Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:17:34.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Procum Patricium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Arnaldo Momigliano
Arnaldo Momigliano
Affiliation:
University College London.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘The sovereign power of the dictator, the imperium, was … an unrestricted regal power, taken over ca. 504 B.C. by the 300 horsemen of the noblemen-bodyguard, who constituted then the patriciate, i.e. the closed circle of the potential holders of the imperium’. This is a quotation from A. Alföldi's latest book, Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor), 1965, p. 44, and summarizes his theory of the origins of the Roman Republic. According to Alföldi the aristocracy of the monarchic period was an aristocracy of knights, and their coup d'état of about 504 B.C. brought about the end of the monarchy. As is well known, Alföldi developed this theory in a previous book, Der frührömische Reiteradel und seine Ehrenabzeichen (Baden-Baden, 1952) which is chiefly meant to prove that the various attributes of the senatorial order—including the special shoe for the patrician senators, the calceus patricius—were originally characteristic of the archaic knights. To the best of my knowledge, Alföldi never says explicitly that the senators of the monarchic period must have been identical with the 300 ‘celeres’ who were the king's bodyguard according to some of the ancient sources (Livy 1, 15, 8; Plut., Rom. 26; Zonaras 7, 3, 4). But this seems to be Alföldi's implication—in fact it was already Niebuhr's hypothesis.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 56 , Issue 1-2 , November 1966 , pp. 16 - 24
Copyright
Copyright ©Arnaldo Momigliano 1966. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Röm. Geschichte I, 4 ed., 1833, 347. At least this seems to be what Niebuhr means by saying: ‘War Patres, und abgeleitet Patricii, der Einzelnen Ehrenbenennung, so scheint der Name der ganzen Classe, geschieden aus den sämmtlichen Römern, Celeres gewesen zu sein’. For the history of the knights see in general Belot, E., Histoire des Chevaliers Romains I–II, Paris 1866—1873Google Scholar (which was discussed by Coulanges, Fustel de, Questions historiques, ed. Jullian, C., 1923, 410–59Google Scholar); B. Kübler, Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. ‘Equites Romani’ (1907), where bibl.; Wiesner, J., ‘Reiter und Ritter im ältesten Rom’, Klio 36, 1944, 45–100.Google Scholar The paper by Gagé, J., Rev. Hist. Droit Franç. Étr. 4, 33, 1955, 20–50Google Scholar; 165–94 mixes up facts and fancies.

2 Geschichte der Kriegskunst I, 2 ed., 1908, 257 ff.; 3 ed., 1920, 259 ff. Contra Kromayer, J.—Veith, G., Heeriwesen und Kriegsführung der Griechen und Römer, 1928, 256.Google Scholar

3 Röm. Geschichte I, 415.

4 Röm. Geschichte I, 8 ed., 70, 90; cf. Röm. Staatsrecht III, 107 and 254 (the ‘sex suffragia’ reserved to the patricians until the reform of the ‘comitia centuriata’ of the third century B.C.). See also the ‘Appendix I’ in Hill, H., The Roman Middle Class in the Republican Period, 1952, 208–11.Google Scholar

5 Livy 23, 14; Plut., Fab. 4.

6 Cf. Festus s.v. ‘sex Vestae sacerdotes’ 349 M. = 475 L.: ‘sex Vestae sacerdotes constitutae erant, ut populus pro sua quisque parte haberet ministram sacrorum, quia civitas Romana in sex erat distributa partes: in primos secundosque Titienses, Ramnes, Luceres’. I cannot see any clear connection between this division and the division between ‘maiores’ and ‘minores gentes’. For the various theories of ancient antiquarians on the number of the ‘equites’ before the Servian order, Schwegler, A., Röm. Gesch. I, 1853, 689.Google Scholar

7 On the source of the ‘aes equestre’ and ‘aes hordiarium’ we are insufficiently informed: at least from the early fourth century they seem to have been contributed by the ‘orbi’ and ‘viduae’. Cf. Plut., Cam. 2; Cic., De rep. 2, 20, 36; Livy 1, 43, 9; the rest of the evidence in Mommsen, Staatsrecht III, 256–7.

8 Die Verfassung des Königs Servius Tullius, Heidelberg 1838, 163.

9 Th. Mommsen, Staatsrecht III, 245, n.4; 254, n.4; Ed. Meyer, Kl. Schriften II, 1924, 279 n.3; G. De Sanctis, St. d. Romani I, 247–8; 11, 209; Rosenberg, A., Unters. zur röm. Zenturienverfassung, 1911, 44Google Scholar; A. Alföldi, Der frührömische Reiteradel, 95. Cf. also Meyer, Ernst, Röm. Staat und Staatsgedanke, 3 ed., 1964, 496Google Scholar; de Francisci, P., Primordia Civitatis, 1959, 569; 703Google Scholar; von Lübtow, U., Das römische Volk, 1955, 72–6.Google Scholar

10 Untersuch. 48, followed by Ernst Meyer, Röm. Staat 496; Bernardi, A., Athenaeum 30, 1952, 23, n.3.Google Scholar See also Oliver, J. H., Studi De Francisci I, 1956, 129–30Google Scholar on ‘sex suffragia’ (I cannot follow him).

11 It is interesting to read what De Sanctis has to say in St. d. Romani II, 206: ‘È assurdo che si pagasse una indennità ai cavalieri, che erano scelti tra i più ricchi, finchè non avevano stipendio i fanti’.

12 Cf. M. Sordi, La Lega Tessala, 1958, 323. The text is Arist., fr. 498 Rose. For the complex Athenian situation since the end of the V cent. B.C., cf. Wilhelm, A., Anz. Akad., Wien, 1946, n. 11, 115–27Google Scholar; Anderson, J. K., Ancient Greek Horsemanship, Berkeley 1961, 137–138.Google Scholar

13 Mém. Ac. Inscr. 37, 1902, 157; Rh. Museum 58, 1903, 500; Mélanges Perrot, 1903, 168; Mélanges Boissier, 1903, 271; C.R. Ac. Inscr. 1904, 190; Hermes 40, 1905, 101; Abh. Bayer. Akad. 23, 2, 1905, 157; Abh. Ak. Göttingen 10, 3, 1908.

14 Cf. Busolt-Swoboda, , Gr. Staatskunde II, 1924, 706Google Scholar; Chrimes, K.M.T., Ancient Sparta, 1949, 227.Google Scholar The main texts are Thuc. 5, 72, 4; Xen., Res. Lac. 4, 3; Strabo 10, 4, 18 (481).

15 JRS 53, 1963, 119 with bibl. For a similar interpretation, Bernardi, A., Athenaeum 30, 1952, 22.Google Scholar

16 I hope to discuss some of these problems again in my contribution to the Entretiens Fondation Hardt 1966. I should like meanwhile to refer to the basic papers by Bernardi, A., ‘Patrizi e plebei nella costituzione della primitiva republica romana’, Rend. Ist. Lomb. 89, 1945–1946, 1–24Google Scholar and Magdelain, A., ‘Auspicia ad patres redeunt’, Hommages J. Bayet, 1964, 427–73.Google Scholar Literature in R. Werner, Der Beginn der römischen Republik, 1963.

17 The point is emphasised by Latte, K., Röm. Religionsgeschichte, 1960, 175Google Scholar; cf. 117, n. 1. Cf. R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy, Books 1–5, 347 (on Livy 2, 42, 5) for a different view.

18 ‘Römische Reiterparade’, Studi Mat. St. Relig. 13, 1937, 10—24. For the Roman interest in the Campanian cavalry, Livy 8, 11, 16; Heurgon, J., Capoue préromaine, 1942, 255.Google Scholar

19 This was already the suggestion of Karlowa, O., Röm. Rechtsgeschichte I, 1885, 74Google Scholar: ‘so wäre nicht undenkbar, dass es innerhalb der ersten Klasse eine Centurie der proci patricii, welcher nur Patrizier angehörten, gegeben habe’. Lange, L., Röm. Alterthümer I, 3 ed., 1876, 531Google Scholar identified ‘proci’ with ‘principes’ as opposed to ‘hastati’ and ‘triarii’. Livy 5, 18, 1 ‘praerogativa … creant’ (to which R. M. Ogilvie draws my attention) is self-contradictory and must be emended. But in view of the ‘iure vocatis tribubus’ that follows it is difficult to decide what Livy, or his source, had in mind. It would be no use discussing at this point whether the hypothetical century was of seniores: we do not know when the distinction between iuniores and seniores was introduced.

20 Cf. Schönbauer, E., Rev. Int. Droits Ant. 6, 1951, 237–8.Google Scholar

21 Altheim, F., Röm. Geschichte II, 1953, 429–42.Google Scholar

22 This paper was read at the Cambridge Philological Society on March 10, 1966. I am grateful to my friends S. Timpanaro, E. Gabba, A. H. M. Jones and M. I. Finley for discussion. [Cf. now Nicolet, C., L'ordre équestre à l'époque républicaine (312–43 av. J.C.), Paris 1966, 15–45.]Google Scholar