Patrician (ancient Rome)

The patricians (from Latin: patricius) were originally a group of ruling class families in ancient Rome. The distinction was highly significant in the Roman Kingdom, and the early Republic, but its relevance waned after the Conflict of the Orders (494 BC to 287 BC), and by the time of the late Republic and Empire, membership in the patriciate was of only nominal significance.

Romulus and his brother, Remus, with the she-wolf. Romulus is credited with creating the patrician class.

The social structure of Ancient Rome revolved around the distinction between the patricians and the plebeians. The status of patricians gave them more political power than the plebeians. The relationship between the patricians and the plebeians eventually caused the Conflict of the Orders. This time changed the social structure of Ancient Rome.

After the Western Empire fell, it remained a high honorary title in the Byzantine Empire. Medieval patrician classes were once again formally defined groups of leading Grand Burgher families in the Holy Roman Empire and in many medieval Italian republics, such as Venice and Genoa, and subsequently "patrician" became a vague term used for aristocrats and the higher bourgeoisie in many countries. The legacy of the patrician and plebeian distinction lives on in modern society. This article examines the work of E.P. Thompson to illustrate the legacy that Ancient Rome's class distinction has on modern day class structures.

Origin

According to Livy, the first 100 men appointed as senators by Romulus were referred to as "fathers" (Latin patres), and the descendants of those men became the patrician class. This fact is also in an account from Cicero.[1] Appointing these one hundred men into the senate gave them a noble status.[1] This noble status is what separated the patricians from the plebeians. Some accounts detail that the one hundred men were chosen because of their wisdom.[1] This would coincide with the idea that Ancient Rome was founded on a merit based ideal.[1] According to other opinions, the patricians (patricii) were those who could point to fathers, i.e. those who were members of the clans (gentes) whose members originally comprised the whole citizen body.[2] Other noble families which came to Rome during the time of the kings were also admitted to the patriciate, including several who emigrated from Alba Longa after that city was destroyed by Tullus Hostilius. The last known instance of a gens being admitted to the patriciate prior to the 1st century BC was when the Claudii were added to the ranks of the patricians after coming to Rome in 504 BC, five years after the establishment of the Republic.[3][4][5][6] This specific reason as to why Romulus chose who he chose remains contested by academics and historians but the importance of the patrician/ plebeian distinction is accounted by all as paramount to Ancient Roman society. The distinction between the noble class, the patricians, and the Roman populace, the plebeians, existed from the beginning of Ancient Rome.[7] This distinction becomes important in years to come.

The patricians were distinct from the plebeians because they had wider political influence, at least in the times of the early Republic. This distinction comes from the Patricians being granted noble status when Romulus named the one hundred men to the Senate .[8] The patricians in Ancient Rome were of the same status as aristocrats in Greek society.[9] Being of the noble class meant that patricians were able to participate in government and politics while the plebeians were not. This privilege was important in Ancient Roman history and ended up causing a large divide between the two classes. During the middle and late Republic, as this influence gradually eroded, plebeians were granted equal rights in most areas, and even greater in some. For example, only plebeians could serve as the Tribune of the Plebs. There were quotas for official offices. One of the two consulships was reserved for plebeians. Although being a patrician remained prestigious, it was of minimal practical importance. With the exception of some religious offices which were devoid of political power, plebeians were able to stand for all of the offices that were open to patricians. Plebeians of the senatorial class were no less wealthy than patricians at the height of the republic. Originally patrician, Publius Clodius Pulcher willingly got himself adopted into a plebeian family in order to be able to become the Tribune of the Plebs.

Roman Republic and Empire

Status

Patricians historically had more privileges and rights than plebeians. This status difference was at the beginning of the Republic, patricians were better represented in the Roman assemblies, only patricians could hold high political offices, such as dictator, consul, and censor, and all priesthoods (such as pontifex maximus) were closed to non-patricians. There was a belief that patricians communicated better with the Roman gods, so they alone could perform the sacred rites and take the auspices. Additionally, not only were the patricians of higher status in political offices but they also had the best land in Ancient Rome.[10] Having the best land would allow the patrician class to have more opportunities, such as being able to produce better agriculture. This view had political consequences, since in the beginning of the year or before a military campaign, Roman magistrates used to consult the gods. Livy reports that the first admission of plebeians into a priestly college happened in 300 BC with the passage of the Lex Ogulnia, when the college of Augurs raised their number from four to nine. After that, plebeians were accepted into the other religious colleges, and by the end of the Republic, only priesthoods with limited political importance, such as the Salii, the Flamines, and the Rex Sacrorum, were filled exclusively by patricians.

While it was not illegal for a plebeian to run for political office, a plebeian would have not have had the backing needed to win a seat.[11] Since society was organized in this way, the patrician class was essentially in complete control of Ancient Rome's government.[11] In Cassius' accounts of Ancient Rome, he details how important and advantaged the patrician class was over the plebeian class.[12] He indicates the status difference between patricians and plebeians by detailing about the specific shoes the patricians wore. Cassius states, "For the shoes worn by the patricians in the city were ornamented with laced straps and the design of the letter, to signify that they were descended from the original hundred men that had been senators."[12] It is clear through Cassius' account that these details mattered and represent the differentiation between classes. For more on Ancient Rome's social class distinction visit Social Class in Ancient Rome.

Very few plebeian names appear in lists of Roman magistrates during the early Republic. Two laws passed during the fourth century BC began the gradual opening of magistrates to the plebeians: the Lex Licinia Sextia of 367 BC, which established the right of plebeians to hold the consulship; and the Genucian Law of 342 BC, which required that at least one of the consuls be a plebeian (although this law was frequently violated for several decades).

Many of the ancient patrician gentes whose members appear in the founding legends of Rome disappeared as Rome acquired its empire, and new plebeian families rose to prominence. A number of patrician families such as the Horatii, Lucretii, Verginii and Menenii rarely appear in positions of importance during the later republic. Many old families had both patrician and plebeian branches, of which the patrician lines frequently faded into obscurity, and were eclipsed by their plebeian namesakes.

The decline accelerated toward the end of the Republic, principally because of the civil wars, from the Social War to the proscriptions of the Triumvirs, which took a heavy toll on them. As a result, several illustrious patrician houses were on the verge of extinction during the 1st century BC, sometimes only surviving through adoptions, such as:

  • Julii Caesares
  • Manlii Torquatii
  • Papirii Masones
  • Postumii Albini
  • Servilii Caepiones

However, large gentes with multiple stirpes seem to have coped better; the Aemilii, Claudii, Cornelii, Fabii, Sulpicii, and Valerii all continued to thrive under the Principate.

Patricians vs. plebeians

The distinction between patricians and plebeians in Ancient Rome was based purely on birth. Although modern writers often portray patricians as rich and powerful families who managed to secure power over the less-fortunate plebeian families, plebeians and patricians among the senatorial class were equally wealthy. As civil rights for plebeians increased during the middle and late Roman Republic, many plebeian families had attained wealth and power while some traditionally patrician families had fallen into poverty and obscurity. However, no amount of wealth could change one's class.[13]

Marriage

A marriage between a patrician and a plebeian was the only way to legally integrate the two classes. However, once the Twelve Tables were written down, a law was written which made the marriage between the two classes illegal.[14] If a marriage was to occur between a patrician and a plebeian, the children of that marriage would then be given patrician status. This law was created to prevent the classes from mixing. In Ancient Rome women did not have power in the household. However, according to Mathisen, having a recognized marriage, so not illegally marrying into the other class, was important.[14] Having a legally recognized marriage ensured that the children born from the marriage were given Roman citizenship and any property they might inherit.[14]

The Conflict of The Orders

Eventually, the plebeians became unsatisfied with being the lower class and not having the same rights and privileges as the patricians.[15] This time in Roman history is called the Conflict of the Orders, which took place between 500-287 BCE.[15] Due to the patricians having the political status, the plebeian class had no representation in the government to advocate for their interests.[15] By not having anyone advocating for their interests, this also meant that the Plebeians did not know the laws they had to abide by.[15] Since the patricians were of high social status, they did not want to lose this status; they were not in agreement with changing the structure of society by giving plebeians more status.[15] Eventually, the plebeian class came together and created their own governing body, the Council of the Plebs.[15]

Another advancement that came from the Conflict of the Orders was the twelve tables. At this time in Ancient Rome, the monarchy had been over thrown.[16] The plebeians wanted to know the laws, which resulted in the written form of laws: the Twelve Tables.[15] Even once these laws were written down, and the new Centuriate Assembly was created, the patrician class remained in power. The assembly separated citizens into classes, however, the top two class, Equestrians and Class 1, were able to control the majority of the vote.[15] This meant, that while the plebeians were able to vote, if the patrician classes voted together, the could control the vote.[15] Ancient Rome, according to Ralph Mathisen, author of Ancient Roman Civilization: History and Sources, made political reforms, such as the introduction of the Council of the Plebs and the Tribunes of the Plebs. These two political bodies were created to give the plebeians a voice. After the Conflict of the Orders, according to Mathisen, Plebeians were able to rise in politics and become members of the Senate, which used to be exclusively for patricians.[15]

Fading of distinction

A series of laws diminished the distinction between the two classes, including Lex Canuleia (445 BC; which allowed the marriage—ius connubii—between patricians and plebeians), Leges Licinae Sextiae (367 BC; which made restrictions on possession of public lands—ager publicus—and also made sure that one of the consuls was plebeian), Lex Ogulnia (300 BC; plebeians received access to priest posts), and Lex Hortensia (287 BC; verdicts of plebeian assemblies—plebiscita—now bind all people). Gradually, by the late Republic, most distinctions between patricians and plebeians had faded away.[17]

Modern Day

"Patrician" and "plebeian" are still used today to refer to groups of people of high and lower classes.[18]

Patrician families

The following gentes were regarded as patrician, although they may have had plebeian members or branches.

A number of other gentes originally belonged to the patricians but were known chiefly for their plebeian branches.

Gentes maiores et minores

Among the patricians, certain families were known as the gentes maiores, the greatest or perhaps the most noble houses. The other patrician families were called the gentes minores. Whether this distinction had any legal significance is not known, but it has been suggested that the princeps senatus, or Speaker of the Senate, was traditionally chosen from the gentes maiores.

No list of the gentes maiores has been discovered, and even their number is entirely unknown. It has been suggested that the Aemilii, Claudii, Cornelii, Fabii, Manlii, and Valerii were amongst them. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology suggests that the gentes maiores consisted of families that settled at Rome in the time of Romulus, or at least before the destruction of Alba Longa. The noble Alban families that settled in Rome in the time of Tullus Hostilius then formed the nucleus of the gentes minores. These included the Julii, Tulii, Servilii, Quinctii, Geganii, Curtii, and Cloelii.[4][19]

However, Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities suggests that the Alban families were also included among the gentes maiores, and that the gentes minores consisted of the families admitted to the patriciate under the Tarquins and in the early years of the Republic. In any case, the distinction cannot have been based entirely on priority, because the Claudii did not arrive at Rome until after the expulsion of the kings.[4][20][21][22]

Late Roman and Byzantine periods

Patrician status still carried a degree of prestige at the time of the early Roman Empire, and Roman emperors routinely elevated their supporters to the patrician caste en masse. This prestige gradually declined further, and by the end of the 3rd-century crisis patrician status, as it had been known in the Republic, ceased to have meaning in everyday life. The emperor Constantine the Great (r. 306–337) reintroduced the term as the empire's senior honorific title, not tied to any specific administrative position, and from the first limited to a very small number of holders.[23][24] The historian Zosimus states that in Constantine's time, the holders of the title ranked even above the praetorian prefects.[25]

In the late Western Roman Empire, the title was sparingly used and retained its high prestige, being awarded, especially in the 5th century, to the powerful magistri militum who dominated the state, such as Stilicho, Constantius III, Flavius Aetius, Comes Bonifacius, and Ricimer.[23] The eastern emperor Zeno (r. 474–491) granted it to Odoacer to legitimize the latter's rule in Italy after his overthrow of the rebellious magister militum Orestes and his son Romulus Augustulus in 476. In the Eastern Empire, Theodosius II (r. 408–450) barred eunuchs from holding it, although this restriction had been overturned by the 6th century. Under Justinian I (r. 527–565), the title proliferated and was consequently somewhat devalued, as the emperor opened it up to all those above illustris rank, i.e. the majority of the Senate.[26]

In the 8th century, the title was further lowered in the court order of precedence, coming after the magistros and the anthypatos. However it remained one of the highest in the imperial hierarchy until the 11th century, being awarded to the most important strategoi (provincial governors and generals) of the Empire.[23] In the court hierarchy, the eunuch patrikioi enjoyed higher precedence, coming before even the anthypatoi-Latn.[27] According to the late 9th-century Kletorologion, the insignia of the dignity were ivory inscribed tablets.[28] During the 11th century, the dignity of patrikios followed the fate of other titles: extensively awarded, it lost in status, and disappeared during the Komnenian period in the early 12th century.[23] The title of prōtopatrikios (πρωτοπατρίκιος, "first patrician") is also evidenced in the East from 367 to 711, possibly referring to the senior-most holder of the office and leader of the patrician order (taxis).[23][29] The feminine variant patrikia (πατρικία) denoted the spouses of patrikioi; it is not to be confused with the title of zostē patrikia ("girded patrikia"), which was a unique dignity conferred on the ladies-in-waiting of the empress.[23]

The patrician title was occasionally used in Western Europe after the end of the Roman Empire; for instance, Pope Stephen II granted the title "Patricius of the Romans" to the Frankish ruler Pepin the Short.[23] The revival of patrician classes in medieval Italian city-states, and also north of the Alps, is covered in patricianship.

gollark: Metadiscussion being tightly restricted and controlled sounds more like a way to consolidate palaiologistic power than something to actually generally benefit the community.
gollark: Fascinating.
gollark: Well, in that case, I unsupport this.
gollark: I am supportive of this "meta channel" unless you force all metadiscussion ever there.
gollark: Perhaps, but it's *ominous* to me, especially with other stuff.

See also

References
  1. Botsford, George Willis (1906). "The Social Composition of the Primitive Roman Populus". Political Science Quarterly. 21 (3): 498–526. doi:10.2307/2140599. ISSN 0032-3195. JSTOR 2140599.
  2. Clay (1911), p. 931 cites Livy ii. 56
  3. Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, Second Edition, Harry Thurston Peck, Editor (1897)
  4. Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1970).
  5. Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Book II
  6. Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Book I
  7. Botsford, George Willis (1906). "The Social Composition of the Primitive Roman Populus". Political Science Quarterly. 21 (3): 498–526. doi:10.2307/2140599. ISSN 0032-3195. JSTOR 2140599.
  8. Botsford, George Willis (1906). "The Social Composition of the Primitive Roman Populus". Political Science Quarterly. 21 (3): 498–526. doi:10.2307/2140599. ISSN 0032-3195. JSTOR 2140599.
  9. Mathisen, Ralph W., 1947- author. (2019). Ancient Roman civilization : history and sources, 753 BCE to 640 CE. ISBN 978-0-19-084960-3. OCLC 1137838429.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. Mathisen, Ralph W., 1947- author. (2019). Ancient Roman civilization : history and sources, 753 BCE to 640 CE. ISBN 978-0-19-084960-3. OCLC 1137838429.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. Mathisen, Ralph W., 1947- author. (2019). Ancient Roman civilization : history and sources, 753 BCE to 640 CE. ISBN 978-0-19-084960-3. OCLC 1137838429.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. "Cassius Dio — Fragments of Book 2". penelope.uchicago.edu. Retrieved 2020-02-23.
  13. Mathisen, Ralph W., 1947- author. (2019). Ancient Roman civilization : history and sources, 753 BCE to 640 CE. ISBN 978-0-19-084960-3. OCLC 1137838429.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. Mathisen, Ralph W., 1947- author. (2019). Ancient Roman civilization : history and sources, 753 BCE to 640 CE. ISBN 978-0-19-084960-3. OCLC 1137838429.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. Mathisen, Ralph W., 1947- author. (2019). Ancient Roman civilization : history and sources, 753 BCE to 640 CE. ISBN 978-0-19-084960-3. OCLC 1137838429.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  16. Steinberg, Michael (1982). "The Twelve Tables and Their Origins: An Eighteenth-Century Debate". Journal of the History of Ideas. 43 (3): 379–396. doi:10.2307/2709429. ISSN 0022-5037. JSTOR 2709429.
  17. Tellegen-Couperus, O. E. (1993). A short history of Roman law. Psychology Press.
  18. Mathisen, Ralph W., 1947- author. (2019). Ancient Roman civilization : history and sources, 753 BCE to 640 CE. ISBN 978-0-19-084960-3. OCLC 1137838429.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. Greenidge, Abel Hendy Jones, Roman Public Life (London: MacMillan, 1901), page 12.
  20. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, Editor.
  21. Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, i. 30, ii. 16.
  22. Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, Second Edition, Harry Thurston Peck, Editor (1897)
  23. Kazhdan (1991), p. 1600
  24. Paul Stephenson, Constantine, Roman Emperor, Christian Victor, 2010:240.
  25. Zosimus, Historia Nova, II.40.2
  26. Bury (1911), p. 27
  27. Bury (1911), p. 124
  28. Bury (1911), p. 22
  29. Bury (1911), p. 28

Sources

Further reading
  • Ferenczy, Endre. 1976. From the Patrician State to the Patricio-Plebeian State. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert.
  • Forsythe, Gary (2005). A Critical History of Early Rome. University of California Press.
  • Mitchell, Richard E. 1990. Patricians and plebeians: The origin of the Roman state. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
  • Raaflaub, Kurt A., ed. 2004. Social struggles in Archaic Rome: New perspectives on the conflict of the orders. 2d ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Raaflaub, Kurt, ed. (2005). Social Struggles in Archaic Rome: New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders. Blackwell Publishing.
  • Rosenstein, Nathan and Robert Morstein-Marx. 2010. A Companion to the Roman Republic. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Stewart, Roberta. 1998. Public office in early Rome: Ritual procedure and political practice. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.
  • Tatum, W. Jeffrey. 1999. The patrician tribune: Publius Clodius Pulcher. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.
  • Williamson, Callie. 2005. The laws of the Roman people: Public law in the expansion and decline of the Roman Republic. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.