Nobilitas and Novitas - Historia Antigua

NOBILITAS AND NOVITASBy P. A. BRUNTI. No Roman definition of nobilis or novus homo exists. Mommsen held that the nobilescomprised:(a) all patricians;(b) those descended from patricians who had effected a transitio ad plebem;(c) those descended from plebeians who had held curule offices, viz. the offices ofdictator, magister equitum, censor, consul, praetor, curule aedile.2 They were thus identicalwith the persons who had the ius imaginum. (On this footing Mommsen ought to haveincluded plebeian aediles, at least for the post-Sullan era.) 3 All others, including thosewho were the first of their lines to hold curule office, were novi. This theory has beengenerally abandoned in favour of Gelzer's; Afzelius argued that it corresponded to theconception of nobility in the second century, but not to that prevalent in Cicero's time.Yet it may after all be right.II. Gelzer contended that in Cicero's time nobility was predicated only of those who' belong to consular families ' (p. 3I), though he was willing to treat the families of thosewho had held the dictatorship or military tribunate with consular powers as of equal status(p. 32). In summarizing his theory he sharpened the definition by saying that nobilityattached only to the descendants of men who had held the offices concerned (p. 52). He drewup lists of those named as nobiles by Cicero,4 and of attested novi homines which seemed toshow that the former, with certain exceptions that he sought to explain, were known to beof consular descent, and that the latter included men whose fathers had held the praetorship.In his judgement all other reliable evidence fortified this conclusion. In particular,he argued that Cicero was unable to claim nobility for Murena, although he was the fourthof his line to have been praetor. Gelzer also cited a statement that Livy (VI 37, II) putsinto the mouth of the plebeian tribunes of 367, that once plebeians were consuls, theywould transmit nobility to their children. However, in 367 neither praetorship nor curuleaedileship existed. And, as the passage strictly implies that there were as yet no plebeiannobles, although plebeians had already held the consular tribunate, it would seem that Livydid not suppose that that office gave a title to nobility.III. Gelzer's theory would admit of minor modifications without being subverted. It goeswithout saying that for the purpose of determining nobility the office of dictator, and perhapsthat of magister equitum (which he did not consider),5 must have ranked with that of consul.This might not be true of the military tribunate with consular power. Whatever were thereal reasons for which this office was intermittently substituted for the consulship between444 and 367, the fact that the tribunes lacked the right to triumph shows that they were notin all respects regarded as ranking with consuls ; 6 moreover, according to the tradition,the patricians opened the office to plebeians while maintaining that they would sully theconsulship. Gelzer only allowed the consular tribunate to count with the consulship, inorder to explain the right of Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, Cos. 5 I, to be styled noble. But Sulpiciusmight probably have adduced consular ancestry,' and in any case seems to have foundedhis claim to nobility on being a patrician. It is probable that Cicero's insinuation that itcould be derived only from a remote office-holder is tendentious (cf. XXIV), and that1 Gelzer = M. Gelzer, The Roman Nobility (tr.R. Seager, I 969), which gives a slightly revised versionof Die Nobilitdt der r6m. Rep. (I9I2), reprinted inKi. Schr. I I7 ff. Cf. H. Strasburger, RE XVII 785 ff. ;1223 ff.; A. Afzelius, Cl. et Med., I938, 40 ff.,accepting his views, which Afzelius later modified inCl. et Med., I945, 150 ff. (cf. XX; my paragraphs arenumbered for convenience of reference in the list ofXIII). Documentation on individual persons willbe found in Broughton, MRR. Consuls are identifiedby the first year in which they held the office whetheror not they held it more than once.2 StR III3 462 f.- StR I 44Z ff., cf. 40I f. Verr. II 5, 36 shows thatCicero secured the ius on becoming plebeian aedile,not (as Mommsen thought) curule aedile (cf. MRRII I36 n. 5).4 The list is somewvhat lengthened in the Englishtranslation. Gelzer also listed those who are calledby Cicero clarissimi, all nobles or consulars withthree flattering exceptions, or principes civitatis,all consulars apart from Cato Uticensis (whoseexceptional influence in my view justifies the appellation); a fuller list of the latter in RE xxii 20I4 ff.(Wickert) confirms Gelzer's interpretation.6 M. Antonius, cos. 99, could perhaps have claimeddescent from a mag. eq. in 334 or 333 ; unlikely.8 StR II3 I90.7 Gelzer assumed his descent from a consulartribune of 388, 384, 383 (cf. RE iv A 850 f.). Whynot from a consul of 500, 490, 46I, or 434?