A better analogy might be Americans who take such enormous pride in tracing their families back to the Mayflower. These American patricians didn't begin as richer than the later immigrants, they were just first and long-established. In fact, those Massachusetts puritans were originally so far from rich that they were stealing and begging food from the natives.

Edited April 5, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[Pantagathus]

EDIT: A better analogy might be Americans who take such enormous pride in tracing their families back to the Mayflower. These American patricians didn't begin as richer than the later immigrants, they were just first and long-established. In fact, those Massachusetts puritans were originally so far from rich that they were stealing and begging food from the natives.

And the reason people do has nothing to do with the wealth involved with those first settlers but with the bragging rights of being the most American because they were established from the very beginning. Hereditary wealth and power are often a byproduct of successful family groups that stay firmly established over time.

 

It's a great analogy Cato becuase I imagine that was exactly what made Patricians who they were initially; the claim to being the first families of Rome regardless of initial wealth. But for the ones that maintained tight control over the family assests over the years, wealth and power were inevitable.

[M. Porcius Cato]

It's a great analogy Cato becuase I imagine that was exactly what made Patricians who they were initially; the claim to being the first families of Rome regardless of initial wealth. But for the ones that maintained tight control over the family assests over the years, wealth and power were inevitable.

 

Yes, and it must have been tough-going if their wealth really were derived from their own agriculture (as opposed to tenancy)--the Romans didn't practice primogeniture, thus threatening to tear every estate among all the surviving sons. My own guess is that patricians succeeded in escaping their mathematical fate by leasing their lands to immigrant farmers (i.e., plebs), thereby resulting in debt bondage and the later 'secession of the plebs' that eliminated debt slavery.

[Virgil61]

...For the Romans, the patrician/plebeian distinction was a hereditary marker, not an economic marker...

Of course I'm sure you'll agree that it beganas an economic/political marker and, as family fortunes tend to change over time, became a hereditary marker for the more powerful segments of society.

It's possible, but I don't think it's likely. The patricians go back to the founding of the city, when Rome was just a village of huts. Given iron age culture, differences in family wealth and status are caused by family size (hence the fertility gods). My guess is that the patricians were simply the first big families in Rome--fertile and large in number, therefore wealthy and high status (for a bunch of people living in huts, that is). Since Rome welcomed immigrants, it was natural that there would be an us/them distinction. Just look at small towns in Appalachia that are the same way, with large long-established (but never particularly wealthy) families taking ferocious pride in their "roots" and seeking to maintain political and religious influence in their communities.

 

EDIT: A better analogy might be Americans who take such enormous pride in tracing their families back to the Mayflower. These American patricians didn't begin as richer than the later immigrants, they were just first and long-established. In fact, those Massachusetts puritans were originally so far from rich that they were stealing and begging food from the natives.

 

I think there's a great deal of truth to all this. You can find it today in small towns in my home town--or anywhere else I imagine--where older families are more well known and respected.

 

Take a look at p 162 on Forsythe for an interesting take on the issue (I've inserted the paragraph for those who don't have access):

 

Since WWII, one important trend in the study of this problem has been to take seriously the possibility that the late annalistic tradition was wrong about a patrician monopoly of the consulship from its inception to 366 BC and to regard the non-patrician names in the consular list as both reliable and genuinely non-patrician. this hypothesis has often been combined with an idea proposed by the Italian scholar De Sanctis that, like so many other things, the patriciate was the product of historical evolution, and the group of families which composed it did not become a closed, exclusive body until some time during th early republic. E.J. Bickermann reinforced the plausibility of this idea by pointing out its similarity t much better documented cases of self-defined closed ruling oligarchies in the free communes of late medieval Italy...De Sanctis's concept of the closing of the patriciate has been widely accepted and has been applied by various scholars to the surviving data in attempting to determine exactly when the patriciate came into being. Indeed, an evolutionary approach to the question of the patriciate's origin receives support from both the ancient literary tradition and archaeology.