Roman Public LifeGreenidge, A. H. J. (Abel Hendy Jones)
History
Roman Public Life
Greenidge, A. H. J. (Abel Hendy Jones)
Constitutional history -- Rome; Rome -- Politics and government
The clan (_gens_) was an aggregate of individuals supposed to be sprung
from a common source, a social union, with common rights in private
law, which had as its theoretical basis the notion of descent from a
single ancestor. According to the juristic theory of the clan, all its
individual members would, if their descent could be traced through every
degree, have sprung from two individuals who were within the power of
this ultimate ancestor, a sign of this original _potestas_ being the
common gentile name.[32]
The members of a clan are to one another either _agnati_ or _gentiles_.
In many cases the difference of nomenclature was based merely on the
degree of certainty in the relationship. They were _agnati_ when the
common descent could be traced through all its stages; they were
_gentiles_ when the common descent was only an imagined fact, based
on the possession of a common name. As a rule _agnati_ are also
_gentiles_; but there might be groups of agnates who could never be
_gentiles_—groups, that is, of proved relationship through the male line,
who could not, for reasons which we shall soon specify, form a _gens_.
If we believe that the Roman Patriciate represented those who alone
possessed the legal status of heads of families (_patres_)[33]—since,
the _familia_ being the unit of the clan, the rights of a clan-member
(_gentilis_) imply the position of a _paterfamilias_—it follows that the
Roman _gentes_ were, as they are represented by tradition, originally
exclusively patrician, and that the terms _gentilis_, _gentilitas_
implied a perfect equality of status among the only true members of the
state.
The words became restricted to a certain section of the community in
consequence of the evolution of plebeian rights, i.e. in consequence
of the Plebeians becoming in strict law _patres familias_. The logical
consequence of this should have been, where groups of such families
bore a common name and were believed to have a common descent, that
these groups should form _gentes_. But history is illogical, and this
conclusion was not reached.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account