THE ROMAN NOBILITY Matthias Gelzer Translated with an introduction by
Robin Seager
OXFORD BASIL BLACKWELL 1969
© in ...
90 downloads
1666 Views
3MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
THE ROMAN NOBILITY Matthias Gelzer Translated with an introduction by
Robin Seager
OXFORD BASIL BLACKWELL 1969
© in this translation Basil Blackwell, 1969 631 I1940 x Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 69-2 69-20434
Die Nobilität der römischen Republik is translated from the German by permission of B.G. Teubner Verlag, Stuttgart Die Nobilität der Kaiserzeit is translated from the German by permission of Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden
ion
. K
Printed in Great Britain by William Clowes and Sons, Limited, London and Becdes and bound by The Kemp Hall Bindery, Oxford
Preface I FIND IT strangely moving that Mr. Seager should have devoted his distinguished linguistic and historical talents to making available to the English-speaking public two works which I wrote more jKan half a century ago. Besides my warm thanks to him I should like to express my equally deep gratitude to Professor Badian, who together with Mr. Seager undertook the task of kindly correcting various slips which had escaped me at the time. 5 October, 1968.
MATTHIAS GELZER
Contents
y
PREFACE BY MATTHIAS GELZER ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS .. INTRODUCTION
.
.
^X XI
THE NOBILITY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
Prefatory Note
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
1
I Eligibility for Office and Nobility The Equestrian Order . The Senatorial Order . Nobility . . Clarissimi . . . . . Principes Civitatis Antiquity of the Concept of Nobility The Predominance of the Nobility Conclusion . . . .
4 18 27 40 44 49 jQ, 52
II The Social Foundations of the Predominance of the Nobility Elections in the Late Republic Relationships based on Personal Connection and Relationships based on Fides . . Patronage in the Courts . Patronage over Communities . Political Friendship . Financial Obligation Factions The Hellenistic Influence in Politics Conclusion
THE NOBILITY OF THE PRINCIPATE . SUBJECT INDEX
.
.
54 62 70 86 101 110 123 136 139 141 163
Abbreviations Bruns= Fontes iuris Romani antiqui7 (ed. Mommsen-Gradenwitz, 1909). De Sanctis= Storia dei Romani I, II, (1907). Ferrero= Grandezza e decadenza di Roma (1901-07: references in double square brackets are to the English translation of A. E. Zimmern and Rev. H.J. Chaytor, London, 1907-09). Lange= Römische Alterthümer I 3 (1876), II 3 (1879), III2 (1876). Madvig=D/e Verfassung und Verwaltung des römischen Staates. (1881-82). Mommsen RG= Römische Geschichte9 (unchanged reprint of 2 1856-57: references in double square brackets are to the English translation of W. P. Dickson, London, 1894). Mommsen Staatsr.= Römisches Staatsrecht I3, II3, III1 (1887). Mommsen Strafr.—Römisches Strafrecht (1899). Niese= Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten (18931903). Willems=Le senat de la ripublique romaine (1878-83). The consular Fasti are for my purposes adequately published in E. W. Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln von Roms Gründung bis auf Augustus' Tod9 Altona 1846. A modern critical edition has been begun by Giovanni Costa, I Fasti Consolari Romani', so far published: vol. I he Fond, Milan 1910. [Addendum 1961: A. Degrassi, Fasti Consulares et Triumphales, in Inscriptiones Italiae XIII1; T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic I (1951), II (1952), Supplement (I960).]
(
Introduction THIS BOOK UNITES under its ad hoc title translations of two works: Die Nobilität der römischen Republik and the essay Die Nobilität der Kaiserzeit. It was only with the appearance in 1962 of the first volume of Matthias Gelzer's Kleine Schriften that Die Nobilität der römischen Republik, first published precisely half a century before, was made universally available. By the time that this welcome reprint was produced, the status of Nobilität as a masterpiece had for many years been secure; it was hailed by reviewers of the Kleine Schriften as the joint foundation . . . of nearly all the best work on Roman republican history which has been done in the last forty years' 1 and as 'the key that unlocked the door from the 19th to the 20th century in historical research in the Roman Republic'.2 In fifty years Nobilität has indeed brought about a revolution, but the process has been a slow one. The door which was unlocked in 1912 stood for a long time barely ajar, while historians did little more than peer timidly through the crack. No doubt the First World War must bear much of the blame for the total lack of notice with which, outside Germany, Nobilität was greeted. But at first, even in the country of its origin, the book attracted little attention and less understanding. A reviewer in 1913 summed it up as 'interesting and instructive', but he seems to have had no inkling that he had in his hands a work which was to change the entire shape of Roman historiography.3 It was not until 1938 that Nobilität, or rather one section of it, received a serious review, in the form of an important article by Afzelius.4
1 Balsdon, Gnomon 37, 1965, 578. 2 Badian JRS 57,1967, 217. 3 Bardt, BPhW 1913, 16ff. 4 C r t M l , 1938, 40ff.; cf. also CetMl,
1945, 150ff.
xii
INTRODUCTION
By then its influence had already been seen in another fundamental study, Münzer's Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien of 1920. Münzer has not always been fortunate in his disciples, and the 4 Faktionsthese9 has advanced a long way, more often than not by extremely dubious paths, from the eleven pages which Gclzcr had devoted to factions. Mopping-up after the revolution is by no means complete, and among the most urgent of the tasks still to be performed is a full investigation of the concept of/actio, from which we might learn just when we may speak of factions without distortion or oversimplification, or whether it might not be wiser to stop talking about factions altogether. At last, in 1939, the message o£ Nobilität reached England, brought by Syme's Roman Revolution. It is characteristic of the force of Gelzer's work that it played so large a part in shaping a book which deals only briefly with the last decades of the republic as a prelude to the triumvirate and the rule of Augustus. Meanwhile the study of the republic itself had continued in a blissful unawareness of the existence of Nobilität to which the ninth volume of the Cambridge Ancient History survives as monument. It was in the United States that the lessons to be learned from Nobilität were first applied on a large scale in English to the republic, in Lily Ross Taylor's Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (1949). More recently Badian's Foreign Clientelae (1958) marked the next major stage in the assimilation of Gelzer's ideas into the study of republican history in English. The constantly increasing influence of Nobilität carries with it a paradoxical danger of neglect. The student in diligent quest of the 'latest view* may ask why he should bother to read a book that is more than fifty years old, especially as its doctrines have moulded almost everything else that he is likely to be advised to read. Why read Gelzer, when he can get his Gelzer pre-digested and duly brought up to date? One might reply simply that, since he has seen fit to devote the flower of his youth (or at least a couple of hours a week thereof) to the study of Roman history, he might well find the time to read the most important book ever written on the subject. But life is short, shorter now than ever before.... Fortunately there are also practical reasons. In the first place Nobilität gives the English-speaking student
INTRODUCTION
X1U
something that he could not hitherto find elsewhere: a full and reliable introduction to the social and political structure of the Roman republic. Nobody who has tried to teach the republic to beginners can have failed to feel the lack of such an introduction; I imagine that I am by no means the only lecturer whose timetable has started with something like '3 lectures potted Nob.\ before Ti. Gracchus comes on the scene. Secondly, the work of Gelzer's followers in English has in the main been written for scholars and on questions of detail, and so takes knowledge of Gelzer and much else for granted. To the incipient student the results are liable to be baffling. It is hardly surprising if, despite the efforts of his tutor, he tends tofleefor refuge to realms of anachronistic simplicity and light, where the senatorial and popular parties contend in a genteel and parliamentary fashion, only rarely perturbed by the vulgar incursions of such colourful low-life as Bolsheviks and gangsters. If, on the other hand, he begins with Nobilität, not only will it be easier for him to find his way in the specialist works which exploit its discoveries, but he will also be equipped with the principles he needs to guide his mind in its search for the food of knowledge in regions where no pigeon's milk is yet available. All this is not to say, I need hardly add, that Nobilität should be read only by first-year students. Its enduring value to scholars and teachers could equally be demonstrated at length—but they, it is hoped, will need no convincing. It is perhaps the measure of the book's greatness that it combines two essential roles: it is at once the most profound yet concise introduction to the study of the republic and a lasting inspiration and touchstone for further research. Three years after Nobilitätfirstappeared, Gelzer traced, much more briefly, the survival of the concept of nobilitas in the principate.5 Unlike its great predecessor, Kaiserzeit aroused immediate controversy. In the next number of Hermes Otto attacked Gelzer's basic thesis that under the principate only men descended from consulars of the republic were counted as nobiles.6 Most of his case merits little attention, depending as it does largely upon misinterpretations, as 5 Hermes 50, 1915, 395ff. 6 Herrn« 51, 1916, 73ff.
xiv
INTRODUCTION
for instance of Tac. Hist. 1.78 and 2.76. His attempt to assign to the passage of Pliny which forms the starting-point of Gelzer's investigations a meaning directly opposed to that suggested by Gclzcr was sufficiently refuted in the following year by E. Stein, who provided perhaps the most satisfactory solution of the crux in Pliny by positing a lacuna before afficiatP Stein, though largely in sympathy with Gelzer, refused to accept his arguments for discounting the two passages Tac. Ann. 12.1 and 13.46. He therefore concluded that the magic circle was closed at some time between the consulships of Poppaeus Sabinus (A.D. 9) and Rubellius Blandus (now fixed as A.D. 18), and conjectured, not unnaturally, that the stimulus was provided by the transfer of elections to the senate in A.D. 14. This theory is at first sight very attractive, but it rests only on two pieces of evidence, both of them of disputed interpretation, and it clashes with the implication of Pliny, who defines nobiles as posteri libertatis. As long as there is no unquestionable instance where nobilitas is ascribed to a man descended from a consular of the triumviral period or later, it seems better to accept Gelzer's view, despite the minor difficulties arising from it. The translation of both Nobilität and Kaiserzeit has been made from the first volume of the Kleine Schriften. Single square brackets mark additions made in the Kleine Schriften; double square brackets indicate translator's notes. A few minor misprints have also been silently corrected with the author's approval. I am deeply indebted for his advice and encouragement to Professor E. Badian, who read the entire translation in both its drafts, saving me from many errors and suggesting countless improvements. School of Classics, University of Liverpool.
7 Hemes 52,1917, 564ff.
ROBIN SEAGER
The Nobility of the Roman Republic PREFATORY NOTE
the foreword to his Abriss des römischen Staatsrechtes of'the dulness ofthat kind of historical research which thinks it permissible to leave out of account what never happened'. Nevertheless, I presume to put before the public a work which on principle deals only with circumstances attested by contemporary evidence, since for the social historian this seems to me the only course. If he does otherwise—if, that is, he tries, by the drawing of analogies, to bring to life periods which have no tradition—his research will fail of its object; for this must surely be to establish what, in the social structure of a state, is peculiar to it and what it has in common with others. For the Roman republic the tradition is meagre, and so the period which offers scope for social history is confined—apart from a few isolated pieces of information—to barely two centuries. It is therefore for this period that I have tried to investigate more closely the composition of the ruling class and the foundations of its predominance. MOMMSEN SPEAKS IN
I Eligibility for Office and Nobility consul recorded by the Fasti appears under the year 366. According to the tradition the election took place by the terms of the plebiscite of Licinius and Sextius.1 Mommsen remarks of this event that through it 'equality of civic rights was achieved', and again: 'The major successes which the Roman people achieved abroad in the century between the last Veientine war and the war with Pyrrhus make us realise that the Junkers had made way for the yeomanry.'2 Throughout the remainder of the republican period it was in fact technically possible for every Roman citizen to hold the highest public office.3 Not until Augustus was eligibility for office restricted to the senatorial order.4 However, the very form of the law, which guaranteed only one place to the plebeians and did not dare to introduce complete freedom of choice, shows that the 'Junkers' were not finished.5 It was, as we know, not until 172, when the distinction between patrician and plebeian ruling families had ceased to exist, that both consuls were for the first time plebeian. In 215 this could still be prevented.6 Thus even Mommsen had to admit: 'The fall of the Junkers in no way deprived the Roman commonwealth of its aristocratic character.'7 THE FIRST PLEBEIAN
1 Liv. 6.35.5 under the year 377: ne tribunorum militum comitiafierentconsulumque Htique alter ex plebe crearetur. 2 Mommsen, RG I, 304 [=1, 392f.J. 3 Cic. Sest. 137 alludes to the ancestral constitution in the following words: qui cum regum potestatem non tulissent, ita magistratus annuos creauerunt ut consilium senatus rei publicae praeponerent sempitemum9 deligerentur autem in id consilium ab uniuerso populo aditusque in ilium summum ordincm omnium ciuium industriae ac uirtu patcrct. 4 Mommsen, Staatsr. I, 498. 5 Under 342 Liv. 7.42.2 records, on poor authority, the demand, put forward through a plebiscite: uti liceret consules ambosplebeios creari. Cf. De Sanctis, II, 218. 6 Liv. 23.31.13. 7 Mommsen, RG I, 783 [=111, 3]. 2
4
THE NOBILITY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
In fact the new development in 366 represented a shift in power towards timocracy, not towards true democracy. Eligibility for office had hitherto been confined to the patricians; it was now extended to the whole equestrian order, that is, to all those whose property entitled them to receive a public horse from the censor when there were places free in the eighteen centuries. Only once in the tradition are those eligible for office distinguished from the rest of the citizen body as 'those to whom the senate-house is open'; the phrase refers to the members of the senatorial and equestrian orders.8 The principle that not every citizen should be allowed to take part in government was to the Romans so self-evident that there was no law on the subject and they never enunciated it. Yet as far as I know it has never been clearly brought out by the moderns. An attempt to do so therefore needs no lengthy justification.
1. THE E Q U E S T R I A N
ORDER
Madvig was thefirstto show that throughout the republic there was in the Roman army no promotion from the ranks to the officercorps.9 The ordinary citizen could rise to be a centurion. The military tribunes on the other hand were equites.10 The single passage which appears to contradict this is too obscure to serve as evidence.11 Kiibler adduces three exceptions.12 Of these, however, only the case
8 Cic. Sest. 97: maximorum ordinum homines quibus patet curia, Cf. what Liv. 42.61.5 (following Polybius?) makes Perseus say after the victorious cavalry engagement at the Peneus: equitatum Romanum, quo inuictos se esse gloriabantur, fudistis: equites enim illis principes iuuentutis, equites seminarium senatus; inde lectos in patrum numerum consules, inde imperatores creant. 9 In his essay in Kleine philologische Schriften, 529, and II, 502, 510. 10 Mommsen too (Staatsr. Ill, 540) assumes this state of affairs for the historical period. By historical I mean the period, knowledge of which goes back to a contemporary literary tradition. This study is in principle concerned only with that period. [Cf. Caes. BC 1.77.2.] 11 Liv. 7.41.3= Zon. 7.25.9 on Salonius, qui alternis prope annis et tribunus militum et primus centurio erat, quem nunc primi pili appellant. 12 In his article 'Equites Romani' (RE 6.272ff.). Val. Max. 4.7,5 (L. Petronius admodum humili loco natus ad equestrem ordinem et splendidae militiae stipendia P. Caeli beneficio perucnerat) says nothing about promotion from centurion to military
THE EQUESTRIAN ORDBR
5
13
of L. Fufidius is certain: a military parallel to Sulla's admission of common soldiers to the senate.14 Our knowledge of thfe equestrian order at Rome is very incomplete. Only a few important points will be mentioned here.15 The nucleus of the equites was formed by the 1,800 holders of the public horse, organised for political purposes in the eighteen equestrian centuries. Despite the financial compensation provided, exemption from the assignment of a public horse was regarded as a privilege.16 Roman tradition on the subject knew only that ever since Servius Tullius the equites had been the richest men.17 Livy assumes an equestrian census as early as 401. 18 The censors selected the equites from the number of those who possessed it.19 From the 1,800 thus constituted the consuls took as many as they needed for a campaign, 300 for each legion,20 or according to the evidence for the Second Punic War sometimes only 200.21 The normal annual levy of four legions thus required 800-1,200 equites. However, from tribune. We should rather think of a donation of capital by Caelius. The murderer of Pompeius, L. Septimius, called tribunus militum by Caes. BC 3.104.2, was an officer of the Egyptian crown in the army which Caesar describes in c. 110. The story in vir. ill. 72.3 about the famous Aemilius Scaurus: primo in Hispania corniculum meruit, could not, even if it were reliable, count as an exception, since Scaurus, despite his poverty, was a patrician. Corniculum merere must here refer to service as an NCO; cf. Suet, gramm. 9.1 on agratnmaticus who had previously been a magistrate's apparitor, then a cornicularius and finally an eques. On his father's death Aemilius Scaurus inherited six slaves and HS 35,000 in cash (Val. Max. 4.4.11=fr. IP). 13 RE 7.201, no. 4. 14 Sail. Cat. 37.6. The grandfather of the jurist Ateius Capito was a Sullan centurion, his father a praetorian (Tac. Ann. 3.75.1). 15 Details in Kubier, RE 6.272; Mommsen, Staatsr. III. 476ff; De Sanctis, II, 205ff. 16 Liv. 39.19.4. 17 Cic. rep. 2.39, D. Hal. 4.18. Liv. 34.31.17 makes Nabis say in 195: uos a censu cquitem, a censu peditem legitis et paucos excellere opibus, plebem subiectam esse Ulis uultis. 18 5.7.5. 19 Pol. 6.20.9: ir\ovrlv8r)v can&v yeyevrjfxevqs vno rod TI^T]TOV ri\s 20 Pol. 6.20.9; for the legion of 5,000 men. 3.107.11. 21 Pol. 3.107.10.
6
THE NOBILITY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
the available body of 1,800 we must subtract magistrates and senators, who were allowed until the time of the Gracchi to retain the public horse.22 In the second century Cato recommended that the holders of the public horse be increased in number to 2,200.23 This figure would obviously have met the need. Livy narrates that as early as 401, in the war against Veii, citizens of equestrian census, to whom no horse had been allotted, volunteered for service in the cavalry.24 He remarks: "Then for the first time equites began to serve with privately owned horses.' These equites are contrasted with the plebs, which formed the infantry. Equites here means all holders of the equestrian census, none of whom served in the infantry. From them were drawn the 1,800 equites equo publico, and if these proved insufficient the other holders of the census were called on as a reserve. Thus in 225, according to Polybius, 3,100 Roman equites were mobilised.25 In addition, however, there was on hand a reserve of 23,000 Roman and Campanian equites.26 The total number of equites was therefore 26,100. Mommsen calculates that 22,100 of these were Romans.27 Livy says of the censors of 209: 'They sought out a large number of men who were liable for equestrian service/28 The massive levies in Livy29 of eighteen and twenty-one legions during the Second Punic War are annalistic falsifications, as Beloch showed.30 For, according to Polybius, in 214, at the height of her efforts, Rome faced the enemy with only eight legions and some hundred and fifty warships.31 In 216 eight legions fought as a unit, whilst land forces were also engaged in Gaul32 and Spain,33 but this was most exceptional. The successive equestrian levies of 1,400,1,400 and 1,050 men in the years 182-180 are also dubious.34 If these annalistic exaggerations are discounted, one can understand how in normal times a levy (what in the Swiss militia is called an Auszug) of 2,200 equites would be 22 23 25 27 29 31 33 34
Liv. 29.37.8, Cic. rep. 4.2; Mommsen, Staatsr. Ill, 505ff. ORF3 fr. 85. 24 Liv. 5.7.5 and 13. 2.24.3, 9, 13. 26 2.24.14. Rom. Forschungen II, 400. 28 27.11.15. 24.11.1, 26.1.10, 27.22.11. 30 Klio 3, 1903, 475. 8.1. 32 3.106.6. 3.95.5, 97.4,106.7. Liv. 40.1.5 and 7, 40.18.5f., 40.36.6 and 8.
THE E Q U E S T R I A N ORDER
•'
7
sufficient. Each man was bound to serve in ten campaigns, and it was only after the completion of this period of service that the way to the magistracies was opened.35 This may however be understood, with Mommsen, as a ten-year liability for equestrian service, though the actual service could not always in fact be performed.36 There is no trace in the literary sources of any military distinction between equites equo publico and equites equo priuato. Politically, however, the latter belonged to the first class of voters. In rank the equites were senior to the infantry centurions. The pay of an eques was 1 denarius a day, that of a centurion f denarius, and that of a common soldier ^,37 The donatives given by victorious generals to their troops were proportioned accordingly.38 In camp the equites assembled each morning, together with the centurions, for briefing by the military tribune.39 Sentries for the bivouac of the equites were provided by the triarii.40 At night the equites on watch went the rounds in fours, the man on duty taking comrades with him as witnesses.41 Their superior status is most clearly revealed by Polybius' account of the allocation of rations.42 The Roman infantryman received -§- of an Attic bushel of wheat per month, the eques 2 bushels of wheat and 7 of barley, the allied infantryman §- bushel of wheat, and the allied eques 1^ bushels of wheat and 5 of barley. Since the eques received three portions, it may be deduced that he had two attendants. The allied eques had only one attendant and, as the relation between the rations of fodder shows, only two horses, 35 Pol. 6.19.2 and 4. 36 Staatsr. I, 506. The passage in Plut. C. Grac. 2.4 points in the same direction: Gaius says that he served 12 years before his quaestorship, whilst the others served only 10 iv avayKats, i.e. in times of emergency. Moreover, the period of service for the infantry was 16 campaigns, 20 in emergencies. A man was liable for conscription until the completion of his forty-sixth year (Pol. 6.19.2). This limitation also makes it probable that many were not called upon for the full regulation number of campaigns. 37 Pol. 6.39.12. 38 Liv. 33.23.7, 33.37.12, 34.52.11, 36.40.13, 37.59.6, 39.5.17, 39.7.2, 40.43.7, 40.59.2, 45.40.5, 45.43.7. Only in 45.34.5 do the equites merely receive double. 39 Pol. 6.34.5. 40 Pol. 6.33.10. 41 Pol. 6.35.8, 36.1. 42 Pol. 6.39.13fT.
8
THE NOBILITY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
whilst the Roman took with him three horses. Before the time of Polybius the Roman eques too had only two horses.43 It is emphasised of the elder Cato that he carried his own arms when on the march and that only one man attended him.44 As general he used 3 Attic bushels of wheat per month and \\ bushels of barley per day for his beasts. He tells us himself that as consul he took three slaves with him to Spain and later bought two more.45 In 121 the consul Opimius called out the senators and equites against C. Gracchus with two armed slaves each.46 In 140 the consul Q. Caepio detailed his 600 equites, as a punishment, to fell timber 'with only their slaves' on a hill occupied by Viriathus.With the help of their allied comrades and other volunteers they accomplished the task intended to bring about their destruction. It is understandable that they piled the wood they had brought in around the praetorium and that only a hasty retreat saved Caepio from being burnt to death.47 Legally of course equites were no more liable for such tasks than they were for work as sappers. In 252, 400 of them refused to accept this imposition, but they were in consequence demoted at the next census to the class of aerarii for refusing to obey a consular order.48 The same penalty was imposed at the census of 159 on a well-nourished eques who, when asked by the censors why he looked so much fitter than his ill cared-for horse, replied: 'My good-for-nothing slave Statius looks after the horse, but I look after myself/ which answer was judged impertinent.49 The ten turtnae of cavalry attached to a legion were each commanded by three decuriones and optiones.50 These officers were directly 43 Festus p. 247.16L s.v. Paribus; Lammert, RE 8.1695. 44 Plut. Cato mai. 1.9, 6.3. 45 ORF3 fr. 51. 46 Plut. C. Grac. 14.4. 47 Dio fr. 78: fiera fiovtov vmroKoyiwv. There was a special clause about the slaves in the peace-treaty with Antiochus III (Pol. 21.43.10). In Caesar's army the common soldiers were also allowed to keep slaves; in 47 by special order they were left in Sicily together with domestic gear and tents, which were likewise private property, in order that as many troops as possible could be quickly transported to Africa (BAfr. 47.3). 48 Val. Max. 2.9.7. 49 Gell. 4.20.11. 50 Pol. 6.25.1.
THE E Q U E S T R I A N ORDER
9
responsible to the military tribune. Of the twenty-four military tribunes of each year, fourteen were men who had at least five campaigns behind them, whilst ten were of an age to stand for office, that is, they had served for at least ten years.51 Thus consulars are attested as military tribunes in 19352 and 191.53 In 171 four legions were raised, which were to be commanded by four senatorial military tribunes.54 For the campaign of 168 the senate decreed that the people and the consuls should choose as military tribunes only men who had already held a magistracy.55 There was in general a close connection between the military tribunate and the civil magistracies. Like the latter it was unpaid^6 and ever since the third century57 the twenty-four military tribunes for the normal annual levy of the 'first four legions' had been magistrates elected by the people,58 ranking below the quaestors.59 After his return from the East in 75 Caesar became military tribune by popular election, but was not quaestor until 69 under Antistius Vetus in Hispania Ulterior.60 Both the military tribunes elected by the 51 Pol. 6.19.1. 52 Liv. 35.5.1. 53 Liv. 36.17.1. Livy calls them consulates legati, but at that time the title was tribune, as Gic. Cato mau 32, Plut. Cato mau 12.1, Flam. 20.1 testify. Liv. 44.1.2 calls the consular Popillius tribune. 54 Liv. 42.35.4. 55 Liv. 44.21.2. 56 Mommsen (Staatsr. II, 577 n. 6) assumes equestrian pay, but I know of no evidence; cf. Madvig, II, 530. In Cic. 2 Verr. 1.36 the military tribunes are not expressly mentioned, and so might be included among the troops (stipendium). But on the other hand Cic. Fam. 5.20.7 says that the names of military tribunes, like those of praefecti and contubernales, had to be entered for the beneficia recommended by the governor within the period of 30 days allowed for the rendering of his accounts. Admittedly he goes on to speak of beneficia for centurions. The military tribunes naturally shared in distributions of booty and triumphal donatives. Tigranes promised every Roman soldier \ mina, centurions 10, and military tribunes a talent (Plut. Pomp. 33.6). After his triumph Caesar gave the common soldiers 5,000 denarii, the centurions double and the military tribunes and praefecti cquitum four times that amount (App. BC 2.102.422, Dio 43.21.3; Suet. Iul 38.1 lias HS 24,000 for the common soldiers). [Cf. Hirt. BG 8.4.I.] 57 Mommsen, Staatsr, II, 575. 58 Ibid. 578 n. 1. 59 L. Acil. (Bruns7 p. 55) line 2, Cic. Cluent. 148. 60 Suet. Jul 5; Lange, III, 184; Klebs, RE 1.2558, no. 46.
10
THE NOBILITY OF THE R O M A N REPUBLIC
people and those chosen by the generals when there was a further levy must, in the light of all that has been stated above, have been equites. There is no reason not to think of the totality of those who could lay claim to the equestrian census. The amount of this census, HS 400,000, is first recorded in an anecdote from the year 49.61 Cicero says of a man that he barely possessed the equestrian census, so there was nothing that could be taken from him but his life.62 This remark shows that by that time such an estate no longer counted as wealth. It was through the judiciary law of C. Gracchus in 123 that'the equestrian order acquired a legally acknowledged political significance.63 Appian expressly mentions the possessors of the census.64 Cicero too has this interpretation.65 Thus according to him a centurion who had acquired the equestrian census in the course of his campaigns could become a juror. 66 Mommsen at first shared this view,67 but later restricted seats on the juries to the eighteen equestrian centuries, 'perhaps including those who had given up the public horse'.68 His grounds are not, however, convincing. He nowhere produces any evidence for his assertion that 'the equites who served after the lex Amelia (70) were also doubtless the equites equo publico*. Now to illuminate the lex Sempronia, which obviously effected the general transfer of jury service from the senate to the equites, we possess fragments of a law governing its application to the court that dealt with extortion by magistrates in the provinces. Mommsen identified this as the lex Acilia repetundarum mentioned by Cicero,69 which he placed in the year 122.70 In the regulations for drawing up the list of jurors for the current and subsequent years, 61 Suet. M. 33.1. 62 Cic. Farn. 9.13.4. 63 Lange, III, 39; Madvig, I, 166; E. Komemann, Klio, Beiheft 1, 1903, 48. 64 BC 1.22.91: TOVS KaXovfievovs vrnriccs ot TTJV a£i brothers of the triumvir. L. Antonius, cos. 4 1 / " J M. Antonius, cos. 44, 34, the triumvir.214 M. Antonius Antyllus, his son.215 C. Atilius Serranus, cos. 106.216 L. Aurelius Cotta, cos. 65.217 Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, cos. 109.218 205 Liv. 4.44.2. 206 Cic. Sest. 21, Pis. 1, Plane. 18, 67. 207 Cic. 2 Verr. 3.7: hominum nouorum industrial 4.81: hominibus nouis industriis; 5.180: uirtute non genere populo Romano commendari; 181: nouorum hominum uirtus et industria; Cat. 1.28: hominem per te cognitum, nulla commendatione maiorum; Phil. 6.17: a se ortum; Brut. 96: homo per se cognitus; 175: homo per se magnus. Cicero wrote to Hirtius (Non. p. 437.29= fr. 3 OCT): cum enim nobilitas nihil aliud sit quam cognita uirtust quis in eo, quern inueterascentem uideat ad gloriam, generis antiquitatem desideret? 208 RE 150; Lig. 27. 209 RE 155; Mm. 75. 210 HE 73; PW. 13.8, 15. 211 RE 140; Mur. 16. 212 RE 20; Fam. 2.18.2. 213 RE 23; Fam. 2,18.2. 214 RE 30; Mil. 40, Phil. 1.29, Fam. 2.18.2. 215 RE32;Pfa7.2.90. 216 RE 64; Plane. 12. 217 RE 102; 2 Ferr. 2.174. 218 RE 97; red. Quir. 9.
NOBILITY 219
29
Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius, cos. 80. Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos, cos. 57.220 L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus.221 L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, his son, cos. 58, Caesar's father-inlaw.222 C. Cassius Longinus, pr. 44, the assassin of Caesar.223 L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla, cos. 127.224 M. Claudius Marcellus, cos. 51. 225 Ti. Claudius Nero, pr. 41 ?, father of the emperor.226 Ap. Claudius Pulcher, cos. 79.227 Ap. Claudius Pulcher, his son, cos. 54.228 Ap. Claudius Pulcher, son of the consul of 54.229 C. Claudius Pulcher, cos. 92, brother of the consul of 79.230 P. Clodius, aed. 56, the notorious enemy of Cicero, son of the consul of 79,231 and his sister Clodia.232 C. Coelius Caldus, q. 50.233 Cn. Cornelius Dolabella, pr. 81. 234 P. Cornelius Dolabella, cos. 44, Cicero's son-in-law.235 P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, cos. 57.236 P.Cornelius Scipio = Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, cos. 52.237 219 RE 98; Plane. 69. 220 RE 96; red. sen. 5, Corn. ap. Ascon. 62. 221 RE S9; Pis.fr. 11. 222 RE 90; Serf. 21, Pis. 2. 223 RE 59; Phil. 2.113, Earn. 12.10.3. 224 RE 72; leg. 3.35. 225 RE 229; Marc. 4. 226 RE 254; Fam. 13.64.2. 227 RE 296; Plane. 51. 228 RE 297; F*m. 3.7.5, 3.8.8, 3.10.9. 229 RE 29S; Fam. 11.22.1. 230 RE 302; 2 Ferr. 4.6, Brut. 166. 231 RE 48; Mi7. 18, har. resp. 4. 232 RE 66; Cael. 31. 233 RE 14; /I«. 6.6.3, E*m. 2.15.4. 234 RE 135; Quinct. 31. 235 RE 141 ;Phil. 1.29. 236 RE 238; Fam. 1.7.8. 237 RE 'Caecilius* 99; Com. ap. Ascon. 74.
30
THE NOBILITY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
[Faustus Cornelius Sulla, q. 54, son of the dictator.237*]) L. Cornelius Sulla, the dictator, cos. 88, 80. 238 P. Cornelius Sulla.239 Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 96. 240 L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 54. 241 C. Fabius Pictor. 242 Q. Hortensius, cos. 69, the orator.243 C. Hostilius Mancinus, cos. 137. 244 C. Julius Caesar, the dictator, cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44. 245 [L.Julius Caesar, cos. 90. 245a ] M. Junius Brutus, accusator.246 M. Junius Brutus, pr. 44, the assassin of Caesar.247 M. Juventius Laterensis, pr. 51. 2 4 8 [L. Licinius Crassus, cos. 95. 248a ] [P. Licinius Crassus, cos. 97. 248b ] P. Licinius Crassus, q. 55?, son of the consul of 70 and 55. 249 L. Licinius Lucullus, the well-known consul of 74. 250 [M. Livius Drusus, tr. pi 91. 250 *] Q. Lutatius Catulus, cos. 78. 251 L. Marcius Philippus, cos. 91. 2 5 2 237a {RE 377; Vat. 32.} 238 Har. resp. 54. 239 RE3S6;Sull. 37. 240 RE 21; leg. agr. 2.19. 241 RE 27; Phil 2.71. 242 RE 122; Tusc.lA. 243 Quinct. 9, 72; 2 Verr. 3.7; Ait. 13.12.3. 244 De or. 1.181. 245 Vat. 15. 245a (RE 142; Tusc. 5.55.J 246 De or. 2.225. 247 Phil. 2.113, Brut. 52, Tusc. 4.2. 248 Plane. 18, 50. 248a {RE 55; parad. 41.] 248b [RE 61; Tusc. 5.55.] 249 Earn. 13.16.1. 250 Att. 13.12.3, Acad, prior. 2.1. 250a [RE 18; Äii. Ptor. 16J 251 Att. 13.12.3. 252 Quinct. 9, Afwr. 36, Brut. 166.
31
NOBILITY 253
M. Octavius Cn. f., son of the consul of 76. C. Papirius Carbo, cos. 120.254 P. Popillius Laenas, cos. 132.255 [M. Pupius Piso, cos. 61.255al C. Scribonius Curio, tr. pi. 50.256 Sempronius Tuditanus, grandfather of Fulvia.257 P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus, cos. 48. 258 C. Sulpicius Galus, cos. 166.259 Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, cos. 51. 260 L. Valerius Flaccus, pr. 63. 261 The common feature of these names is that they belong to consular families, that is, to families which in the past had already supplied the state with a consul. Some of the men mentioned"seem to constitute an exception: only the gentile name, not the cognomen, of Aelius Tubero, Aemilius Scaurus, Juventius Laterensis and Papirius Carbo occurs in the consular Fasti. But for Juventius Cicero expressly attests the consular rank of his family and its Tusculan origin.262 It follows that M \ Juventius Thalna, cos. 163, was of Tusculan descent and that Laterensis* nobility went back to him. Cicero also calls M. Junius Pennus agentilis of Brutus. The same explanation must hold good for Aemilius Scaurus and the Tuberones, from whose gens other stirpes often attained the consulate. A difficulty seems to arise over Papirius Carbo, as he was plebeian, whilst the other stirpes were patrician. But Cicero 263 gives us specific proof that this gens was regarded as a single unit.264 253 Fam. 8.2.2. 254 De or. 3.74. 255 Red. sen. 37, red. Quir. 6. 255a [RE 10; Plane. 12.J 256 Fam. 2.7A. 257 Phil. 3.16. 258 Ep. Brut. 2.2.3. 259 Brut. 78. 260 Mur. 16. 261 Flace. 81. 262 Plane. 18f. 263 Fam. 9.21.2. 264 Thus in the case of Papirius he can speak of a reditus ad bonos (leg. 3.35).
32
THE NOBILITY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
As for the recognition of nobility in practice, Cicero points out to Ser. Sulpicius Rufus: 'Your nobility, although of the highest, is known chiefly to historians, and is obscure to the people and the voters. For your father was an eques and your grandfather was not renowned for any brilliant deed. So knowledge of your nobility cannot be gained from the everyday talk of men, but must be unearthed from the history of antiquity.'265 Cicero is here alluding to the consular tribune of 388, 384 and 383, for these magistrates naturally counted as the equivalent of consuls, as did the dictator of 287 for the Hortensii. Here we have an instance of nobility proved by the records. Usually, however, it was the prestige which was present, whilst only the consular ancestors were lacking for true membership of the nobility. In an age when genealogical studies were undeveloped,266 it was in most cases not difficult to supply this need. Cicero speaks of this in the Brutus, and mentions as a means 'transference to the plebs, when men of a lower rank force their way into another family of the same name'.267 Thus for instance the Carbones maintained that their stirps had originally been patrician. The important conclusion remains unchanged: nobility demanded consular ancestors. This is in fact explicitly stated by Cicero on one occasion.268 Antonius accused Octavianus of not being one of the nobility, obviously a gross impertinence to the son of the dictator. In his reply Cicero adds that, had he lived long enough, Octavianus* natural father would also have become consul, and so admits that Octavianus is nobilis only through his adoptive father. The rule is observed throughout by Cicero. He says269 that in 100, besides the consulars and praetorians, 'all the young nobiles took up arms to overthrow Appuleius Saturninus: Cn. and L. Domitius, the consuls of 96 and 94, L. Crassus, cos. 95, Q. Mucius, his colleague, C. Claudius cos. 92, M. Drusus, tr. pi 91, all the 265 Mur. 16. 266 Alt. 6.1.18: o aviaroprjcrlav turpem. 267 Brut. 62. 268 Phil. 3.15: ignobilitatem ohicit C. Caesaris filio, cuius etiam natura pater, si uita suppeditasset, consul factus esset. 269 Rab.perd.2\.
NOBILITY
33
Octavii, Metelli, Julii, Cassii, Catones and Pompeii, L. Philippus, cos. 91, L. Scipio, cos. 83, M. Lepidus, cos. 78, D. Brutus, cos. 77, P. ServiJius, cos. 79, Q. Catulus, cos. 78, and C. Curio, cos. 76.270 Curio is the only one who does not fit, but the difficulty can easily be overcome. The last three names are all those of consulars present at the time; Cicero could hardly leave one out. Moreover, in the judgment of contemporaries the Curiones were so distinguished that Cicero on one occasion wonders why Curio the praetor of 121 never became consul.271 In the speech for Roscius of Ameria he designates as men of the highest nobility (nobilissimi) the Metelli, Servilii and Scipiones.272 For the refutation of the view that nobility was established by any curule office, the speeches for Fonteius and Murena are instructive. Cicero calls273 Fonteius 'a very praiseworthy and courageous man and an excellent citizen' and brings forward as a ground for his acquittal the antiquity of his family and its regular praetorships.274 Sulpicius Rufus had claimed that Murena was not of good family but a new man. Cicero replies: 'If any plebeian families at all are distinguished and deserving of honour, then his great-grandfather and grandfather were both praetors, and his father, after celebrating a triumph for the achievements of his praetorship in the most splendid and honourable fashion, made it easier for his son to reach
270 R Vonder Miihll (De L. Appuleio Saturnino, Diss. Basel 1906, 14ff.) recognised that this Ust does not rest on any tradition; Cicero simply used the names on the consular Fasti. The only exception is the famous tribune Drusus; not, as Vonder Miihll says (p. 17), the Catones, for L. Porcius Cato was cos. 89. In these circumstances it is no accident that T. Didius, cos. 98, C. Coelius Caldus, cos. 94, M. Herennius, cos. 93, M. Perperna, cos. 92 (Cicero therefore did not recognise his father's consulship of 130: cf. p. 51 n. 457) and P. Rutilius Lupus, cos. 90, are missing. They did not belong to cuncta nobilitas ac iuuentus. 271 Brut. 124. 272 Rose. Am. 15. 273 Font. 41: primum generis antiquitasf quam Tusculo, ex clarissimo municipio, profectam in monumentis rerum gestarum incisam ac notatam uidemus, turn autem continuae praeturae, quae et ceteris ornamentis et existimatione innocentiae maximefloruerunt, deinde recens memoria parentis . . . postremo ipse cum in omnibus uitae partibus honestus atque integer', turn in re militari cum summi consili et maximi animi9 turn uero usu quoqu bellorum gerendorum in primis eorum hominum qui nunc sunt exercitatus. 21A Cf. Varro RR 2.4.2, who makes Cn. Tremellius Scrofa say: septimus sum deinceps praetorius in gente nostra.
34
THE NOBILITY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
the consulship, in that the son merely claimed what was already owed to the father/275 In both speeches Cicero uses every device to give his clients the appearance of distinction. He would certainly not have failed to mention their nobility if it had in fact been recognised.276 It is obviously because the consulship founded nobility that it, and not the censorship, was for Cicero the summit of the cursus honorum.277 The celebrated founder of the nobility of the Junii was L. Brutus, cos. 509.278 The consul of 340 is recorded as 'the first Decius to become consul',279 similarly Cn. Octavius, cos. 165.280 An opposing speaker asked Cicero in court if he thought the path to office was easier for a man of equestrian birth than it would be for Cicero's son, the scion of a consular family.281 'New men', homines noui, is the name given in general by Cicero to those equites who were the first of their family to hold public office and so obtain entry to the senate, such as L. Quinctius, tr. pi. 74,282 T. Fadius, tr. pi. 57,283 and Cn. Plancius, aed. 54.284
275 Mur. 15. Later, in s. 17, he opposes to the charge of ignobilitas the consul ex familia uetere et inlustri> and stresses the antiquity of the family similarly in s. 86. It is to be noted that obviously in this case no relationship could be established between Licinius Murena and the noble Crassi and Luculli. On the other hand Varro RR 1.2.9 calls C. Licinius Crassus (Cic. Lael. 96), tr. pi. 145, eiusdem gentis as C. Licinius Stolo, whom he describes as a descendant of the consul of 364. The historian C. Licinius Macer was likewise reckoned as a member of this family (Liv. 7.9.5). 276 Madvig (I, 186) refers to Tac. Ann. 3.30 and Cic. Plane. 15 for the phrase nobilitas praetor iay which in fact is his own coinage; but this is a mere error. 277 Plane. 60: honorum populifinisest consulatus. Phil. 1.14 of the consulars: they stand in altissimo gradu dignitatis, similarly PhiL 10.4; Fam. 3.7.5: ullam Appietatem aut Lentulitatem ualere apud me plus quam omamenta uirtutis existimas? cum ea consecutus nondum eram, quae sunt hominum opinionihus amplissima, tarnen ista uestra nomina numquam sum admiratus; uiros eos, qui ea uobis reliquissent, magnos arbitrabar 278 On M. Junius Brutus cf. Tusc. 4.2: praeclarus auctor nobilitatis tuae; Brut. 52: nobilitatis uestrae princeps. 279 Div. 1.51: P. Decius ille Q.f. qui primus e Deciis consul fuit; or fin. 2.61: princeps in ea familia consulatus. 280 Off. 1.138: qui primus ex ilia familia cotisulfactus est; and Phil. 9.4: qui primus in earn familiam attulit consulatum. 281 'Plane. 59. 282 Cluent. 111. 283 RE 6.1959, no. 9; Fam. 5.18.1. 284 Plane. 67.
NOBILITY
35
He also describes as homines noui those equites who were created jurors by the lex Amelia of 70.285 In the lower magistracies, up to the praetorship, such new men were quite a common phenomenon. 'Those who have reached them are innumerable.'286 It is plain that they must often have had to endure disdainful treatment from men of inherited distinction.287 The consul of merely equestrian birth is on the other hand a rare exception.288 Cicero could pride himself on being the first new man for a generation to win the position of consul, which the nobility defended as if it were a fortress.289 This saying illustrates the exclusiveness with which the nobiles kept their hold on the consulship. Cicero is alluding to C. Coelius Caldus, cos. 94, who is also named by Q. Cicero in his Comtnetitariolum Petitionis as Cicero's most recent predecessor.290 Nevertheless, not all the consuls between 94 and 63 were nobiles: as early as 93 we have M. Herennius, in 90 P. Rutilius Lupus, in 89 Cn. Pompeius Strabo, in 83 C. Norbanus Bulbus, in 81 M. Tullius Decula, in 76 C. Scribonius Curio, in 72 L. Gellius Poplicola, in 66 L. Volcacius Tullus, whilst for 65 P. Autronius Paetus was elected. This shows that the principle of exclusiveness operated within fairly wide limits. Every senator's son was admitted without serious opposition. There was therefore no Restricted number of ruling families', as Mommsen claimed.291 The scanty information offered by the rest of the tradition accords with the conclusions which can be drawn from Cicero. With the first two points in his exposition ('I am a new man, I am a candidate for the consulship') Q. Cicero confirms what I have 285 2 Verr. 2.175. 286 Plane. 60. 287 2 Verr. 4.81, 5.181, 3.7, 2.174; Plane. 17; Fam. 1.7.8; Phil. 9.4. 288 Leg. agr. 1.27: equestri ortus loco consul. At rep. 1.10 he exclaims: consul autem esse, qui potui, nisi eum uitae cursum tenuissem a pueritia, per quern equestri loco natus peruenirem ad honorem amplissimum. 289 Leg. agr. 2.3: me perlongo interuallo prope memoriae temporumque nostrorum primum hominem nouum consulem fecistis et eum locum quern nohilitas praesidiis fit'matum atque omni ratione obuallatum tenebat me duce rcscidistis uirtutique in posterum patere uoluistis. 290 Comm.pet. 11. 291 RG II, 2151=111, 4861. 4
36
THE NOBILITY OF THE R O M A N RBPUBLIC
already said about the significance of the consulship for the attainment of nobility and its contrast with nouitas292 He characterises Catilina as nobilis.293 Catilina must therefore have derived his descent from the Sergii Fidenates, for whom consulates and consular tribunates in the fifth and fourth centuries are recorded. We know that his great-grandfather M. Sergius,294 urban praetor in 197, bore the cognomen Silus.295 The fact that the gens Sergia was patrician has nothing to do with its nobility.296 Indeed I believe, against Mommsen,297 that patricians who held office for the first time were also called homines noui. The passage of Cicero adduced by Mommsen proves this: the patrician Sulpicius Rufus is not a homo nouns (as is assumed by his uneducated contemporaries, who think that he is of equestrian birth) only because he has consular tribunes among his ancestors.298 Similarly in the case of Aemilius Scaurus we hear only of an interval in which the family attained no office.299 Here too nobility rested on the consulate of an ancestor, real or supposed. Livy's comment on the year 366 cannot be regarded as decisive in this matter, since in his annalistic narrative the struggle of the plebeians to reach the consulate is overlaid with the colours of later factional struggles.300 Besides, Livy does not even say that L. Sextius was the first homo nouus. Sallust too calls Catilina a nobilis301 and makes his Marius say
292 Comm.pet. 293 Comm. pet 9. From the discussion of the one competitor, Antonius, he proceeds to the other: alter uero quo splendore est?primum nobilitate eadem, i.e. he belongs to the eiusmodi nohiles of s. 7: ut nemo sit qui audeat dkere plus illis nobilitatem quam tibi uirtutem prodesse oportere. 294 Plin. NH 7.104/5. 295 Liv. 32.27.7. 296 Cic. Mur. 17, Sail. Cat. 31.7, Ascon. 82. 297 Staatsr. Ill, 463. 298 Mur. 16. 299 Ascon. 23: Scaurus itafuit patricius ut tribus supra eum aetatibus iacuerit domus eius fortuna. nam neque pater neque auus neque etiam proauus—ut puto propter tenues opes et nullam uitae industriam—honores adepti sunt, itaque Scauro aeque ac nouo homin laborandum fuit. When Plut. mor. 318C calls him /catvo? äv0pa>7TO$t that is no doubt his own opinion, as ix raircivov ßiov KCH. rancLvorepov yivovs shows. 300 7.1.1: annus hie erit insignis noui fwmmis consulatu. 301 Gif. 5.1.
NOBILITY
37
that his nobility springs from his uirtus (rather than from a consular forebear).302 His remarks on the exclusiveness of the nobiles are particularly important. It operated only against new men who sought the consulate. This cannot be more pointedly expressed than it is on the occasion of Marius* candidature: 'At that time the plehs bestowed the other offices, but the nobility passed the consulship from hand to hand. Any new man, however distinguished he might be, was held unworthy of this honour and spurned as if he were polluted/ 303 He speaks in similar fashion about Cicero's consulship: 'In the past most of the nobility used to foam with resentment and regard the consulship as polluted, if anew man, however outstanding, obtained it.' 304 Ser. Sulpicius Rufus the jurist, several times mentioned above, calls Sp. Carvilius Maximus Ruga, cos. 234 and 228, uir nobilis.305 According to the Fasti he was Sp. f. C. n., that is, son of the consul of 293 and 272.306 Catullus gibed at those who wanted to make friends with nobiles, when he saw the followers of Piso, cos. 58 and Caesar's father-in-law, returning with empty pockets from Macedonia.307 Caesar uses the word nobilis with reference to Romans only once, in the speech of Ariovistus;308 a deliberate avoidance, since he uses it freely of foreigners.309 Varro calls L. Cornelius Merula 'the 302 BJ 85.17. Similarly 25: mihi noua nobilitas est. Here the word is not used in its strict sense, just as Veil. 2.34.3 later calls Cicero uir nouitatis nobilissimae. Mommsen, Staatsr. Ill, 463 n. 1. 303 BJ 63.6. 304 Cat. 23.6. 305 Gell. 4.3.2. 306 Münzer's doubts (RE 3.1630) seem to me unfounded. 307 28.13; Münzer, RE 3.1388. 308 BG 1.44.12: Caesar's death would be welcome multis nobilibus principibusque populi Romani. 309 BG 1.2, 7, 18, 31, 5.3, 6.13 of Gauls, BC 1.34 of Massiliot envoys. Cicero is also very generous with nobilitas as applied to non-Romans, i.e. municipales and provincials. In his elaborate diction a precise indication of the sphere of validity is seldom lacking: Rose. Am. 15: nobilitate... non modo sui municipii uerum etiam eius uicinitatis facile primus, similarly Cluent. 11, 23: uir fortis et experiens et domi nobilis, 109: an eques Romanus in municipio suo nobilis, 196: nobilitas ilia inter suos. In the case of provincials, however, where confusion with Roman nobiHty is out of the question, he too omits such qualifications: 2 Verr. 1.76, 85, 2.11, 23, but
38
THE NOBILITY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
descendant of a consular family1.310 Instead of nobilis511 Cornelius Nepos uses also generosus,*12 as do Sallust313 and Livy.314 The memorandum of 50 B.C. 315 ascribed to Sallust distinguishes between nohiles and ordinary senators within the senate.316 The author of the Bellum Africum speaks once of a 'new man and minor senator'.317 Asconius gives the list of Cicero's fellow-candidates for 63: 'Two patricians, P. Sulpicius Galba and L. Sergius Catilina, four plebeians, of whom two were nohiles, C. Antonius, son of the orator M. Antonius, and L. Cassius Longinus, and two were at least not the first of their families to hold office, Q. Cornificius and C. Licinius Sacerdos. Of all the candidates only Cicero was of merely equestrian birth.'318 In addition to all these writers, Livy too offers plentiful material. As I have already remarked, he must be used with caution. It cannot stand as evidence against Cicero when Livy under the year 509, at a time when according to his own account only patricians could hold office, describes Aquillii and Vitellii, members of plebeian families, as nohiles adulescentes,319 just as, at the same period, he presents C. Mucius Scaevola in the same terms, although the Mucii were plebeian and produced their first consul in the year 175.320 For this period there is no trace of a tradition. Such errors merely reveal the inconsistently 2.35, 68, 91,128, 3.93, 4.38, 51, 5.40 (here missing for a municipalis), 111, 112, Arch. 4, Flacc. 52 of citizens of Tralles: apud nos noti, inter suos nohiles, Balb. 41, Att. 5.20.4 of a centurion nobilis sui generis. Sallust too describes municipal members of the Catilinarian conspiracy as domi nohiles (Cat. 17.4), and C. Gracchus had already called a quaestor of Teanum Sidicinum suae ciuitatis nohilissimus (Gell. 10.3.3). 310 Varro RR 3.2.2. Cf. RE 4.1408. 311 Thus Cato 2.3. 312 Att. 1.3, 12.1. 313 BJ 85.15. 314 4.55.3. 315 The date emerges from 2.3 and 3.3. 316 Sail. ep. 2.11.6. A discussion of this work is given by Pöhlmann, Aus Altertum u. Gegenwart, N.F. 184fF. 317 BAfr. 57: homo nouus paruusque senator. 318 Ascon. 82. 319 2.4.2. 320 2.12.2.
NOBILITY
39
thoughtlessness with which Livy's sources, the annalists of Sulla's time and later, lied. Moreover, Mommsen calls attention to the use of patricii and nobiles as synonyms,321 because the annalists applied the concepts of their own time to relationships in the past.322 Once these misleading data have been set aside, it can be seen that the terminology is entirely Ciceronian. Sp. Maelius was of equestrian birth; 323 he therefore lacked nobility, offices and achievements.324 In 420 it was not the kinsmen of tribunes of the plebs who were elected as quaestors; instead the people preferred those whose fathers and grandfathers it had seen as consuls.325 Licinius Stolo connects nobility with the winning of the consulship.326 The founder of the nobility of the Claudian gens was its first consul (495), the immigrant Attius Clausus.327 Nouitas is generally ascribed to those who were the first of their families to hold an office: tribunes of the plebs32S and quaestors,329 but in particular consuls and censors.330
321 Staatsr. HI, 463 n. 4. 322 Thus also optumates (4.9.4 and 11). This conception is briefly developed in the memorandum of 50 B.C. (Sail, ep, 2.5.1fF.): in duas partes ego ciuitatem diuisam arbitror, sicut a maioribus accepi, in patres et plebem. antea in patribus summa auctoritas erat, uis multo maxuma inplebe. itaque saepius in ciuitate secessio juit semperque nobilitatis opes deminutae sunt et ius populi amplificatum. It must be remembered that for later writers patres could mean patricians as well as senate. A similar view of the struggle between the orders in Sail. Hist. 1.1 IM. (A. Rosenberg, Unters, z. r. Zenturienverfassungy 50, was wrong to deny that this refers to the struggle between the orders.) The error is simply. that the struggle of the plebeians for equality of rights is described in the same terms as the political struggles of the post-Gracchan period (Sail. Cat. 33.4, BJ 31.17, App. BC 1.1.2, Tac. Hist. 2.38). It should also be noted that as early as Plautus (Capt. 1002) patricii pueri means 'boys of distinguished family*. In Gell. 18.2.11 the question is raised: quam ob causam patricii Megalctisibus mutitare solid sinty plcbes Cerealibus? Verrius Flaccus expounds as follows in Fast. PraenesL for April 4th. (ILS 8744a): nobilium mutationes cenarum solitae sunt frequenter fieri, quod Mater Magna ex libris Sibullinis arcessita locum mutauit ex Phrygia Romam. Cicero (Cato max. 45) makes Cato take part in this ceremonial banquet. In the Gcllius passage therefore patricii has merely the weakened sense of nobiles. Ascon. 23 also uses patricius in this way: quae generis ciaritas etiam inertes homines ad summos honores prouexit. 323 4.13.1. 324 4.15.5. 325 4.44.2. 326 6.37.11. 327 10.8.6; cf. Münzer, RE 3.2663 and 2863, no. 321. 328 4.48.7. 329 4.54.6. 330 22.34.7, 37.57.12 and 15, 39.41.2.
40
THE NOBILITY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
The concept does not appear in Greek writers. In Polybius irri^avT/s has the more general sense of 'distinguished', 'belonging to the governing class'.331 In a letter Cicero translates nobilitas as evyeveia.332 But in Diodorus, Dionysius, Plutarch and Cassius Dio there is no fixed expression.
4.
CLARISSIM1
The existence of a unified class within the senate above the curule senators is further attested by the list of those whom Cicero honours with the epithet clarissimus.333 M. Aemilius Lepidus, cos. 46, 42, the triumvir.334 L. Aemilius Paullus, cos. 182, 168, the victor of Pydna.335 L. Aemilius Paullus, cos. 50.336 M. Aemilius Scaurus, cos. 115.337 L. Caecilius Metellus Calvus, cos. 142.338 331 3.40.9: tres uiri coloniae deducendae (a consular and two praetorians) rpeis av$p€s TCOV £mav(x>Vy likewise of a senatorial commission (18.42.5): SCKCC TWV imavajv. In 6.14.6 the people judges disputes (in actions brought by the tribunes) when the sum at stake justifies it, chiefly in the case of rovs ras imaveZs icrx^Koras apx&s. Cf. 10.4.1: ayopavofxla, rjv axcSov lm^av€.orarr\v apx^v etvat. crufjLßcclvci ra>v vecov irapa 'Pajpialois. In 6.53.1 he describes the funeral of one nap* avrols r&v i-mcfravcov avSp&v. In the last three cases €TTLavrjs probably renders the notion'curule*. Thus Diod. 20.36.6: rfjs enifyavzaripas ayopavop,las. The phrase in Pol. 6.58.3: 8e/ca ot imfaviararoi is rendered by Cic. off. 3.113 as decern nobilissimi. 332 Fam. 3.7.5. Polybius has the word in 31.26.6 of Papiria, the mother of Scipio Aemilianus (=Diod. 31.27.3). Diod. 31.25.2 has ol rcefr tvyevtlais /cat rrpoyovwv 86£r) 8iaepovr€s on the occasion of the funeral of Aemilius Paullus, where the form of words may still perhaps be Polybian, also in 32.27.3 of Caesar, 34/5.33.1 and 38.1 of Nasica, and 37.10 of Livius Drusus. Evyevels: 12.25 and 20.36.3f. 333 I was stimulated to this enquiry by a remark of Fritz Vonder Muhll's. Cf. O. Hirschfeld, SB Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1901, 580 [=K/. Sehr. (1913), 647]. 334 Phil. 3.23. 335 2 Verr. 4.22. 336 RE SI; Phil. 13.13. 337 RE 140; off. 1.138. 338 RE S3; Font. 23.
CLARISSIMl
Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, cos. 143.339 Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos,a>5. 57.340 Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, cos. 109.341 Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius, cos. 80.342 Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, cos. 52.343 C. Cassius, cos. 73. 344 C. Claudius Marcellus, pr. 80.345 C. Claudius Marcellus, cos. 50.346 Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus, cos. 72, certs. 70.347 Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, cos. 56.348 P. Cornelius Lentulus, cos. 162.349 P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, cos. 57.350 P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Aemilianus, cos. 147, 134. P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio, cos. 138.352 L. Cornelius Sisenna, pr. 78, the historian.353 L. Cornelius Sulla, cos. 88, 80, the dictator.354 Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 96.355 L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 54.356 Cn. Domitius Calvinus, cos. 53. 357 Q. Fabius Maximus Eburnus, cos. 116.358 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
2 Verr. 3.211, Font. 23. Dom. 70. Red. sen. 37, red. Quir. 6, de or. 3.68. Ghent. 24. Phil 13.29. RE 58; 2 Verr. 3.97. RE 214; 2 Verr. 2.110. RE 216; Phil 3A7. 2 Ferr. 5.15, C/ae«*. 120. RE 228; 2 Kerr. 2.103: darissimus adulescens. RE 202; Ci\(av 1Xi]v. Veil. 2.7.1: crudelesque mox quaestiones in amicos dientisque Gracchorum habitae sunt. Valerius Antias ap. Liv. 38.51.6: citatus reus magno agmine amicorum dientiumque per mediam contionem ad rostra subiit. Cic. ap. Ascon. 84: quern enim aut amicum habere potest is qui tot ciuis trucidauit, aut (dientemy qui in sua ciuitate cum peregrino negauit se iudicio aequo certare posse? De or. 1.184: praesidium dientibus, opem amicis. Div. Caec. 66: ab hospitibus dientibusque suis, ab exteris nationibus, quae in amicitiam populi Romani dicionemque essent, iniurias propulsare eorumque fortunas defendere. 2 Verr. 4.89: utrum ea res ad opem an ad calamitatem clientium atque hospitum ualere debebat? Cat. 4.23: pro dientelis hospitiisque prouincialibus. 2 Verr. 4.41: circum patronos atque hospites cursare. Rose. Am. 106 (cf. preceding note), de or. 2.280. 74 Mitteis (Rom. Privatrecht I, 391 n. 3) distinguishes between juridical (lex Acilia, Cic. Cael. 26) and social (Cic. 2 Verr. 1.93f.) officium. Masurius Sabinus, a jurist of the early principate, gives the following order of precedence for these relationships: in ojficiis apud maiores ita obseruatum est: primum tutelae, deinde hospiti, deinde clienti, tum cognato, postea adfini. de qua causa feminae uiris potxores habitae, pupiUarisque tutela mulieri praelata. etiam aduersus quern adfuissent, eius filiis tutores relicti in eadem causa pupillo aderant (Gell. 5.13.5).
RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON PERSONAL CONNECTION
67
respects with that of fides. The word occurs remarkably often, especially in the sense of the performance of an action arising from such a relationship, and as a social and ultimately a moral duty. The nuance of reciprocity seems to be always present.75 Neeessitudo and necessitas, together with the cognate necessarius, are also used like fides and officium and often in conjunction with them.76 The relationship based onfideswas initiated by 'commendation'.77 During Caesar's Spanish campaign of 49, shortly before the decisive battle, the soldiers on both sides began to talk to one another and to look for acquaintances in the opposing camp, and several military tribunes and centurions of the other side 'came to Caesar and commended themselves to him\ Likewise the Spanish chieftains, who had been summoned to arms by the Pompeians, turned to such of their acquaintances and hospites as could secure for them 'the opportunity to commend themselves to Caesar'.78 Caesar also gives 75 Auct. Her. 3.14: qua fide, beniuolentia, officio gesserit amicitias. In 2.32 officium is the opposite of maleficium. Caes. BG 5.27.7: habere nunc se rationem officii pro beneficiis Caesaris. Cic. Fam. 1.1.1: ego omni officio ac potius pietate erga te ceteris satisfacio omnibus, mihi ipse numquam satisfacio; tanta enim magnitudo est tuorum erga me meritorum, ut etc. 6.6.1: uereor ne desideres officium meum, quod tibi pro nostra et meritorum muhorum et studiorum parium coniunctione deesse non debet. 7.31.1: reliquum est ut officiis certemus inter nos. 11.17.1: magna sunt eius in me, non dico officia, sed merita. 2.13.1: letters multi et offici et consili. Cf. 3.1.1, 3.5.1, 3.7.6, 3.9.1, 3.13.1; 5.2.4, 5.5.2, 5.6.3, 5.7.2, 5.8.1 (multa uarietate temporum interruptum officium cumulate reddidi); 6.5.4. 2 Verr. 5.182: nullis nostris officiis beniuolentiam illorum (sc. nobilium) adlicere possumus. Mur. 7: ego, Ser. Sulpici, me in petitione tua tibi omnia studia atque officia pro nostra necessitudine et debuisse confiteor et praestitisse arbitror. De or. 3.7: priuatis magis officiis et ingenii laude floruit, quam fructu amplitudinis aut rei publicae dignitate. In Fam. 4.12.3 Ser. Sulpicius writes of Marcellus: ita, quae nostra officia fuerunt pro collegio et pro propinquitate et uiuo et mortuo omnia ex praestitimus. Like Cicero (Att. 12.52.1), Brutus also uses the phrase ad officium pertinere [ep. Brut. 1.6.2). Plaut. Trin. 697: is est honos hominipudico meminisse officium suum. Cic. Mur. 69; Pis. 55: officiosissima natio candidatorum. 76 L. Acil. line 24: queiue se earum aliqua] necessitudine atingat, quae supra scripta stent. In Caes. BC 1.8.3 Pompeius says: semper se rei publicae commoda priuatis necessitudinibus habuisse pptiora. Caesar uses necessitas ap. Gell. 13.3.5. Cic. 2 Verr. 3.153: pepercit homini amico et, quem ad modum ipsum dicere audiui, necessario; Flacc. 14: a Laelio, paterno amico ac pernecessario; Mur. 73: officium necessitudinis. Officia necessariorum and similar phrases occur frequently, e.g. div. Caec. 5, 6, 11, 14. 77 Fustel, 216. 78 Caes. BC 1.74.4: compluresque tribuni militum et centuriones ad Caesarem 6
68
THE NOBILITY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
us an example of commendation by a third party: to negotiate with Metellus Scipio he sent one A. Clodius, who had been 'committed and commended' to him by Scipio and whom Caesar had subsequently admitted to his circle of friends.79 We have a letter of Cicero in which the jurist Trebatius is commended in this way to Caesar in Gaul. After Cicero has explained how highly he himself regards the man, he concludes: 'And so I pass him over to you from hand to hand, as they say/80 After Trebatius had been in Gaul for some time, Cicero had to write to him and say that he did not seem to value his sojourn in Gaul and his association with Caesar as highly as he should. It had pained him to see from Trebatius' letters how from the first he had wanted nothing but to return to Rome, and was a bad officer and shameless to boot. For he had regarded the letter of commendation as a letter of credit, after cashing which he could hurry home right away. Cicero recalls how Trebatius had first attached himself to him and how he had done everything he could think of to secure Trebatius' advancement. Then, after the formation of his friendship with Caesar, he 'commended and committed' Trebatius to him as pressingly as he could.81 Similar expressions occur in Terence,82 Caelius83 and Sallust.84 Caelius' father 'commended and committed' his son to Cicero for his education.85 ueniunt seque ei commendant. idem hoc fit a principibus Hispaniae, quos euocauerant et secum in castris habebant obsidum loco, hi suos notos hospitesque quaerebant, per quern quisque eorum aditum commendationis haberet ad Caesarem. 79 BC 3.57.1: quern ab illo traditum initio et commendatum in suorum necessariorum numero habere instituerat. 80 Fam. 7.5.3: totum denique hominem tibi ita trado de manu ut aiunt in manum. 81 Fam. 7.17.2: cum te ex adulescentia tua in amicitiam etfidem meam contulisses . . . sic te commendaui et tradidit utgrauissime diligentissimeque potui. 82 Eun. 886: ego me tuae commendo et committo fidei, te mihi patronam eapio, Thais, te obsecro; 1039: patri se Thais commendauit, in clientelam etfidem nobis dedit se. 83 Fam. 8.9.4: M. Feridium tibi commendo et te rogo ut eum in tuorum numero habeas. 84 Cat. 35.6. His Catilina writes to Catulus: Orestillam commendo tuaeque fidei tradot earn ab iniuria defendas. 85 Cic. Cael. 39. Cf. Fam. 2.6.5 to C u r i o : nunc tibi omnem rem atque causam meque totum commendo atque trado. 2 Verr. 3.30: adseculae (sc. Verris) non apatre ei traditi sed a meretricula commendati. Att. 4.16.1: Paccio ratione et uerbis et re ostendi quid tua commendatio ponderis haberet. itaque in intimis est meis, cum antea notus nonfuisset.
RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON PERSONAL CONNECTION
69
Conversely the patronus who undertook a defence could also 'commit himself'.86 Such relationships are also often spoken of in terms of 'promises',87 and the actions performed in consequence are termed 'attentions'.88 In the corpus of Cicero's letters commendation is spoken of with extraordinary frequency;89 the thirteenth book of the Aä Familiäres contains nothing but letters of commendation. It would be quite perverse to look for a tie ofßäes behind every commendation. Letters of commendation have been written at all periods among all peoples.90 But, as observed above on the subject o£officium, no precise line can be drawn between the employment of the term which still implies this personal relationship and the wider usage. This is a result of the very loose structure of these relationships, which on the one hand were hereditary, but on the other could be dissolved at will and replaced by new ones.91 86 Cic. QF 2.3.5: domum ad eum statim uenimus eique nos totos tradimus. 87 Att. 13.49.1: erat in consulatus petitione per te mihi pollicitus si quid opus esset; quod egoperinde tuehar acsi usus essem. QF 1.2.16: omnes et se et suos amicos, clientis, libertos, seruos, pecunias denique suas pollicentur. Comm. pet 47: officium polliceru Att. 1.2.1: Caesar mihi gratulatur et omnia pollicetur. Cael 21: ultro se offene, testimonium polliceri (sc. hominibus potentibus, gratiosis, disertis). Cf. also QF 2.7.2: totum ei negotium permisi meque in eius potestate dixi fore. Associated with this is found 'to go surety for another': Cic. QF3.8.3: ego Messallam Caesaripraestabo. Fam. 1.9.9: nisi cum Marco fratre diligenter egerisf dependendum tibi est, quod mihi pro illo spopondisti. 88 Obseruantia, obseruare9 colere: Cic. Rose. Am. 106; Mur. 76; Plane. 67; Phil. 2.49 (Cicero on his relations with Antonius in 53): postea sum cultus a tet tu a me obseruatus in petitione quaesturae; Att. 1.1.3; Fam. 6.10.2, 7.30.3, 9.16.5, 9.20.3, 12.27.1, 13.3.1, 13.6.1, 13.7.1, 13.29.6 and frequently throughout book 13. Plut. Mar. 4.1: o$ rov ott