CHAPTER II

THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE PRIMITIVE POPULUS

This chapter[83] is primarily an inquiry into the social composition of the comitia curiata. At the same time it seeks to solve a problem which is doubtless the most fundamental in the early political and constitutional history of Rome. The result we reach will determine our conception of the whole course of constitutional development, and of the accompanying political struggles, to the complete equalization of the social ranks. For if we believe, as do many of the moderns,[84] that the primitive Roman state was made up exclusively of patricians, we are forced to the conclusion that the constitutional development to the passing of the Hortensian laws centred in the gradual admission of the plebeians and the clients to citizenship—perhaps even in the amalgamation of two distinct peoples. If on the other hand we take the ground that from the beginning the plebeians and the clients were citizens and voted in the comitia curiata, we must think of these inferior classes as struggling through the early history of their country for the acquisition not of citizenship but of various rights and privileges, social, economic, religious, and political, formerly monopolized by a patrician aristocracy. In attempting to solve the problem here proposed it will be advantageous to consider (1) the ancient view, (2) the conventional modern view, (3) the comparative-sociological view.

I. _The Ancient View_

The three social classes of freemen—plebeians, patricians, and clients—were formed within the citizen body by official recognition of existing distinctions not of nationality but of worth. The first step in the process was the differentiation of the patricians from the plebeians. According to Cicero, Romulus constituted a number of chief men into a royal council, the senate, whose members he so highly esteemed as to have them called patres, and their children patricians.[85] Cicero thinks of the multitude as existing at first without a politically recognized nobility, yet showing natural distinctions of worth. By calling into the senate the ablest and best men, the state ennobled them and their families.[86] Livy’s[87] view is similar: Romulus selected from the multitude a hundred senators, whom he named patres, and whose descendants were called patricians. They were chosen because of their wisdom;[88] on that ground the state granted them nobility,[89] which accordingly in Rome, as in every early community, was founded on personal merit.[90] In the more detailed theory of Dionysius,[91] Romulus “distinguished those who were eminent for their birth and celebrated for their virtue, and whom he knew to be rich in the account of those times and who had children, from the obscure and mean and poor. The lower class he called plebeians, Greek δημοτικοί, and the higher patres, either because they were older than the others, or had children, or were of higher birth, or for all these reasons.... The most trustworthy historians of the Roman constitution assert that owing to these facts they were called patres and their descendants patricians.” According to Plutarch,[92] “Romulus, after forming the army, employed the rest of the people as the citizen body (δῆμος); the multitude he called populus, and appointed a hundred nobles to be councillors, whom he called patricians, and their assembly the senate.”[93]

There can be no doubt, therefore, as to the opinion of the ancient writers. They believed that from the beginning social distinctions existed naturally within the populus Romanus, and that these distinctions were made the basis of an official division of the people into nobles and commons, patricii and plebs, by the government. This view is not only reasonable in itself, but is supported, as we shall see, by analogies drawn from many other states.

All the sources make the patriciate depend upon connection with the senate, Dionysius alone showing some inconsistency on this point.[94] Why the senators were called patres the ancients give various reasons. Cicero[95] thinks patres a term of endearment; Sallust[96] believes that the name was applied either because of age or because of the similarity of their duty; Livy[97] sets it down as a title of honor; Festus[98] thinks chiefly of their age and wisdom; Paulus,[99] his epitomator, suggests that they were so called because they divided their lands among the poorer class as fathers among children; Dionysius[100] gives three possible reasons, (1) greater age, (2) possession of children, (3) family reputation. The sources generally agree in representing the patres as men who in age, honor, authority and duty stood toward the rest of the citizens as a father toward his children, and in identifying these social-political patres with the senators.[101] An examination of the word itself will tend to confirm the ancient view. It seems to have originally signified “protector,” “keeper,” “nourisher,”[102] hence “owner,” “master.” Pater familias is nourisher, protector, and master of a household.[103] In late Roman law the term continued to refer not necessarily to actual parentage but rather to the legal position of the head of a household;[104] in fact it is only in a distantly derived sense that pater comes to signify the male parent. Ideas early attaching to the word, accordingly, are those of power or authority and age. The senate, as this word indicates, was originally made up of elderly men, senatores, maiores natu.[105] It would be natural to call them patres because of their authority over the community or of their age. As a designation of rank, pater, excepting in jest, is always plural—an indication that the authority and dignity did not attach to the individual noble but to the senators collectively; they were collectively patres of the community, not individually patres of children, clients or gentes.[106] But when in time a limited number of families monopolized the senate, the term could easily be extended to the entire privileged circle, meaning those with hereditary right to authority over the rest of the community.[107] Though in the sources the patres are generally senators the word is sometimes synonymous with patricii.[108]

Regarding patricius the Romans reasoned with somewhat less care. They were right in deriving it from pater, but they made it signify “descended from,” whereas in fact it means “belonging to,”[109] and designates accordingly the families of the political patres. Probably it was formed after patres began to be applied to the entire governing class—a development which would tend to throw the latter word back to its earlier and narrower sense.

Had the investigation of these words on the part of the ancients rested at this point, all would have been well; but an unfortunate guess as to the derivation of patricii by some unknown antiquarian has brought into the study of the social ranks unutterable confusion lasting down to the present day. This conjecture derives patricius from patrem ciere, making it signify “one who can cite a father.” The attempted etymology, clearly a failure, would perhaps have been harmless, had it not connected itself with the ambiguous word ingenuus. Cincius[110] says, “Those used to be called patricians who are now called ingenui.” Livy has the two ideas in mind when he represents a plebeian orator as inquiring, “Have ye never heard it said that those first created patricians were not beings sent down from heaven, but such as could cite their fathers, that is, nothing more than ingenui? I can now cite my father—a consul—and my son will be able to cite a grandfather.”[111] There should be no doubt as to the meaning of these passages; the antiquarian who conjectured that patricius was derived from patrem ciere, and therefore defined patricii as those who could cite their fathers, meant merely those who had distinguished fathers, and hence were of respectable birth. Ordinarily in extant Latin literature ingenui are simply the freeborn; and in making Appius Claudius Crassus in 368 include in the term the whole body of citizens Livy[112] dates this meaning back to the period before the Licinian-Sextian laws. Elsewhere are indications that in early times ingenui connoted rather respectable birth, and so applied especially to the patricians.[113] The quotations from Cincius and the attempted derivation of patricius from patrem ciere, accordingly, are sufficiently explained without resorting to the strange hypothesis, held by some, that in primitive Rome the patricians were the only men of free birth.

In summarizing the ancient view as to the origin and nature of the patriciate, it will be enough to say that the king chose from the people men who were eminent for the experience of age, for ability and reputation, to sit in his council, the senate; the men so distinguished were called patres, whereas the adjective patricius applied as well to their families—the patricii being those who could cite illustrious fathers.[114] From this point of view the Roman nobility did not differ from that of most other countries.

The plebs,[115] then, were the mass of common freemen, from whom the nobility was differentiated in the way described above. From the ancient point of view they existed from the beginning, prior even to the patriciate itself.

It is equally true that in the opinion of the ancients the plebs were prior to the clients. Cicero[116] records that Romulus distributed the plebs in clientage among the chief men; Dionysius[117] adds that he gave the plebeians liberty to choose their patrons from among the patricians. Thus far their view is in complete accord with modern sociology, which teaches that such class distinctions first arise through the differentiation of freemen. Although aware of the fact that clientage existed in other states which were presumably older than Rome,[118] her historians doubtless felt that the institution could have been legalized in their own country by recognition only on the part of the government. They did not, however, work out a consistent theory of the relation between this class and the plebeians. Certain passages[119] hint, though they do not expressly assert, that at one epoch all the plebeians were in clientage, whereas in their accounts of political struggles the ancient writers uniformly array clients against plebeians almost from the beginning of the state.[120] The latter view is historically better founded.

There must have been various origins of clientage, with corresponding gradations of privilege. The libertini were citizens with straitly limited rights; other clients, certainly the greater part of the class, not only followed their patron to war[121] and to the forum,[122] but also testified and brought accusations in the courts[123] and voted in the assemblies;[124] and when the plebeians gained the right to hold offices the clients were admitted along with them to the same privilege.[125] In his relation with the state, therefore, the ordinary client did not differ essentially from the plebeian.

From the preceding examination of the social ranks it at once becomes evident that the ancients made the populus comprise both patricians and plebeians; in further proof of their view may be cited the following juristic definition: “Plebs differs from populus in that by the word populus all the citizens are meant, including even the patricians, whereas plebs signifies the rest of the citizens, excepting the patricians.”[126] Since the sources generally consider the patricians the descendants of the hundred original senators,[127] they cannot help regarding the populus as composed chiefly of plebeians. In common speech the term, like our word people, often applies to the lower class as distinguished from the higher, in which sense it is interchangeable with plebs; often, too, it signifies the people in contrast with the senate.[128] It is clear, then, as Mommsen has pointed out,[129] that if populus signifies first the whole body of citizens and secondly the commons as distinguished from the nobles, it could not possibly have as a third equivalent the patricians as distinguished from the plebeians. In certain formulae found in addresses, wills, prayers, and oracles, populus is so joined with plebs (populus plebesque or the like) as to suggest the possible meaning patricians.[130] The combination of the two words with senatus,[131] however, reveals at once the overlapping of the terms so joined. In these passages reference is to the modes by which an individual may approach the state; he may address the consuls, praetors, or plebeian tribunes, and in the same way the senate, populus, or plebs.[132] Hence in these formulae, merely representing groups of institutions through which the state is accustomed to act, the word populus does not apply solely to the patricians, and the same may be said of its use in all other connections. We may conclude, therefore, that the Latin language gives no hint of an exclusively patrician populus.

Regarding the populus as made up of patricians, plebeians, and clients, our sources necessarily ascribe the same social composition to its divisions, the three old tribes and the thirty curiae.[133] With perfect consistency they mention repeated enlargements of the populus and of the tribes and curiae, through the admission of masses of aliens, most of whom must have remained plebeian. In fact the sources uniformly represent all the kings as freely admitting conquered aliens without exception to the citizenship and to the tribes and the curiae, even compelling some forcibly to enter this condition.[134]

Might the plebeians and clients belong in a restricted sense to the populus and curiae, and yet remain so far inferior to the patricians as to be excluded from the political meetings of the curiae—the comitia curiata? There can be no uncertainty as to the answer to this question, for the ancient writers agree that the comitia curiata included plebeians and clients as well as patricians.[135] Not only did the lower classes attend this assembly, but they also voted in it, and constituted the majority.[136]

II. THE CONVENTIONAL MODERN VIEW

The passages cited above suffice to prove that the ancient writers thought of the populus, and consequently of the comitia curiata, as composed from the earliest times of patricians, clients, and plebeians. Another question, far more difficult, is whether the ancients were right in their view.

As none of the authorities on whom we directly depend for our knowledge of Roman affairs lived earlier than the last century of the republic, they could have had no first-hand acquaintance with primitive Roman conditions, but must have drawn their information concerning the remote past from earlier writers—the annalists—now lost. Niebuhr, who in the opening years of the last century introduced the modern method of investigating Roman history, was convinced that writers of the late republic and of the empire, lacking historical perspective and interpreting their sources in the false light of existing or recent conditions, came to wrong conclusions in regard to the primitive Roman state. He believed he could point to instances of such misunderstanding, and he thought it within the power of a well-equipped modern historian to eliminate much of the error so as to come near to the standpoint of the earlier and more trustworthy annalists.[137]

The position of Niebuhr has in the main proved untenable. Notwithstanding all the source-sifting of modern times, pursued most zealously by the Germans, we are obliged to admit that it is rarely possible with any fair degree of certainty to discover the view of an annalist on a given subject excepting in the few cases in which the citation is by name. We must also admit that though Cicero and the Augustan writers might misinterpret Fabius Pictor in minor details, it is inconceivable that they should fail to understand his presentation of so fundamental a subject as the character of the original populus or the composition of the earliest assembly. Present scholarship accordingly insists that in such weighty matters there was no essential difference of view between earlier and later writers.[138]

These considerations have simplified but not solved the problem. Scholars now agree that no contemporary account of the regal period—ending 509 (?) B.C.—ever existed; and even if it be conceded that the earliest Roman annalist—Fabius Pictor, born about 250 B.C.—had access to traditional or documentary[139] information reaching back to the close of that period, no historian will admit such a possibility for the beginnings of Rome. It follows then that for the origin and character of her earliest institutions Cicero, Livy, and Dionysius, or their sources, have relied wholly on inference from later conditions, in so far as they have not resorted to outright invention. Though with their abundant material they were in a far better position for making such deductions than we are, they lacked the experience and the acute critical method of the moderns.[140] Of the three writers above mentioned—our main sources for the subject under discussion—Cicero was essentially an orator, Dionysius a rhetorician, and Livy, though historian in name, was in spirit rhetorical and dramatic rather than critical. Naturally therefore they or their sources, who on the whole were equally uncritical, made mistakes in the difficult work of drawing inferences as to the history and institutions of the regal period. Such is the view of historians today. It was formerly argued that Dionysius, a rhetorician and a Greek, failed in spite of his twenty-two years of preparation at Rome to understand the spirit and character of the Roman constitution and has therefore been an especial fountain of error;[141] but it is now clear that though in his treatment of early Rome he shows far greater amplitude than Livy and is for that reason proportionally more liable to error in detail, he follows good Roman sources for institutions, and is in this field, with the reservation here mentioned, not essentially inferior to the extant native writers.[142]

Considering the sources untrustworthy and following certain clues which he believed they afforded to a right understanding of the annalists, Niebuhr came to his theory as to the composition of the primitive Roman state. Although he asserts that it was made up of “patrons and clients,”[143] he does not rest satisfied with this view, but proceeds to trace clientage to the following origins, as though in his opinion this institution did not exist from the beginning: (1) some native Siculians perhaps, who were conquered by Latin invaders; (2) strangers settling on Roman territory and choosing a Roman as protector; (3) inhabitants of communities which were obliged to take refuge under Roman protection; (4) manumitted slaves.[144] Logically he goes back to a state made up exclusively of patricians.

He sought evidence for this hypothesis in the scheme of tribal organization of Rome. The primitive city was divided into three tribes, thirty curiae and, as he believed, three hundred gentes. As no one could be a citizen without membership in a gens,[145] and as the patricians alone were active members of the gentes,[146] it must follow that the patricians alone were citizens. It is doubtful whether he would have proposed this hypothesis had it not been for the analogy of the Attic tribal scheme. An imperfect quotation from the lost part of Aristotle’s _Constitution of Athens_[147] seems to signify that the Athenian state was once divided into four tribes (φυλαί), twelve phratries and three hundred and sixty gentes (γένη). On this authority Niebuhr supposes that the phratry was a group of gentes, and he assumes further that both phratries and gentes were composed exclusively of eupatrids.[148] But the suppositions (1) that there were three hundred and sixty gentes, (2) that the phratry was a group of gentes, (3) that both phratries and gentes contained only eupatrids are contradicted by well known facts. From the earliest times the Greek tribes and phratries included commons as well as nobles. This is true of the Homeric Greeks,[149] and a law of Draco[150] proves that the early Attic phratry comprised both nobles and commons. In historical times all citizens belonged to the phratries; whereas but few were members of the gentes.[151] Most of the gentes were in fact composed of the old landed nobility, though a few, like the Chalkidae and the Eupyridae, were apparently industrial guilds, which had received the privileges of the gentes. So far therefore from supporting Niebuhr in his peculiar view of the Roman gentes and curiae, the Attic analogy militates in every way against him. As his assumption that the curia was a group of ten gentes has already been disproved,[152] it remains only to consider whether the gens was an exclusively patrician institution. From the circumstance that patricianism is not given as an element of Scaevola’s definition, quoted by Cicero,[153] we may at once conclude that in their time plebeians, too, were gentiles. This conclusion is supported by a variety of evidence.

Several plebeian gentes are mentioned, including the Minucia and the Octavia,[154] the Lutatia,[155] the Calpurnia,[156] the Domitia,[157] the Fonteia,[158] the Aurelia,[159] and the Licinia.[160] Some gentes comprised both patrician and plebeian families, as the Cassia,[161] the Claudia,[162] the Cornelia,[163] the Manlia,[164] the Papiria,[165] the Publilia or Poplilia,[166] the Aebutia,[167] and the Servilia.[168] Not only do the sources refer to several plebeian gentes by name, but they clearly imply in other ways the existence of such associations. Livy[169] expresses the patrician sentiment that “it would seem an affront to the gods for honors to be vulgarized and for the distinction between gentes to be confused at auspicated comitia” (by the election of plebeians to the consular tribunate). “The distinction between gentes” can only mean the distinction between patrician and plebeian gentes—an interpretation confirmed by a similar statement of Cicero[170] to Clodius, who had passed by arrogation from a patrician to a plebeian gens: “You have disturbed the sacra and contaminated the gentes, both the one you have deserted and the one you have defiled” (by your admission into it). To our other proofs we may add the consideration that the very expression gentes patriciae[171] implies the existence of plebeian gentes. It is natural then that Varro[172] should make gentilitas a condition of men in general. In asserting that there were a thousand gentile names the same authority[173] must have included those of plebeians, for scarcely a hundred belonging to patricians could have been known to him. By no means the weakest argument in favor of the view here presented is the fact that the laws of the Twelve Tables concerning inheritance, tutelage,[174] etc.—which apply not to the patricians alone but to the whole citizen body—assume that every citizen in full possession of his civil rights belonged to a gens.

A passage often interpreted against the existence of plebeian gentes is Livy x. 8. 9: “Vos solos gentem habere.” In this case a plebeian speaker says the patricians claim that they alone have gens (not gentes). The context shows clearly, however, that gens does not here denote an association but is used in the sense of illustrious birth or pedigree,[175] as is sometimes our word family.[176] Wherever a nobility exists it necessarily lays greater stress on descent than do the people, and in all countries the nobles are in a far better position to keep up family connections than are the commons. Naturally therefore at Rome we hear more of patrician than of plebeian gentes. But in view of all the facts mentioned above there should be no doubt as to the existence of the latter. The result of this discussion is that neither in the composition of the gens nor in its position in the community can support be found for Niebuhr’s assumption of a patrician state.[177]

Other evidence for his hypothesis Niebuhr thinks he finds in a statement of Labeo,[178] that the curiate assembly was convoked by a lictor, the centuriate by a horn-blower; while Dionysius[179] says that the patricians were summoned by name through a messenger, the people by the blowing of a horn. Thus Niebuhr maintains that Labeo and Dionysius agree unequivocally in designating the curiae as the assembly of the patricians. But in fact these two sources refer to the customs of the historical age, when the curiate assembly was ordinarily attended by only three augurs and thirty lictors. Horn-blowing under these circumstances would have been absurd. The summoning of the patricians by their own name and that of their father, on the other hand, proves them too few to compose a popular assembly. These citations therefore are far from supporting his hypothesis. His last and greatest proof is the identification of the lex de imperio, passed by the curiae, with the patrum auctoritas. If these are merely two terms for the same act, the curiae must have been made up of patres. But by establishing the fact that the patrum auctoritas belonged to the senate or to its patrician members, Willems[180] and Mommsen[181] have deprived Niebuhr’s hypothesis of its main prop.

Niebuhr evidently believed that the curiae continued exclusively patrician through the whole republican period.[182] This idea, however, must be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) Our sources agree that in the early republic the plebeians and clients continued to vote in the curiate assembly.[183] (2) The plebeians were in the curiae in 208 B.C., when the first curio maximus was chosen from the plebs.[184] (3) In the time of Cicero thirty plebeian[185] lictors represented the comitia curiata, and gave the votes.[186] (4) Arrogations by plebeians took place in this assembly; in the well-known case of Clodius it must be borne in mind that it was a plebeian who arrogated him. (5) The extinction of the patriciate did not involve the downfall of the comitia curiata.[187] (6) The confirmation by the curiae (lex de imperio) of elections in the centuriate assembly was conceived as a second vote of the community.[188] (7) The resolutions of the comitia curiata are always thought of as resolutions of the populus, which Latin literature nowhere restricts to the patrician body. (8) In all ancient literature there is nowhere the slightest hint of a change in the social composition of the curiae or of the comitia curiata in the whole course of their history. What the ancients believed to be true of either institution at any particular period will hold therefore for its entire history.[189]

Of the arguments in favor of Niebuhr’s hypothesis either added by Schwegler[190] or brought by him into greater prominence, one only demands attention. He reasons that if the plebs were in the curiate assembly, it would be impossible to explain the political advance made by the institution of the comitia centuriata; and the constitutional history of Rome would be reduced to an insoluble riddle. Here we have to deal with a subjective argument—the rejection of sources because they do not agree with a preconceived theory. Arguments of the kind, however, which may be easily invented for the support or overthrow of every imaginable proposition, carry little weight. Besides it is easy to show by analogies from the history of other peoples that the presence of the commons in the primitive assembly does not make the constitutional history of Rome a real enigma. In the primitive German assembly, for instance, were included all the warriors; and yet in the more developed German states were monarchies and aristocracies which gave the people little or no voice in the management of public affairs.[191] The Homeric Greek assembly included all freemen, who, however, had little to do with the government in that period, and still less under the aristocracy which followed.[192] In like manner, although the plebeians attended the comitia curiata and had a majority of votes in this assembly, they could not thereby control the government, for they absolutely lacked initiative.[193] The comitia centuriata, a timocratic institution, elevated the rich and degraded the poor. Here as elsewhere the poor lost by the substitution of aristocracy for kingship; but a real constitutional advance was made in the gradations of privilege, which were based on wealth and which reached like a ladder from the humblest member of the proletarian century to the patrician knight in the sex suffragia.[194] These gradations prepared the way for an ultimate equalization of rights. We conclude, then, that the presence of the commons in the primitive assembly is perfectly compatible with a rational view of constitutional development.

With Schwegler, who grants however reluctantly that the commons were received into the curiae before 208,[195] the theory enters upon its present phase; for the great majority of writers since his time have accepted his view, yet with varying opinions as to the date of the change. Mommsen,[196] who more than any one else has made it clear that, so far back as our sources reach, the populus comprised both patricians and commons, nevertheless assumes that the latter were originally outside the populus but were admitted no later than the beginning of the republic.[197] In his reconstruction of the primitive state he supposes that the citizens were all patres, in so far as they, and they alone, could be fathers; or adjectively patricii, in so far as they, and they alone, had fathers.[198] Added to the citizens and their slaves was a class of persons termed clients, half way between freedom and slavery—a class made up from various origins but chiefly by the conquest of neighbors.[199] These clients belonged, as dependents of the gentes, to the curiae, but had no vote in the assembly.[200] Later the plebs were formed from the clients as the bond which united the latter with their patrons relaxed.[201] The plebs, who were free citizens of inferior rank, came into being at the moment when the patricio-plebeian comitia centuriata acquired the right to express the will of the community.[202]

Although Mommsen knows well the weakness of the evidence offered by earlier writers, he adopts the hypothesis of an original patrician state, without attempting a systematic defence. Here and there in his works, however, he mentions some fact or condition which he would like to have considered proof. The following are the chief passages of this kind:

(1) The lack of right to the auspicia[203] and to the imperium[204] on the part of the plebeians proves that the patriciate was the original citizenship.

But we could as reasonably say, with reference to the auspices, that the two Attic gentes which furnished the sacred exegetes contained the only Athenian citizens.[205] The auspicia, as Soltau[206] has noticed, belonged to the ius honorum, as did also the imperium; hence they were both privileges of the nobility. In brief Mommsen’s reasoning would make a governing nobility everywhere impossible.

(2) The cavalry were patrician; therefore the infantry must have been.[207]

With the same kind of reasoning we could conclude that because in the Homeric age of Greece chariots were used in war by nobles only, the infantry must also have been exclusively noble; whereas we know that the rank and file were common men.[208] That the Roman army before Servius was similarly composed is supported not only by this and many other analogies, but also by the unanimous testimony of the sources. As in other primitive states the warriors belonged to the assembly and were the citizens.

(3) Of the sixteen local tribes named after gentes it can be proved that ten have the names of patrician gentes, and not one name is known to be plebeian. This is evident proof that from the beginning the patriciate was not nobility but citizenship.[209]

His premises prove no more than that at the time when these tribes were instituted the patricians were influential enough to give their names to ten, probably to all sixteen. In all the three cases mentioned, Mommsen reasons that because the patricians alone enjoyed the honors, privileges, and influence usually considered appropriate to a nobility, they must therefore have constituted not the nobility simply but the whole citizen body.

(4) He identifies patres with gentiles and assumes that the primitive state was an aggregate of gentes, thus making the patres the only members of the state.[210]

These are not proofs but unsupported assumptions. The only connection of patres with gentes given in Latin literature is in the well-known phrases patres maiorum and minorum gentium; and Cicero[211] makes it clear that these patres were senators. The phrase means senators from, or belonging to, the greater or lesser gentes. Furthermore it has been proved (1) that the patricians were not the only gentiles,[212] (2) that the curia, and hence the state, was not an aggregation of gentes.[213]

(5) We are informed, says Mommsen, (a) that the body of full Roman citizens consisted originally of a hundred families, whose fathers, the patres, regarded more or less concretely as the ancestors of the individual gentes, composed the senate, and together with them their descendants, the patricians, made up the citizen body; or expressed in other words (b) patrician originally meant just what was afterward included under the term ingenuus.[214]

For (a) Mommsen cites those passages by which it has been shown[215] that the Romans looked upon the original hundred senators as the fathers neither of the “citizen body” nor of the “full citizens,” but of the nobility. His statement of the case is directly contradicted by the authorities he quotes. As regards (b) it has been sufficiently proved[216] that ingenuus when made equivalent to patricius most naturally signifies not “of free birth,” but “of respectable, noble birth.”

Most scholars have wisely avoided bringing the myth of the asylum[217] into the argument. Pellegrino,[218] however, identifies the refugees at that place with the entire plebeian body. As the asylum was not an Italian but a Greek institution,[219] the story connected with it is doubtless a myth. It seems to have been invented by the Greeks of southern Italy, most probably in the fourth century B.C. At that time they began to view with alarm the southward advance of the Romans, and to disparage them accordingly by falsifications representing their origin as obscure and disreputable.[220] Similar calumnies against other peoples were concocted by their Greek enemies.[221] Notwithstanding the fact that the story had not even a kernel of historical truth the Romans accepted it with more or less modification[222] and used it to some extent for partisan objects.[223] They could not oppose the plebs to patricians as foreigners to natives, however, for (1) they supposed that plebeians as well as patricians participated in the original settlement of Rome, (2) they derived patrician as well as plebeian families from foreign sources.[224] We are warranted in concluding that in adopting the Greek myth of the asylum they looked upon it as a cause of increase in the plebeian population without finding in it the origin of the plebeian class.

To the theory of an exclusively patrician populus the following objections may be summarily urged: (1) It is opposed by the unanimous testimony of the ancient authorities. (2) It rests upon a wrong explanation of the words patres, patricii, as designations of the nobles. (3) It is further propped up by reasons so feeble as to testify at once to its weakness, the more substantial basis having been overthrown

## partly by Mommsen himself. (4) The number of patricians is too small for

the theory.[225] (5) It ignores the meaning of the word plebs, which evidently signifies “the masses,” in contrast with the few nobles, and hence could not apply to a class gradually formed by the liberation of clients, or by the admission of foreigners. No one who holds the theory has attempted to show what these liberated clients were called when they were but few compared with the patricians—before they became “the multitude.” (6) It is contradicted by everything we know of Rome’s attitude towards aliens. So far back as our knowledge reaches, she was extremely liberal in bestowing the citizenship, even forcing it upon some communities. Only when she acquired the rule over a considerable part of Italy did she begin to show illiberality in this respect. Down to 353 the citizenship thus freely extended included the right to vote.[226] (7) It assumes the existence of a community politically far advanced yet showing no inequalities of rank among the freemen—a condition outside the range of human experience. It aims to explain the origin of the social classes on purely Roman ground, ignoring the fact that distinctions of rank are far older than the city, and exist, at least in germ, in the most primitive communities of which we have knowledge.[227]

III. _The Comparative-Sociological View_

As social classes belong to all society,[228] they cannot be explained by the peculiar conditions of any one community. The only scientific approach to this subject is through comparative study; the inferences of the ancient historians relative to primitive Rome are not to be displaced by purely subjective theories, but are to be tested by comparison with conditions in other communities of equal or less cultural advancement.

Distinctions of rank depend ultimately upon physical, mental, and moral inequalities,[229] which differentiate the population of a community into leaders and followers.[230] The exhibition of physical strength and skill on the part of young men and of knowledge and wisdom on the part of the elders are often “the foundation of leadership and of that useful subordination in mutual aid which depends on voluntary deference.”[231] In an age in which men were largely under the control of religion the possession of an oracle or skill in divination or prophecy might contribute as much to the elevation of an individual above his fellows.[232] Leadership, once obtained, could display and strengthen itself in various ways. In primitive society the strong, brave, intelligent man was especially qualified to take command in war. Success brought the chief not only renown but a large share of the booty and in later time acquired land. The same result might be obtained by other means than by war;[233] but in any case wealth and influence inherited through several generations made nobility.[234] Primarily grounded on ability, wealth, and renown, this preëminence was often heightened by a claim to divine lineage or other close connection with the gods.[235]

There was evidently a stage of development—before the association of the nobles into a class—in which chieftains alone held preëminence. This condition is common in primitive society, as among the American Indians.[236] Also among the Germans, who had advanced somewhat beyond this stage, each chief or lord appears to have been noble “less with reference to other noblemen than with reference to the other free tribesmen comprised in the same group with himself.”[237] From Brehon law we infer that the Irish lords were individually heads of their several groups of kinsmen or of vassals;[238] and in Wales the nobles were a hierarchy of chieftains.[239] As soon as leadership became hereditary there arose noble families, in which the younger members were often sub-chieftains;[240] and finally through intermarriage among these families, as well as through the discovery of common interests, the nobles associated themselves into a class.

Among the ancient Germans,[241] the Greeks of the Homeric age,[242] and in some early Italian states[243] certain families had become noble, and others were on the way to nobility. For ancient Ireland the entire process can be followed. A common freeman enters the service of some chief, from whom he receives permission to use large portions of the tribe land.[244] By pasturing cattle, he grows wealthy, becomes a bo-aire (cow-nobleman) and secures a band of dependents. Supported by these followers, he preys upon his neighbors and, if successful, becomes in time a powerful noble.[245] After “a certain number of generations” he can no longer be distinguished from the blooded nobility.[246] Here is an instance of a common freeman’s becoming noble through service to a chief. In like manner among the Saxons who had conquered England the ceorl who “thrived so that he had fully five hides of land,” or the merchant who had “fared twice over the wide sea by his own means,” became a thane; “and if the thane thrived, so that he became an eorl, then was he henceforth worthy of eorl-right.”[247] “The thanes were the immediate companions of the king—his comitatus—and from their first appearance in English history they took rank above the earlier nobility of Saxon eorls, who were descended from ancient tribal chiefs. Thus the thanes as a nobility of newly rich corresponded to the cow-noblemen of an earlier time.”[248] In the way just described many rose from the lower ranks to nobility. In fact, eminent authorities assert that the inferior nobles, especially of the middle age, were more often of servile than of free origin, as the common freemen were inclined to think it degrading to be seen among the comites of a chief.[249]

It has now been sufficiently established that even in the tribal condition people were differentiated into social ranks. We have traced the beginning of nobility to leadership and have found, in both ancient and mediaeval society, new noble families forming by the side of the old. Social distinctions were well developed long before the founding of cities. When a community, whether a tribe or a city, is far enough advanced to begin the conquest of neighbors, “it has already differentiated into royal, noble, free, and servile families.”[250] This was true of Sparta. In her “the conquerors nevertheless, notwithstanding great differences among themselves, remain sharply separated in social function from the conquered.... The conquerors became a religious, military, and political class, and the conquered an industrial class.”[251] Even in the case of Sparta, however, which is perhaps our best example of the exclusiveness of a ruling city, there is evidence of mingling between the conquering Spartans and the conquered Laconians before the former became exclusive.[252] In like manner there was much mixing of the invading “Aryans” with the natives of India—the more intelligent of the natives rising to the higher classes and the less gifted of the invaders sinking to the lower—before the crystallization of the castes.[253] We find the same mingling of conquerors and conquered in varying degrees in ancient Ireland,[254] in England under the Normans,[255] and throughout the Roman empire in the period of Germanic settlements.[256] It becomes doubtful, therefore, whether a nobility was ever formed purely by the superposition of one community upon another. The effect of conquest was rather to accentuate existing class distinctions, and by a partial substitution of strangers in place of native nobles to stir up antagonism between the classes. Even where the differences between the social ranks seem to be racial, it would be hazardous to resort to the race theory in explanation; for such a condition could be produced in the course of generations by different modes of life, education, nurture, and marriage regulations of the nobles and commons respectively.[257]

The study pursued thus far will enable us to understand how there came to be social classes at Rome before the beginning of conquest. But for a long time after the Romans began to annex territory we may seek in vain for a distinction between conquerors and conquered, like that which we find in Laconia. We are forbidden to identify the plebs with the conquered and the patricians with the conquerors by many considerations mentioned above—for instance, by tradition,[258] by the derivation of several patrician gentes from various foreign states,[259] by the fewness of the patricians,[260] and by the fact that the latter show no differentiations of rank, such as we find among the conquering Spartans; they were not a folk but a nobility pure and simple. We are to regard Rome’s early annexations of territory and of populations not as subjugations, but as incorporations on terms of equality. The people incorporated were of the same great folk, the Latins, or of a closely related folk, the Sabines. Accordingly they were not reduced to subjection, but were admitted to citizenship, to the tribes and the curiae, and their nobles were granted the patriciate.[261] Only communities of alien speech, like the Etruscan, or distant Italian communities like the Campanian, were ordinarily given the inferior civitas sine suffragio; and this restricted citizenship does not appear in history before the middle of the fourth century B.C.

The analogies offered in this chapter, by proving that the conditions they illustrate are possible for early Rome, tend to confirm the authority of the sources. By similar comparative study it would be practicable to illustrate in detail and to corroborate the statements of ancient writers as to the organization of the plebs, as well as of the patricians, in tribes and curiae, the participation of the clients and plebeians in war and politics, and the deterioration of the free commons through the strengthening of the nobility—all of which are rejected by eminent modern historians, who merely imagine them incompatible with primitive conditions or with a rational theory of constitutional development. The inquiry has been pursued far enough, however, to indicate that from a comparative-sociological point of view the conception of early Rome handed down to us by the ancients is sound and consistent, and that the method of subjective reconstruction of history introduced by Niebuhr and still extensively employed by scholars is unscientific.

I. ROMAN SOCIETY: Niebuhr, B. G., _Römische Geschichte_, i. 321 ff.; English, 158 ff.; Schwegler, A., _Römische Geschichte_, I. bk. xiv; Wigger, J., _Verteidigung der nieburschen Ansicht über den Ursprung der röm. Plebs_; Peter, C., _Geschichte Roms_, i. 31-3; _Verfassungsgeschichte der röm. Republik_; _Studien zur röm. Geschichte mit besonderer Beziehung auf Th. Mommsen_; Ihne, W., _History of Rome_, i. 109 ff.; _Early Rome_, ch. ix; _Asylum of Romulus_, in _Classical Museum_, iii (1846). 190-3; _Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der röm. Verfassungsgeschichte_ (also translated into English by Heywood); Lange, L., _Röm. Alt._ i. 414 ff., and see indices s. Patres, Plebs, etc.; Mommsen, Th., _History of Rome_, bk. 1. chs. v, vi; _Röm. Forschungen_, i. 131-284; _Röm. Staatsrecht_, iii. 127 ff., and see indices s. Patres, Plebs, etc.; _Abriss d. röm. Staatsrechts_, 3 ff.; Herzog, E., _Geschichte und System der röm. Staatsverfassung_, i. 32 ff.; Meyer, E., _Geschichte des Altertums_, ii. 515-7, 521 f.; v. 141-3; _Plebs_, in _Handiwörterb. d. Staatswiss._ vi. 98-106; Niese, B., _Grundriss der röm. Geschichte_, 36 f.; Ampère, J. J., _Histoire Romaine à Rome_, i. 440 ff.; ii. 15 ff.; Zöller, M., _Latium und Rom_, 163; Ridgeway, W., _Early Age of Greece_, i. 254 ff.; Oberziner, G., _Origine della plebe Romana_; Conway, R. S., _I due strati di populazione Indo-Europea del Lazio e dell’Italia antica_, in _Rivista di storia antica_, vii (1903). 422-4; Hüllmann, K. D., _Ursprünge der röm. Verfassung durch Vergleichungen erläutert_; Mispoulet, J. B., _Institutions politiques des Romains_, i. 14 ff.; Greenidge, A. H. J., _Roman Public Life_, 4 ff.; Abbott, F. F., _Roman Political Institutions_, 6 ff.; Naudet, M., _De la noblesse et des récompenses d’honneur chez les Romains_; Hoffmann, _Patricische und plebeiische Curien_; Pelham, H., _Roman Curiae_, in (English) _Journal of Philology_, ix (1880). 266-79; Soltau, W., _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 58 ff., 625 ff.; Bernhöft, F., _Staat und Recht der röm. Königsz._ 145 f.; Genz, H., _Das patricische Rom_; Clason, D. O., _Kritische Erörterungen über den röm. Staat_; Fustel de Coulanges, _Ancient City_, bk. iv; Pellegrino, D., _Andeutungen über den ursprünglichen Religionsunterschied der röm. Patricier und Plebeier_; Hennebert, A., _Histoire de la lutte entre les patriciens et les plébeiens à Rome_; Bloch, L., _Die ständischen und sozialen Kämpfe in der röm. Republik_; Wallinder, _De statu plebeiorum romanorum ante primam in montem sacrum secessionem quaestiones_; Neumann, K. J., _Grundherrschaft der röm. Republik, Bauernbefreiung und Entstehung der servianischen Verfassung_; Holzapfel, L., _Die drei ältesten römischen Tribus_, in _Beiträge zur alten Geschichte_, i (1902). 228-55; Heydenreich, E., _Livius und die röm. Plebs_, in _Samml. gemeinverständlicher wissenschaftlicher Vorträge_, xvii (1882). 581-628; Christensen, H., _Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung der Patres_, in _Hermes_, ix (1875). 196-216; Staaf, E., _De origine gentium patriciarum commentatio academica_; Terpstra, D., _Quaestiones literariae de populo_, etc., ch. i; Köhm, J., _Altlateinische Forschungen_, ch. i; Bröcker, L. O., _Untersuchungen über die Glaubwürdigkeit der altröm. Verfassungsgeschichte_, 3 ff.; Botsford, G. W., _Social Composition of the Primitive Roman Populus_, in _Political Science Quarterly_, xxi (1906). 498-526 (the present chapter is in the main a reproduction of this article); _Some Problems connected with the Roman Gens_, ibid, xxii (1907). 663-92.

II. COMPARATIVE VIEW: Achelis, Th., _Moderne Völkerkunde, deren Entwickelung und Aufgaben_, (Stuttgart, 1896) 406 ff.; Ammon, O., _Die Gesellschaftsordnung und ihre natürlichen Grundlagen_, (Jena, 1895) Teil i; D’Arbois de Jubainville, _La civilisation des Celtes et celle de l’épopée Homerique_, (Paris, 1899) ch. ii; Arnd, K., _Die materiellen Grundlagen und sittlichen Forderungen der europäischen Kultur_, (Stuttgart, 1835) 444 f.; Barth, P., _Die Philosophie der Geschichte als Sociologie_, i. (Leipzig, 1897) 382; Bastion, A., _Der Mensch in der Geschichte_, iii. (Leipzig, 1860) 323-38; _Allerlei aus Volks- und Menschenkunde_, ii. (Berlin, 1888) 138-54; _Rechtsverhältnisse bei verschiedenen Völkern der Erde_, (Berlin, 1872) 8 ff.; Bluntschli, J. K., _Theory of the State_, (2d ed. from the 6th German: Oxford 1892) bk. II. chs. vi-xiii; Bordeau, L., _Le problème de la vie: Essai de sociologie générale_, (Paris, 1901) 95; Brunner, H., _Grundzüge der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte_, i (Leipzig, 1901); Bücher, C., _Industrial Evolution_, ch. ix; Buchholz, E., _Homerische Realien_, II. bk. i (Leipzig, 1881); Caspari, O., _Die Urgeschichte der Menschheit_, I. bk. ii. ch. 3 (Leipzig, 1877); Cherbuliez, A. E., _Simples notions de l’ordre social à l’usage de tout le monde_, (Paris, 1881) ch. vi; Combes de Lestrade, _Éléments de sociologie_, (Paris, 1896) bk. vi; Cooley, C. H., _Human Nature and the Social Order_, (New York, 1902) ch. ix (analysis of leadership); Craig, J., _Elements of Political Science_, i. (Edinburgh, 1814) 183-95; Duchesne, L., _La conception du droit et les idées nouvelles_, (Paris, 1902) 36; Demolins, E., _Comment la route crée le type social_, i (Paris); Farrand, L. F., _Basis of American History_, (New York, 1904) see index s. Social organization; Featherman, A., _Social History of the Races of Mankind_, ii. (London, 1888) see indices s. Classes; _Thoughts and Reflections on Modern Society_, (London, 1894) 291-6; Frazer, J. G., _Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship_ (New York, 1905); Freeman, E. A., _History of the Norman Conquest of England_, iv (New York, 1873); Frohschammer, J., _Ueber die Organisation und Cultur der Menschlichen Gesellschaft_, (Munich, 1885) 84 f.; Funck-Brentano, Th., _Civilisation et ses lois, morale sociale_, (Paris, 1876) chs. v-viii; Fustel de Coulanges, _Ancient City_, bk. iv; _De l’inégalité du wergeld dans les lois Franques_, in _Revue historique_, ii. (1876) 460-89; Giddings, F. H., _Principles of Sociology_, (New York, 1896) bk. III. chs. iii, iv; Ginnell, L., _Brehon Laws, a Legal Handbook_, (London, 1894) chs. iv, v; Grave, J., _L’individu et la société_, (3d ed. Paris, 1897) ch. ii; Gumplowicz, L., _Rassenkampf_ (Innsbruck, 1883); Harris, G., _Civilization considered as a Science_, (new ed. New York, 1873) ch. vii; Hellwald, Fr. von, _Culturgeschichte in ihrer natürlichen Entwickelung bis zur Gegenwart_, 2 vols. (Augsburg, 1876); Hirt, H., _Indogermanen_, 2 vols. (1905, 1907); Hittell, J. S., _History of the Mental Growth of Mankind in Ancient Times_, (New York, 1893) i. 228 f.; ii. 37, 72; Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_, (2d ed. Oxford, 1892, 1896) ii, iii; Jenks, E., _History of Politics_ (London, 1900); Kaufmann, G., _Die Germanen der Urzeit_ (Leipzig, 1880); Krauss, F. S., _Sitte und Brauch der Südslaven_ (Vienna, 1885); Lepelletier de la Sarthe, _Du système social, ses applications pratiques à l’individu, à la famille, à la société_, (Paris, 1855) i. 329 ff.; Letourneau, Ch., _Sociology based on Ethnography_, (new ed. London, 1893) chs. vi-viii; Maine, H. S., _Lectures on the Early History of Institutions_, (London, 1875) ch. v; Mismer, Ch., _Principes sociologiques_, (2d ed. Paris, 1898) 63 ff.; Müller-Deecke, _Die Etrusker_, 2. vols. (Stuttgart, 1877); Rhys, J. and Brynmor-Jones, _The Welsh People_ (New York, 1900); Ridgeway, W., _Early Age of Greece_, i (Cambridge, 1901); Ross, E. A., _Social Control_ (New York, 1901); Rossbach, J. J., _Geschichte der Gesellschaft_, 3 vols. (1868); Schrader, O., _Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde_, (Strassburg, 1901) 802-19; Schröder, R., _Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte_ (4th ed. Leipzig, 1902); Schurtz, H., _Urgeschichte der Kultur_, (Leipzig, 1900) ch. ii; Seebohm, F., _Tribal System in Wales_ (New York, 1895); _Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law_ (New York, 1902); Seeck, O., _Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt_, I. (2d ed. Berlin, 1897) bk. II. chs. i, iv; Seymour, _Life in the Homeric Age_, (New York, 1907) 106 f; Skeat and Blagden, _Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula_, i (New York, 1906) 494-520; Spencer, H., _Principles of Sociology_, II. (New York, 1883) chs. iv-viii; Tarde, G., _Laws of Imitation_, trans. from the French, (New York, 1903) 233 ff.; Traill, H. D., _Social England_, i (New York, 1901); Tribhovandas, _Hindu Castes_, in _Journal of the Anthropological Society of Bombay_, v (1899-1901). 74-91; Vinogradoff, P., _Growth of the Manor_ (New York, 1905); Waitz, Th., _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, ii. (Leipzig, 1860) 126-67; iii. (1862) 119-28; v. (1870) 112 ff.

##