hill, nobilitas in the imperial period

8/12/2019 HILL, Nobilitas in the Imperial Period

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hill-nobilitas-in-the-imperial-period 1/22

Nobilitas in the Imperial Period

Author(s): H. HillSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Apr., 1969), pp. 230-250Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435071 .

Accessed: 08/04/2011 04:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:

Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435071?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435071?origin=JSTOR-pdf




NOBILITAS IN THE IMPERIAL PERIOD

The obvious starting point for any discussion of this subject is the article of

M. Gelzer n HermesL (I915), 395-4I5, now reprintedn his KleineSchriften

(I962), I, 136-I53. He wished to restrict the title nobiles in the Empire to the

descendants of men who had been consuls in the Republic. He does not givehis date for the end of the Republic, but his argument about Plancina on

P. I39 seems to show that it was 44 B.C. This would mean that no new families

of nobilescould be created after 44 B.C.

Most of Gelzer's evidence is, as one would expect, drawn from Tacitus and

much of his argument is prosopographic.As I think there are some errorsand

omissions in that argument, it will be necessary to examine Tacitus' usage in

detail, starting with the Annals. Apart from members of the imperial family,

there are twenty-nine men and women whom Tacitus describes as nobiles.

Here are their names in the order in which they appear in the Annals: -Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (1, 53), M. Hortensius Hortalus (II, 37-8), Munatia

Plancina (II 43), M. Aemilius Lepidus (rI, 48. vr, 27. cf. R. Syme in J.R.S.

XLV (I955), 22f.), M. Servilius (II, 48), M. Calpurnius Piso (III, 8. I7),

M. runius Silanus(III, 24), L. CorneliusSulla Felix (Irr,3I), M'. Aemilius

Lepidus (Ii, 32. See Syme l.c.), Iunia Tertia (III, 76), L. Calpurnius Piso

(IV, 2I), Cn. Cornelius Lentulus (IV, 44), L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (IV, 44),

P. CorneliusDolabella (IV, 66), M. Aurelius Cotta Messallinus(VI, 7), Mamercus

Aemilius Scaurus (VI, 29), Tunia Silana (XI, 12), C. Silius (XI, 28), Lollia

Paulina xrI, i), AeliaPaetina XrI, i), M.IuniusSilanus XIII, i), T. SextiusAfricanus (XrII, I9. XIV, 46), M. Valerius Messalla Coruinus (XIII, 34),

Poppaea Sabina (XrII, 46), Rubellius Plautus (XIV, 22. 57), Q. Volusius

Saturninus (XIV, 46), Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix (XIV, 57), C. Calpurnius

Piso (XV, 48), L. lunius Silanus Torquatus (XV, 52. XVI, 7).

The number of families in this list is only twenty-one, since there are two

Aemilii Lepidi, three CalpurniiPisones, two Cornelii Sullae and no less than

five lunii Silani (including lunia Tertia).

It is not surprising that noble families mentioned in the Annals should

have had republican ancestry. Only two generations, for instance, separatedM.Hortensius Hortalus, describedas nobilis iuuenis in i6 A.D., from his grand-

father, the orator, who was consul in 69 B.C. One would, however, expect to

find such families becoming fewer in the later than in the earlier books and

this proves to be the case. Of the twenty-nine nobiles listed above, sixteen



Nobilitas in the ImperialPeriod 23I

appear in Books I-VI, covering the period 14 to 37 A.D. and thirteen in Books

XI-XVI, covering the period 47 to 66 A.D., which appears, at first sight, to bea fairly even distribution. However, of the first sixteen all but one have an

easily traceable republican consular ancestry and so support Gelzer'stheory.'

But when we turn to Books XI-XVI the position is very different. Of the

thirteen nobiles there named five belong to families already called nobiles in

Books I-VI, - lunia Silana, M. lunius Silanus, L. lunius Silanus Torquatus,

Faustus CorneliusSulla Felix and C. CalpurniusPiso. Of the other eight only

two, - Aelia Paetina and M. Valerius Messalla Coruinus, - can be shown to

have been descended from republican consulars.2The other six, in terms of

families six out of eleven, all present difficulties for Gelzer's theory. ForT. Sextius Africanus he assumed a connection with the republican Sextii

Laterani which is far from proven.3 Rubellius Plautus and Q. Volusius Sa-

turninus were both the sons of men who held the consulship after 44 B.C.4 Of

the former Tacitus writes (Ann. XIV, 22) cui nobilitas per matrem ex lulia

familia. But even though this shows that Rubellius possessed (note the

dative) the highest possible nobilitas from his mother, there is nothing to

suggest that he was not, like Piso in Hist. r, I4, nobilis utrimque.Nor do these

two cases prove, as Gelzer (p. 137) assumes, that nobilitas could be conferred

by the mother alone. On that assumption, for instance, Seianus would havebeen nobilis (below p. 238). Yet, to preservehis theory, Gelzerhad to attribute

nobilitas maternato both Rubellius and Volusius.

In the cases of Lollia Paulina and Poppaea Sabina, also descended from

men who held the consulship after 44 B.c.,6he went even further by denying

them altogether the nobilitas which Tacitus quite clearly attributes to them.

The most damaging case of all he overlooked. He omitted C.Silius, the paramour

of Messallina,whom Tacitus calls iuuenis nobilis in Ann. Xi, 28. His grand-

father, consul in 20 B.C., was the first consul in the family and his nobilitas

cannot have been materna.6 Further evidence against Gelzer's theory comesfrom Ann. XI, ii, where Tacitus tells us that Claudius'celebration of the Ludi

Saeculares included a performance of the lusus Troiae, cum pueri nobiles

equis ludicrum Troiae inirent. Gelzer (P. I48) assumes that nobiles here has

the restricted meaning he attached to it. Yet we learn from Suetonius (Aug.

43, 2) that, in Augustus' Principate, one of the youths taking part in the

The exception is Munatia Plancina, the basis of whose nobilitas (Ann. II, 43) has been

the subject of controversy. Gelzer himself (Pp. I39. I45) admitted difficulty about her.

See now P. A. Brunt in J.R.S. LI (i96i), 74.

2 R.E. s.v. Aelius 1I79. s.v. Valerius 262.

3 R.E. s.v. Sextius I3. I4. I5. Brunt, 1.c.' R.E. s.v. Rubellius 3. SuppI. IX s.v. Volusius i6. 20. Syme in Historia XIII (I964),

156.

6 R.E. s.v. Lollius 12. 30. s.v. Poppaeus 1. 3.6 R.E. s.v. Silius 4. 12. 2I. Syme, R. Rev. 329f. 372. 500. Brunt, I.c.



232 H. HILL

performancewas a grandson of Asinius Pollio who was the first consul in his

family in 40 B.C.

Moreevidence comes from other ancient writers. Gelzer (P. I42) attributed

nobilitas materna to M. Scribonius Libo Drusus, whom both Suetonius and

Seneca call nobilis. It is more probablethat his nobilitascame from his grand-

father, who was consul in 34 B.c.7 The Elder Pliny (N. H. VII, I58) describes as

nobilis the family of Statilius Taurus whose consulship, the first in his family,

fell in 37 B.C. Finally we may refer to the great M. Agrippa. Of him Velleius

Paterculus wrote nouitatem suam multis rebus nobilitauerat and the Elder

Seneca described him as inter eos qui non nati sunt nobiles sed facti.

(Controu.II, 4, I2). His consulship, the first in his family, was also in 37 B.C.8

Gelzer's theory was at once attacked by W. Otto in Hermes Lr (i9i6),

73-88, who quoted against it the cases of Munatia Plancina, Lollia Paulina and

Poppaea Sabina together with Rubellius Plautus, Volusius Saturninus and

ScriboniusLibo Drusus to whom Gelzerhad attributed nobilitasmaterna.

Replying to Otto, E. Stein, in HermesLII (I9I7/8), 564-57I, while defending

Gelzer's general theory and his assumption about nobilitas materna, had to

concede that Lollia Paulina and Poppaea Sabina were decisive evidence that

nobilitaswas acquiredafter44 B.C. Nobody, so faras I know,has sinceattempted

to defend Gelzer'soriginal thesis, which is clearly indefensible on the evidenceof the Annals alone. But Stein attempted to preserve something of the theory

by suggesting that the date after which nobilitas ceased to be acquired was

not 44 B.C. but I4 A.D.

Gelzer's theory, thus modified by Stein, has been doubted by some more

recent scholars,9but it still has some powerful support.'0 If Stein is correct

and I4 A.D. was the year after which no new noble family could be created,

Tacitus' Annals are not likely to provide decisive prosopographicevidence,

since the latest nobilis there named, L. lunius Silanus Torquatus, was put to

death in 65 A.D. (Ann. XVI, 7-9).The best way to pursue the prosopographic argument is to turn to the

Histories. Here the use of nobilis/nobilitasbears little relationship to their use

7 Suet. Tib. 25, I. Seneca, Epist. 70, I0. R.E. s.v. Scribonius 20. 23.

R Less well authenticated cases are those of Cn. Sentius Saturninus, A. Plautius and

the Emperor Nerva, all described as nobiles by Eutropius VII, 13, 2 and VIII, I, I. For

Agrippa and Statilius Taurus see below P. 238f.

9 E. Groag in JOeAI XXI/XXII (1922-4), Beibl. 435-445 and Strena Buliciana

(Zagreb, I924), 253-6. G. Mobus in NJA B V (1942), 292, N. 77. P. A. Brunt, I.c. H. Drexler

in Bursian, Jahrsb. Suppl. Bd.224

(1929),37I and Romanitas III

(Iq6i),Is8f. F. de Mar-

tino, St. della cost. rotn. (I962), IV. I, 322. The view of J. Gag6, Les classes sociales dans

l'empire rom. (I964), P. 82f. is not clear.

10 H. Strasburger in R.E. XVII, 791. R. Syme, Tacitus (I958), I, 577. 654. and in

Historia XIII (I964), I56. E. Meyer, Rom. Staat und Staatsged. (I96I), 4I6. Chr. Meier in

Artemis Lexicon der alten Welt (I965), s. v. Nobilitdt.



Nobilitas in the ImperialPeriod 233

in the Annals. Only one of the families called nobilis in the Annals, the

Calpumii Pisones, is so qualified in the Histories. Poppaea Sabina, to whomTacitus attributes nobilitas in Annals XIII, 46, is called only principalescortum n Histories I, I3. Cn. CorneliusDolabella, the son or grandson of the

P. CorneliusDolabella who, in Ann. IV, 66, suam ipse nobilitatem... perditum

ibat, is mentioned in Hist. I, 88 and II, 63-4, both passages in which it would

have been appropriate to allude to his nobilitas. But Tacitus seems almost

deliberately to avoid the epithet, using instead uetusto nomine. So too with

M. lunius Silanus, either identical with or related to the man called nobilis in

Ann. 11I, 24, who is mentioned without the epithet in Hist. IV, 48.12To use

the argument ex silentio, one wonders why Tacitus, often as he alludes to him,never mentions the nobilitas of Fonteius Capito, grandson of the consul of

33 B.C.13 and why Iunius Blaesus, described as genereillustri (II, 59), Iunios

Antoniosqueauos iactantem III, 38) and as possessingclaritasnatalium (rII, 39),never gets the epithet nobilis. '

There are, in fact, only three Romans whom Tacitus calls nobilis in the

Histories, - the Emperor Galba (1, 49) and the two brothers L. Calpurnius

Piso Frugi Licinianus and Licinius Crassus Scribonianus(I, I4-I5). But thereare two others who demand, and have received, attention in this context, - the

Emperors Otho and Vitellius. Gelzer(P. I38 f.) discussed the essential passages,which are four, - I, 30. I, 78 and 11, 48, relating to Otho, and II, 76, relatingto Vitellius. He drew from them the conclusion that neither of the two menwas nobilis, as indeed he was bound to do if his theory was correct, since Othohad no consular ancestor earlier than his father, who was consul in 33 A.D.,

and Vitellius, similarly, came from an equestrian family whose first consulswerehis uncleA. Vitellius 32 A.D.) and his father(34A.D.). The casesof Othoand Vitellius are thus very important for our argument and it is unfortunatethat there is room for disagreement about them.

Gelzer'sconclusion was challenged by Otto (P. 8i f.) and defended by Stein(P. 566f.). That scholars so eminent should disagree about the interpretationof the passages concerned makes it necessary to study them more closely.Let us considerOtho first. Here are the three relevant passages: 1, 30. (Speechof Piso) nihil adrogabo mihi nobilitatis aut modestiae: neque enim relatuuirtutum in comparatione Othonis opus est.

1, 78. atque etiam Othoni ... populus et miles, tanquam nobilitatem acdecus adstruerent, Neroni Othoni acclamauit.

II, 48. (Speech of Otho) satis sibi nominis, satis posteris suis nobilitatis

quaesitum. post lulios, Claudios, Seruios se primum in familiam nouamimperium intulisse.

11 R.E. s.v. Cornelius 136. I43. 12 R.E. s.v. Iunius 174 and 175.

13 Hist. I, 7. 8. 37. 52. etc. R.E. s.v. Fonteius i8.14 R.E. s.v. Iunius 40.



234 H. HILL

Otto wished to ignore r, 30 on the ground that the context implies that

nobilitasthere means nobility of character, not of birth.15It is, however, verydifficult to find in Tacitus any parallel for this meaning of the word. Gerber

and Greef, it is true, quote Ann. 1, 29 as a parallel and Furneaux (ad loc.)

agrees. But these are the only two passages where such a meaning is possible

and in neither is it certain since, as Stein pointed out, the association of high

moral worth with distinguished birth is natural, if snobbish. However, even

if we accept here the meaning high birth, the passage does not necessarily

prove, as Gelzer and Stein argued, that the speaker, Piso, was implying that

Otho did not possess nobilitas.The meaning can only be something like I will

make no claims on the score of noble birth or I will not boast about mynoble birth, which need only imply that Piso's nobilitaswas superiorto that

of Otho, as indeed it was. The idea that there were differentgradesof nobilitas

is a common one in Tacitus, appearing, in fact, in another of the passages

(II, 48) relating to Otho.'6

In I, 78 there is a similar difficulty of interpretation. Here the crucial word

is adstruerent,which Gelzer took to mean gave nobilitas which he had not

had before ( nur diese Verbindung mit Nero verschafft ihm Nobilitat ).

Tacitus' only other use of the verb, in Agric.44, 3, ( consulariac triumphalibus

ornamentis praedito quid aliud adstruere fortuna poterat ? ) gives thatmeaning. But if we turn to Tacitus' contemporary, the Younger Pliny, we find

that adstrueredoes not always imply that what was added was something

which was not present before. The closest parallel to our passage is Paneg.

46, 8 ( omnibusquequos bonos facis hanc adstruislaudemne coegisseuidearis )

where there is clearly no implication that the men concerned possessed no laus

before. Adstruerecan thus mean to give more of the same thing''17 so that

Hist. 1, 78 may mean only they called (Otho) Nero Otho, as if to give him

additional nobility and glory. In that case, the passage is not evidence that

Otho did not possess nobilitas.The last of the three passages on Otho (II, 48) is much the most important

for oursubject and was clearly a greatembarrassment o Gelzer(Pp. I38. I47-8),

as Otto did not fail to notice. What is involved here is not the nobilitas of Otho

himself but his claim to have conferrednobilitas on his descendants. The use

of satis nobilitatis merely suggests, ironically, that nobilitas conferred by an

15 Cf. H. Drexler in Romanitas III (I96I), i67f. Heubner, in his recent commentary

(Heidelberg, I963), firmly rejects this view.16 It is used with adjectives like insignis (Ann. III, 24), clarissima (Ann. V, I), eximia

(Ann. XV, 52) and ueterrima (Ann. XII, 53) and the adjective nobilis is compared. Cf.

Drexler i.c. i63f. Below on Vitellius (Hist. II, 76).

17 Cf. Pliny, Paneg. 38, 2. 74, 5. Epist. III, 2, 5. IV, 17, 7. Vell. Pat. II, 55, 2. Pliny,

Hist. Nat. IX, II9. Sil. Ital. IV, 8.




Emperor was of a higher grade than any other.18When Gelzer wrote (P. 138)

nach seiner Auffassung wird durch den Principat der Familie die Nobilitat

erworben, was he not conceding that Tacitus thought that it was possible,

in the year 69 A.D., for a family to be ennobled?

The question of Vitellius' nobilitas arises in a single passage in a speech

by Mucianus (IT,76): (Corbulo)splendidior origine quam nos sumus, fateor,

sed et Nero nobilitate natalium Vitellium anteibat. Here again two inter-

pretations are possible, depending on the meaning given to the ablative

nobilitate. Gelzer, translating durch den Adel seine Geburt, treated it as a

causal ablative. The alternative is to regard it as an ablative of respect, a view

which gains some support from the similar ablative origine. It is also supported

by an examination of Tacitus' other uses of the ablative with anteire. In only

two of them (Hist. iir, 38. Ann. III, 75.) is the ablative undoubtedly causal.

In six others (Hist. IIr,31. 65. IV, 7. Ann. irl, 30. XI, I7. XII, 6.) the ablative

is one of respect. The remainingtwo passages are, like the one under discussion,

capable of different interpretations.1'While we cannot, therefore, deny that

Gelzer'sinterpretation of the passage is possible, it is more likely that Mucianus

is represented as saying Nero excelled Vitellius in nobilitas. If this is the

correct interpretation, Tacitus not only does not deny nobilitas to Vitellius:

he implies that he possessed it.20To sum up, we must conclude from this discussion of the usage of the

Histories that, although absolute certainty is perhaps not to be claimed, the

balance of the evidence, and especially that of II, 48 and 76, supports the

view that Tacitus did attribute nobilitas to both Otho and Vitellius.21

So far we have been concernedonly with passages in which Tacitus applies

the epithet nobilis to named individuals. To these we must add three passages

in which he applies it to groups of people without naming them. In Annals

XIV, I4 he refuses to name any of the nobiliumfamiliarumposteriwho appeared

on the stage professionally under Nero, but some are named by Dio Cassius(LXI, 17, 3f.) and Juvenal (VIII, 183f.). The fact that all those named belonged

to famous republican families like the Furii, Horatii, Fabii etc. has been held

to support Gelzer's theory. But it must not be taken, of course, as evidence

that such descendants of the republican aristocracy had an exclusive right

to the title nobilis. That this was not the case is indicated by the other two

18 See Mobus I. c. Below P. 241. On the status of Otho we may note what Eutropius

says (VII, 17, i) materno genere nobilior quam paterno, neutro tamen obscuro.

19In Hist. IV, I3 the choice appears to be between causal ablative and ablative ofquality, and in Ann. II, 43 between causal ablative and ablative of respect.

20 On the status of Vitellius cf. Sueton. Vit. i. Eutrop. VII, I8. According to Sueton.

Vit. 3, I, his mother was non ignobilis.21 Surprisingly Syme, who accepts Stein's view in his Tacitus P. 654, writes of the

'ennoblement' of the parcnts of Otho and Vitellius on P. 575.



236 H. HILL

similar passages. One of these (Ann. XI, ii) has already been discussed above

(P. 23I) as evidence that nobilitas could be acquired in the Principate ofAugustus. The second is an even clearer indication that nobilitas could be

acquired after 14 A.D.

In his account of the poisoning of Britannicus (Ann. XIII, i6) Tacitus

writes: mos habebatur principum liberos cum ceteris idem aetatis nobilibus

sedentes uesci in aspectu propinquorum propria et parciore mensa. Gelzer

(P. I48) claimed this as evidence in favour of his theory. But Suetonius, who

makes a similar statement (Claud. 32), informs us that Titus, the future

Emperor, was one of those present at the fatal meal and actually tasted the

poisoned cup (TitUs 2). Now Titus' grandfather was a publicanus and theconsulship did not come to the family until Vespasian held it in 51 A.D.

Comparedwith Tacitus, other writers provide little in the way of prosopo-

graphic evidence. The Younger Pliny names only one nobilis. In a letter to

Vestricius Spurinna (V, I7) he names a CalpurniusPiso as an example of the

nobilesiuuenes whom he delighted to encourage and Spurinna to hear about.

The young man cannot be identified with any confidence but he may well

have been descended from the famous republican Pisones.22 Gelzer, indeed,

(P. I37) makes this assumption. But it is surely surprising that Pliny and

Vestricius, themselves more recently senatorial, should have taken so keenan interest in a small and contracting group of young aristocrats.

The EmperorTrajan, like Otho and Vitellius, presents a problem of status.

In Paneg. 70, 2, Pliny says to him generis tui claritatem uirtute superasti.

Gelzer, arguing that Pliny would have alluded to Trajan's nobilitasif he had

possessed it, draws the conclusion that Trajan was not nobilis. But Gelzer

admits (P. I46) that nobiles, in his restricted sense, could be describedas clari,

and in fact in the previous chapter of the Panegyricus Pliny describes the

young nobileswhom Trajan honoured as iuvenesclarissimae gentis and si quid

residuaeclaritatis.23Velleius Paterculus, fromwhom Gelzeralso drew evidence, lived at the time

when, if Gelzerand Stein are correct, the meaning of nobilis/nobilitaswas fos-

silised. Of the Romans whom he calls nobilis, apart from the imperial family,

all but one belonged to the republicanperiod.24The one exception is M. Valerius

Messalla Messallinus (II, II2, 2), brother of the M. Aurelius Cotta Messallinus

who is called nobilis in Tacitus, Ann. VI, 7. He conforms to Gelzer'sdefinition.

22 P.I.R.2 C. 281. 285. Syme, Tacitus 578.

23There is the same identification in Paneg. 50, 3, where uestigia sedesque nobilium

are equated with clarissimorumnuirorum receptacula. L. Iunius Silanus, called clarus in

Pliny, Ep. I, I7, is called both clarus and nobilis in Tacitus, Ann. XVI, 7. cf. Ann. XII, 6.

On Paneg. 69-70 cf. below P. 240.

24 M. Livius Drusus (II, 13, I.), Sulla (II, 17, 2), Julius Caesar (II, 41, I.) P. Clodius

(II, 45, I.), Curio (II, 48, 3) and Drusus Claudianus (II, 75, 3.).




As in the case of Tacitus and Pliny, however, there are some points about

Velleius' usage which need further discussion. In II, II7, 2 he describesP. Quinctilius Varus, defeated and killed in Germany in 9 A.D., as inlustri

magis quam nobili ortus familia. Gelzer (P. I42) takes this to mean that

Varus was both nobilis and inlustris, explaining the priority given to inlustris

by suggesting that his nobilitas was of very ancient origin. This is surely a

very strained interpretation. The natural meaning of the Latin is that Varus'

family was inlustris rather than nobilis, i.e. not nobilis. It is, in fact, far from

certain that Varuswas descended, as Gelzerassumed,from the Sex. Quinctiliuswho was consul in 453 B.C. If he was not, he was apparently himself the first

consul in his family.26The form of Velleius' statement is, nevertheless, somewhat strange, sug-

gesting a controversy about the status of the family. It may well have beenthat Velleius, a contemporary, is here giving his own opinion in an argumentstarted by the defeat and death of Varus. Certainly he was very interestedin questions of status, as is shown by his referencesto the great noui homines

of his day.28

Of the two Senecas, also quoted by Gelzer, the elder was a contemporaryof Velleius Paterculus, with the result that his usage, though important to

our later argument (below P. 243), gives little help prosopographically. Henames only two nobiles of the imperial period, both of whom fit Gelzer'sdefinition and are quoted by him.27

The usage of the Younger Seneca presents problems similar to those inTacitus already discussed. There are the cases, quoted by Gelzer (P. 143), inwhich the theory of republican nobilitas clearly applies, i.e. those named inClem.1, 9, 3 and IO, Benef. IIJ 27, I-2. IV, 30 and Apocol. II, 2. There is alsoM. Scribonius Libo Drusus, whom we have discussed above (P. 232). The factthat all these men can be shown to have had republican or Augustan consular

ancestors need not surprise us. None was later than the reign of Claudius, sothat they are comparable to those mentioned above (P. 230) who are namedin the first six books of Tacitus' Annals.

Another passage to which attention should be drawn is Clem.1, 9, 5-6. In5 Augustus says ego sum nobilibus adulescentulis expositum caput in quodmucrones acuant. In the next paragraph Livia urges him to try the effect ofclemency and names a number of conspirators who have already perished,

Saluidienum Lepidus secutus est, Lepidum Murena, Murenam Caepio,Caepionem Egnatius. It is not, of course, certain that we should equate

25 R.E. s.v. Quinctilius and Nos. 17. 20. Gelzer's view is apparently accepted byBroughton, Mag. Rom. Rep. II, 259, Syme, R. Rev. I99. 206 and P. A. Brunt I.c. 79.Varus' son is mentioned in Tacitus Ann. IV, 66, but is not called nobilis, though he isincluded in Gelzer's list. 26 Below P. 238. Above P. 232.

27 Fabius Maximus and Domitius (Gelzer P. 142-3).



238 H. HILL

Livia's names with the nobiles adulescenluli of Augustus, but Seneca does

appearto conflate the two paragraphsin Brev. Vit. 4, 5, in ipsa urbe Murenae,Caepionis, Lepidi, Egnatii, aliorum in eum mucrones acuebantur. If we do

make the equation, it is to be noted that only Murena could claim republican

nobilitas.The origin of Caepio is not known, Salvidienus was of humble origin

and consul designate for 40 B.C. and Egnatius was probably the son of an

equeswho did not succeed in getting the consulship.28

Gelzer and Stein held that the meaning of nobilis/nobilitaswas fixed and

fossilised by the republican nobles themselves, but neither faced the practical

problem of how the decision to fix it was taken and how, when taken, it could

be carried out. Otto drew attention to some of the difficulties involved. Themost obvious of these would be to protect their exclusive right to the title

against the increasingnumberof new men who entered the senatorialaristocra-

cy from the time of Augustus onwards.

The title nouus homo survived, like nobilis, from the Republic into the

Empire. In the Republic a nouus homowas either, like Mariusor Cicero, the

first of his family to gain public officeor, like Murena,a memberof a senatorial

family which had not previously held the consulship.29In either case, by

becoming consul he acquirednobilitas3Ond conferredit on his family.31There

was thus an antithesis between nouus homo and nobilis which is common inCiceroand is to be found also in Livy.32It persisted into the imperial period.

Velleius Paterculus, himself a nouus homo, was especially fond of it. It can

hardly be by inadvertence that so rhetorical a writer describes Cicero as uir

nouitatis nobilissimae (II, 34, 3). He repeats and develops the antithesis when

he writes of the great noui homines of his own time, Seianus, Asinius Porio,

Statilius Taurus and Agrippa. Seianus, one of Velleius' heroes, was a source of

some embarrassment to Gelzer. Though his father, L. Seius Strabo, was an

eques and all the surviving references to him in Tacitus allude to him as of

equestrian origin, his mother, Cosconia Galitta, belonged to an ancient andimportant patrician family.33He thus would qualify, according to Gelzer's

theory, for nobilitas materna (above P. 23I). Yet he is nowhere called nobilis

and Tacitus (Ann. III, 29) tells us that Tiberius, by sanctioning the marriage

of Seianus' daughter to Drusus, son of the future EmperorClaudius, polluisse

nobilitatem familiae uidebatur. 34

28 R. E. s. v. Fannius i6. Salvidienus 4. Egnatius 36.

29 For Marius, Sallust Jug. 63, 6-7. For Cicero, id. Cat. 23, 5-6, Cicero, Verr. II, 5,

i8of. Leg. Ag. 11, 3. For Murena, Cicero, Mur. 15f. cf. R.E. XVII, 1223f.

30

Sallust, Jug, 85, 25. Cicero, Clu. xIi.31 Cicero, Phil. III, x5. Tusc. Disp. IV, 2.

32 XXII, 34, 7-8. XXXVII, 57, gf. XXXIX, 40-41.

33 Ann. IV, I. 3. 40. 58. VI, 8. R.E. s.v. Seius 15. Syme, R. Rev. 358. F. Adams in

A.J.P. 76 (1955), 70f.

Gelzer attempts to explain away this difficulty in a note on P. I39f.



Nobilitas in the Imperial Period 239

To Velleius, at any rate, Seianus was a nouus homo. Though he does not

fail to mention the noble mother, he classes Seianus with Statilius Taurus and

Agrippa and compareshim with the great republicannoui homines (II, I27-8).

In the case of Seianus, the contrast between nouitas and nobilitasappears in a

more subtle form in the words neque nouus hic mos senatus populique

Romani putandi quod optimum sit esse nobilissimum.

The same contrast is latent in his reference to Asinius Pollio (II, I28, 3),

who is named as the last of the famous noui homines with whom Seianus is

compared with the words nihil Asinio Pollioni negauerunt quod nobilissimis

summo cum sudore consequendumforet. Similarly he describes Agrippa and

Statilius Taurus as quibus nouitas familiae haud obstitit quominus admultiplices consulatus triumphosque et complura eueherentur sacerdotia

(II, I27, i). In his first significant reference to Agrippa, Velleius describeshim

as uirtutis nobilissimae(Ir, 79, i) and the antithesis is fully brought out, in II,

96, I, by his description of Agrippa as qui nouitatem suam multis rebus

nobilitauerat.

Velleius' contemporary Valerius Maximus,though he elsewhere uses nobilis/

nobilitas only of the republican period, has one contemporary reference to the

antithesis of nobilitas and nouitas (III, 8, 7).

In De Benef. IV, 30, I, Seneca, discussing the way in which an unworthyson may be honouredbecause of his father, writes sicut in petendis honoribus

quosdam turpissimos nobilitas industriis sed nouis praetulit. Seneca's own

nouitas is contrasted with nobilitas by Tacitus, himself, according to a recent

assessment,36a nouus homo.In Ann. XIV, 53 he quotes Seneca as telling Nero

that he often thinks egone, equestri et prouinciali loco ortus, proceribus

ciuitatis adnumeror? inter nobiles et longa decora praeferentes nouitas mea

enituit? The antithesis is also used in Tacitus' reference to Otho already

discussed. 7 t appears in more general terms in Ann. III, 55, where we find

Tacitus contrasting familiae nobilium with noui homines e municipiis etcoloniis atque etiam prouinciis in senatum crebro adsumpti. Finally Velleius'

description of Cicero as nouitatisnobilissimaefinds an echo in Tacitus' descrip-

tion of P. Memmius Regulus as noua generisclaritudine(Ann. XIV, 47).

The same antithesis is to be found in Suetonius' account (Vitell. i, I) of

the Vitelii, Vitelliorumoriginem alii aliam et quidem diuersissimamtradunt,

partim ueterem et nobilem, partim uero nouam et obscuram atque etiam

sordidam.

Thus the contrast between noui homines and nobiles survived in Latin

literature well into the second century A.D. Syme tells us that by the time ofNero very few great republican families survived and, on the accession of

35 For the nobilitas of Agrippa and Statilius Taurus see above P. 232 f.36 Syme, Tacitus 6iif. 37 Hist. II, 48. Above P. 233f.



240 H. HILL

Nerva, the descendants of triumviral or even of Augustan consuls were rare

enough. - Yet, according to the theory of Gelzerand Stein, every member ofthe new families which achieved a consulship after I4 A.D. must be content

to remain a nouus homo ndefinitely, even when the nobileswere a tiny minority

of the senatorial aristocracy and when the reason for their monopolising the

title would be long ago forgotten.

The passages quoted suggest that there must have been much more signifi-

cance in the contrast than that and that the nobiles with whom Seneca, for

instance, compared himself were of a more recent creation. There is, in fact,

evidence that nobilitascould be acquired after I4 A.D. A crucial passage is the

one with which GeLzer egan his article, Pliny, Paneg. 69-70. There is no needhere to enter upon a detailed criticism of his discussion of this passage, since

Otto dealt with it effectively and at considerable length. One point on which

Otto was clearly right is his rejection of Gelzer's attempt to press the sub-

junctive mood of mererenturn 70, 2. Pliny does refer to men who deserved to

confer nobilitas on their descendants. Even Stein concedes this, though he

points out, with justice, that Gelzer'smain argumentis not upset by this error

of interpretation. The really vital point in this whole passage is in the final

sentence of chapter 69 where, unfortunately, there is uncertainty about the

last word. The manuscript reading afficiatgives no sense and Otto's adiciatfinds no favour with modern editors. They vary between efficiatand /aciat.39

Whichever reading is accepted, the meaning must surely be that Trajan's

object was both to preserve and create nobiles.40 Such an interpretation

accordswell with the line of argument pursuedby Pliny in these two chapters.

In chapter 69 he describeswhat the Emperoris doing to preservethe existing

nobiles, some, not all, of whom he selects for special mention as posteros iber-

tatis. What he has said of them is then summed up as ut nobiles . . . conservet.

The added et efficiat(faciat) then introduces chapter 70, where PLinyproceeds

to discuss what Trajanwas doing to encouragemen who were worthy to foundnew noble families.4

The view that new noble families could be created after 14 A.D. is supported,

also, by evidence from the two Senecas and Tacitus. Velleius' description of

Agrippa as qui nouitatem suam multis rebus nobilitauerat (1I, 96, i) recurs

in the Elder Seneca's remark (Controu.IL, 4, 12) erat M. Agrippa inter eos

38 Tacitus P. I. cf. P. 577. 654.

39 Efficiat is read, with reservations, in the Teubner text of Schuster/Hanslik (1958).

Mynors in his recent Oxford text of the Panegyrici (I964) reads faciat. M. Durry alsoreads

faciat both in his edition of 1938 and in his Bud6 text of I959. Curiously, however, having

expressed doubts about Gelzer's theory in his edition (Note on 69, 5) he seems to have

accepted it, with Stein's modification, in the Bud6 text (P. I59, Note 2).

40 The meaning which Gelzer gave to efficiat is impossible, as Otto showed.

41 On the status of Trajan himself see above P. 236.




qui non nati sunt nobiles sed facti. It could, of course,be arguedthat Agrippa

is not evidence for the period after I4 A.D. But both Velleius andthe ElderSeneca wrote in the reign of Tiberius. Seneca also shows familiarity with the

idea that new noble families could be created in Controu.I, 6, 3, quidam auitas

paternasque flagitiis obrueruntimagines, quidam ignobiles nati fecere posteris

genus.

The phrase facere nobilem appears also in the Younger Seneca. Pursuing

one of his favourite themes, that the nobilitas gained by moral goodness is

much superiorto nobilitasof birth42 he uses the phrase three times in the same

letter (44, 3-5), - Platonem non accepit nobilem philosophia sed fecit . . . non

facit nobilem atrium plenum fumosis imaginibus. animus facit nobilem.

That Tacitus, too, was familiar with the idea of new noble families being

created is shown by his ascription to Otho (Hist. II, 48) of the words satis

posteris suis nobilitatis quaesitum, discussed above (P. 233f.).

Those who believe that the meaning of nobilis/nobilitas was frozen, as it

were, in I4 A.D. have not taken sufficient account of the effect that such a

development was likely to have upon the vocabulary of subsequent writers.

One example of this we have already discussed, the disappearanceof the idea

that new noble familiescould be founded. But there would be other effects, too.

So restricted a meaning would be bound to limit the general use of the words

and especially in writers like Velleius,Tacitus and Pliny who were very sensitive

about matters of status. Gelzer realised this and devoted a section of his

article (P. I45 f.) to the question of what general words were used by Tacitus

and others to describe distinction of birth. He concluded that the general

words were splendidus, egregius, uetus, clarus, illustris, but not nobilis. His

examination was, however, superficial and his conclusion can be challenged

by a more careful investigation.

What are we to make, for instance, of Agricola 4, i, a passage which,

according to Drexler,43 geniigt vollauf die These Gelzers aus den Angeln zu

heben ? Discussing the ancestry of Agricola, Tacitus writes: utrumque

auum procuratorem Caesarum habuit, quae equestris nobilitas est. The

relative clause is capable of two differentinterpretations accordingto what one

regards as its antecedent. If the antecedent is procuratoremCaesarum, the

implication is that nobilitas was conferredby public office. But if, as is more

probable, the antecedent is the whole previous statement utrumque .. habuit,

the implication is that nobilitas was a consequence of being descended from

the holders of public office. For our purpose, it does not greatly matter which

of these interpretations is correct.In either case, there is obviously an intentional

parallel here between equestrian and senatorial nobilitas. If Tacitus could

'2 See, e.g., Benef. III, 28. IV, 30. De Ira II, 32, 3. Ad Polyb. 17, 2. Remed. Fort. i6, 6.

Epist. 76, 12. II7, 9. 120, 3. Herc. Fur. 337f.l' Roma-nitas, III, I67. 44 See, e.g., Syme, Tacitus P. 54.

i6 Historia XVIII/2



242 H. HILL

conceive of a procuratorCaesarum,essentially an imperial official, as able to

confer nobilitason his descendants or as himself nobilis, it is difficultto believethat the same was not true of the senatorial class.

Gelzermentions this passage of the Agricolaonly cursorily (P. I45) but he

quotes in support of his theory (P. 149) chapter 45, I, non uidit Agricola ....

tot consularium caedes, tot nobilissimarum feminarum exilia et fugas. It is

perhaps fanciful to see here a parallelbetween consulariumand nobilissimarum

feminarumwhich would equate nobilis with consularis, but it is surely most

unlikely that Tacitus recorded here only the misfortunes of women descended

from republican or Augustan consulars. Nobilissimarumcan only be a general

word for of high rank. There are a number of similarpassages, two of which,Ann. XI, ii andxrII, i6, have alreadybeen discussed (above P. 23I and 236).

As in the case of the individuals called nobilis (above P. 230), the general use

of nobilis/nobilitas in the earlier books of the Annals may appear to confirm

Gelzer'stheory, simply because Tacitus is there dealing with a period so close

to the Republic. Thus the nobiles mentioned in I, 2. 111, 5. 8. 55 and IV, 6

would naturally be of republican or Augustan ancestry. But this is not to say

that Tacitus consciously used the terms in a sense different from that in the

later books of the Annals and in the Histories, where there is considerable

evidence of a wider meaning.We are told, for instance, that the noui hominesCurtiusRufus and Seneca

were in competition with nobiles for public office.45Is it likely that they

competed only with men of republican or Augustan consular ancestry? Were

the nobileswhom Nero compelled to performin public (Ann. XIV, I4-I5) or

those recalled from exile in the year of the Four Emperors (Hist. I, 77. II, 92)

all from that restricted group? When Tacitus uses nobilitasin association with

words like honores,opes, claritudo,potentia, can it have the narrow meaning

which Gelzer gives it ?46

There are two passages in which nobilis/nobilitasseems to bear a very widesense. In Annals XI, 23 Tacitus records, among the objections made by

senators to Claudius'proposal to introduce Gauls into the senate, the question

quem ultra honorem residuis nobilium aut si quis pauper e Latio senator

foret ? Taken together the expressions residui nobilium and si quis . ... foret

are obviously meant to describe the senate as it then was. Their interpretation

is difficult. The contrast may be between senators from Rome and senators

from Latium or between old senators and new senators from Latium, but

nobiles would appear to have a much wider meaning than Gelzer, who

45 Ann. XI, 21. XIV, 53.46 Hist. I, 2. 85. IV, 5. Ann. XIV, 15. cf. XII, 6. Ann. XIII, i8 refers to uirtutes

nobilium qui etiam tum supererant. This is taken by Gelzer (P. I49) as evidence for his

theory, but it is more probably a bitter reference, early in Nero's reign, to the many nobles

murdered later.




overlooked the passage, would presumably have given it. There is a similar

passage in the Histories (I, 88) - nullus ordo metu aut periculo uacuus.primoressenatus aetate inualidi et longa pace desides, segnis et oblita bellorum

nobilitas, ignarusmilitiae eques, - where nobilitasappearsto mean the general

body of the senatorial aristocracy.,7Finally we must refer to the numerous

passages in which Tacitus uses nobilislnobilitasto refer to non-Romans. All the

nine uses in the Germaniaapply to Germans and there are many passages in

the Annals and the Histories and one in the Agricola where the reference is

to non-Romans. Obviously there can be no question, in this case, of restricting

the meaning in the way Gelzersuggests. Stein, it is true, (P. 570-I) attempted

to get over the difficulty by saying that the foreigners so described wereprinces or chieftains, but a study of the passages concerned shows that this is

not correct. The words are used quite generally to describe the aristocracy.48

As is to be expected in view of the period at which he wrote, the usage of

Velleius Paterculus gives us little help. He uses nobilis/nobilitas several times

to refer to non-Romans.4'Where he applies them to Romans, in all but one

instance it is to Romans of the republican period.Y0The exception is his

reference (II, I24, 4) to the election of himself and his brother as praetors

proxime a nobilissimis ac sacerdotalibus uiris, who can only have been

descendants of republican or Augustan consuls.The Elder Seneca's usage resembles that of his contemporary Velleius.

Apart from the reference to Agrippa discussed above (P. 24I) and the nobiles

he names in Controu.II, 4, ii and IX, 4, i8, who are listed by Gelzer, he

applies the title to Romans of the Republic5' and foreigners.52 n one passage

(Exc. Controu.V, 8, I) he links nobilitaswith gratia and pecunia.The Younger Seneca, as we have seen (above P. 24I f.) frequently attaches a

philosophical or moral meaning to nobilis/nobilitas.When, therefore, he applies

the epithet to Lucilius lunior, an equestrian procurator (Epist. I9, 3. 21, 2),

though we may be reminded of Tacitus' equestrisnobilitas (above P.24I.),the probability is that he is using it only in the moral sense. But he also uses

it of noble birth and, like Tacitus, applies it generally to groups of people

whom he does not specifically name, like the lovers of Julia in Brev. Vit. 4, 6.

Two passages call for special comment. rn Troades777-9 Andromachesays to

Astyanax:

47 Heubner ad loc. agrees and compares Livy VIII, 33, 6.

48 E.g. Germ. 14. 25. 44. Agric. 30. Ann. II, II. 56. III, 43. VI, 31. XI, 10. XII, 10.

Hist. IV, I2. 71. cf. the reference to the Claudii in Ann. IV, 9 as Sabina nobilitas.49 I, 9, 5. II, 64, I. Io8, 2. II8, 2.

50 II, II, 2. 23, 3. 43, 4. 59, 2.

61 Controu. I, 6, 4. IX, 2, 5. X, Praef. i6. x, 8. cf. the mysterious phrase patriciorumnobilitas in II, i, I7, which Gelzer was surely mistaken in quoting to support his theory.It must be a republican reference.

52Controu. VII, 6, 23. IX, 1, II. I, 15. X, 5, 4. 5, It.

160



244 H. HILL

nec stato lustri die,

solemne referensTroici lusus sacrum,puer citatas nobilis turmas ages.

We have seen already (above P. 23I) that there is no evidence that a youth need

be of republicanor Augustan consularancestry to take part in the lusus Troiae.

More important is the reference to the Vestal Virgins in Prouid. 5, 3, non est

iniquum nobilissimas uirgines ad sacra facienda noctibus excitari, altissimo

somno inquinatas frui? It is in the highest degree unlikely that nobilis in

this context has Gelzer's restricted meaning. As early as the reign of Augustus

it had become so difficult to recruit Vestals that a law was passed allowing the

daughters of freedmen to qualify.53

Other uses of nobilis/nobilitasin Seneca appear to be quite general. He

couples nobilitas with other abstract terms such as diuitiae, forma, uires and

attributes it to non-Romans. 5

Suetonius serves, in the main, to complement the evidence of Tacitus.

With one exception, all those whom he actually calls nobilis conformto Gelzer's

definition and are listed by him. The exception is Vitellius, of whom what he

says supports the view that that Emperor did possess nobilitas.56His general

use of the term seems not to be in conformity with Gelzer's theory. In Claudius

32, for instance, he confirms the statement of Tacitus, Ann. XIII, i6, and

provides the evidence to disprove Gelzer's interpretation of it in Titus 2

(above P. 236). The nobiles pueri ac puellae who sang in honour of Caligula

(Calig. i6, 4) may well have been in fact, because of the date, the descendants

of republicanor Augustan consulars,but we need not assume the same of the

nobilesmentioned in Nero IO, I. 36, I. Galba o, i and Vit. I4, i.57

The nobiles named by Quintilian all belonged to the republican period.

When he uses nobilis/nobilitas without names, the usage is quite general,

linked with hurtitilius enus in III, 7, io and with wealth and powerin XI, I, 2i

and applied to non-Romans in III,8, 3I.58 Two minor historical writers of the

first century A.D., the Elder Pliny and Julius Frontinus, confirmthe general

impression we have gained from the major writers. Pliny has preserved some

useful informationabout the family of Statilius (VII, I58. Above P. 232). Apart

from this, he names as noble the Aemilii Lepidi, Marcii Philippi, Hortensii,

5 Dio Cass. LV, 22, 5 cf. Gell. 1, 12. R.E. VIII A, 1774f.

5' De Ira III, 2, 4. Ad Marc. 26, 2. Benef. III, x6, 2. Epist. 47, 17. 99, 13 (with which

cf. Tacitus, Ann. XIV, 14-15, above P. 242.)

65 De Ira II,21,

7.III, 10, 4. Ad Marc. I0, i. Tranq. An. 10, 3. Epist. 76, 12. 117, 9.

120, 3. Applied to non-Romans, De Ira III, i6, 3.

Vit. 1. 3, i. Above P. 235f.

57 See above on Tacitus P. 242. For non-Roman nobiles see Diu. Iul. 71. Calig. 22, I.

58, i. Vesp.- , 6.

58 Names in VI, I, 25. X, I, 113. XI, I, 68. 69.




Licinii Crassi and Domitii, all conforming to Gelzer's definition, and three

times applies the title to non-Romans.59Frontinus' usage relates, as is to beexpected, to republican history, but he twice uses nobilis of non-Romans.60

Gelzer (P. 143) describes the eighth satire of Juvenal as an important

source of evidence for his theory. But the problem of proper names in Juvenal

is more complicated than he makes it appear.6' It is wrong, for instance, as

we shall see, to quote VIiI, 26 as evidence for Juvenal's own day. In the use of

nobilis/nobilitas he does not greatly differ from the prose writers we have

discussed, but there are problems connected with his usage which arise from

his declared policy of referringonly to men who weredead (r, 70-I). He applies

the epithet to a good many men either directly or, as in most cases in theeighth satire, indirectly. Of those he names some are easily identifiable as

republican.62In other cases, the individuals are not identifiable, but Juvenal

clearly selected names which, though still to be found under the Empire, were

more famous in the Republic. They are intended to be symbolic of the great

antiquity of the families he referred to and so naturally conform to Gelzer's

definition.63

Some nobilesof the imperial period are identifiable, but again they appear

to have been chosen for the antiquity of their family names. Such are the

Acilii Glabriones of IV, 94f.14 and Gracchus, the gladiator of VIII, 20If. 66About others there is doubt. The Ponticus to whom the eighth satire is

addressed may have been fictitious or a member of the ancient family of the

Valerii,66but in either case the cognomen is obviously intended to suggest

republican ancestry. In the same satire, Juvenal pursues a theme we have

already noticed in the Younger Seneca (above P. 24I):

nobilitas sola est atque unica uirtus. (line 20)

If, he says, you will live a life of justice and probity,

agnosco procerem: salue, Gaetulice, seu tu Silanus..

b See VII, 86. IX, 170. XVII, 3. IX, 8o. XXXIV, 74. 86. For a general use of nobilitas

of the Republic, XXXIII, i8.

60Strat. IV, 7, 39. Of non-Romans II, I}, 5. IV, 5, 12.

61 Highet, Juvenal the Satirist Pp. 56-7. 259f. 272. 290f.

62 Aemilianus and Curius in VIII, 3-4, Volesus and Brutus in VIII, I82, Catiline and

Cethegus in VIII, 23I, Lutatius Catulus in VIII, 253. In VIII, 21 the reference appears

to be to Aemilius Paulus the victor of Pydna, Cornelius Cossus who gained the spolia

opima in 437 B.c. and perhaps M. Livius Drusus the famous tribune (rather than Drusus

the brother of Tiberius, as is usually assumed).63 They are Lentuilus in VI, 8o and VIII, 187, Corvinus, Galba, Lepidus and Fabius

Allobrogicus in VIII, 5f., Creticus and Camerinus in VIII, 38, Damasippus, the Fabii and

the Mamerci in VIII, I8sf. 4 R.E. s.v. Acilius 33 and 40.

g R.E. s.v. Sempronius 44. cf. Juvenal II, ii7f.

6 FriedlAnder's Juvenal, Introd. P. Ioo. Gelzer P. 144.



246 H. HILL

Gelzer, like Mayor and the Bude editors, assumes two separate names here, a

Lentulus Gaetulicus and a lunius Silanus. There could well be only one,however, as Friedlander points out, D. runius Silanus Gaetulicus, son of

Cn. Lentulus Gaetulicus, consul in 26 A.D.67 But in either case, Juvenal clearly

intended a reference to the ancient republican families of the Corneliiand funii

and Gelzerwas mistaken in seeing a reference to contemporarynobiles.

Having stated his views on true nobilitas, Juvenal then addresses (line 39 f.)

Rubellius Blandus:

his ego quem monui? tecum est mihi sermo, Rubelli

Blande. tumes alto Drusorum stemmate, tanquamfeceris ipse aliquid propter quod nobilis esses,

ut te conciperet quae sanguine fulget luli.

The connection with the Rubellius Plautus of Tacitus, Annals XIV, 22 and

57 discussed above (P. 23I) is unmistakable, but scholars disagree about the

identification of Blandus. If, as the Latin suggests, he was the son of Julia, he

was either identical with the Rubellius Plautus mentioned by Tacitus or a

brother. The stress laid by Juvenal on his maternal descent from the imperial

family is in line with the poet's general practice of stressing the antiquity of

the noble families he names.68Doubt attaches, too, to the Lateranus referred to in VIII, I47f. Gelzer

(P. '44) seems to have thought he was a Sextius, but he is moreprobablyto be

identified with Plautius Lateranus, the lover of Messallinawho was executed

in 65 A.D. Both Sextii and Plautii were nobles of republicanorigin.

So far the pattern is clear. Because he named only the dead and because,

particularly in the eighth satire, he wanted to emphasize the antiquity of the

noble families he named, Juvenal was compelled to use names which dated

back to republican, or at least Augustan, times. His nobiles could not fail,

therefore, to conform to Gelzer's definition. But two names raise doubts,Aelius Lamia and Barea Soranus.

Syme has remarkedthat, by the time of Juvenal, the name Lamia stood

for the bluest blood and this seems to emerge from IV, o50f.and vr, 385.70

Yet the earliest consul in the family was L. Aelius Lamia in 3 A.D., whose

father, the friend of Cicero, did not rise above the praetorship, after being

princeps equestrisordinis.71Horace addressed one of this family, probably the

future consul, in Odes IIr, I7, as Aeli, uetusto nobilis ab Lamo. Yet the

67 R.E. s.v. Iunius 179.R. E. s. v. Rubellius 3. Syme, Tacitus 576, 628.

69 R. E. s. v. Plautius 42. S.V. Sextius 30. Editors generally agree.

70 See FriedlInder ad loc. and Syme R. Rev. P. 500.

71 R.E. s.v. Aelius 75 and 76. Syme seems to insert a generation between the two

(R. Rev. 362, N. 5.).




consulship was still some thirty years ahead. This, in fact, appears to be the

only reference to a Lamia as nobilis.72The family did not achieve nobilitas

until 3 A.D. It thereforedoes not conform to Gelzer'soriginaltheory, but comes

within the category of Augustan nobiles.

Barea Soranus is an even more interesting case. In VII, 90-2, Juvenal,

alleging that a poet will starve unless he is prepared to write mimes for the

actor Paris, writes:

tquodnon dant proceres, dabit histrio. tu Camerinos

et Baream, tu nobilium magna atria curas?

praefectos Pelopea facit, Philomela tribunos.The usual interpretation appears to be that the collocation with nobiliummagna

atria implies nobilitasfor the Cameriniand Barea. There is no difficulty about

the Camerini, a branch of the Sulpicii who appeared in the Fasti from the

beginning of the Republic to 46 A.D.73 But what about Barea Soranus? Nothing

is known of his ancestry. When Dio Cassius (LXIr, 26, i) describes him as

among the foremost in family, wealth and every virtue, it is in association

with Thrasea Paetus who belonged to the aristocracy of Patavium. Though

Barea occurs as a cognomen of the Marciiand the Servilii, there is nothing to

connect Barea Soranus with either family.74 It looks as though the first, andlast, nobilis in this family was Barea himself, consul in 52 A.D.

In his general use of nobilis/nobilitas, Juvenal does not appear to differ

from the prose writers we have discussed. The antithesis between nobilis and

nouus (above P. 238 f.) occurs in VIII, 23If., where, after referring to the noble

birth of Catiline and Cethegus, he goes on to describe Cicero as

nouus Arpinas, ignobilis et modo Romae municipalis eques.

Elsewhere nobilis/nobilitasseem to be applied to the aristocracy in general,

Roman and non-Roman.75Of the other poets only Lucan, Martial and Statius are of any assistance

in this investigation. Individuals called nobilis by Lucan naturally belonged

to the republican period.78But there are some instructive general uses of

nobilis/nobilitas. In II, ioI nobilitas is contrasted with plebsand in VII, 58I-2

with secundus ordo, suggesting that it is used to describe the senatorial

72 It is a joke, presumably, but whether Horace invented the ancestry himself, or ithad in fact been claimed by the family is not known.

73

R.E. s.v. Sulpicius 29f.74 P.I.R.2 B. 55. R. E. s. v. Barea. Syme, Tacitus, Index, calls him Q. Marcius Barea

Soranus, but without giving any evidence. Is there, perhaps a connection with the littletown of Sora? For Thrasea Paetus see P.I.R.2. C. II87.

75 Roman: I, 33-5. VII, I90-2. VIII, 47-9. 138-9. Non-Roman: VI, I75-7.76 So in II, 509f. IV, 8ogf. VI, 307f. VII, 713. VIII, 756. VIII, 72f. X, 385f.



248 H. HILL

aristocracy as a whole. The same is true of ossa nobilium in VI, 585. In X, 85-6

Cleopatra claims nobilitas for her family.Whereas the usage of Juvenal and Lucan reflects mainly republican con-

ditions, Martial and Statius were essentially concerned with contemporary

conditions and events, so that we may expect to find in them the usage of their

own period. Of the many uses of nobilis listed in the index to Friedlinder's

edition of Martial, only four need concern us here. In two cases (V, 37, 22 and

XII, 97, 3) it is one of a number of adjectives applied to women, unfortunately

unidentified. Used with notus, superbus, locuples, diues, etc., it is clearly a

general word for high-born. In V, 35 Euclides, who masqueraded as an

eques, is ironically described as superbus, nobilis and locuples. Inevitably weare reminded of Tacitus, Agricola, 4, i and of Seneca's Lucilius (above

P. 24I. 243). Most interesting of all is VIrI, 66, the epigram in honour of Silius

Italicus. Silius did not, apparently, belong to the Roman family of the Silii

Nervae, whose first consul was in 20 B.C. He probably came from Northern

Italy and was the first consul in his family in 68 A.D.77 Yet Martial, celebrating

his son's consulship, writes

bis senos iubet en redirefasces,

nato consule, nobilique uirgauatis Castaliam domum sonare/... Caesar.

Could there be a clearercase of transference of the epithet ?

The Silvae of Statius, which have been aptly compared with Pliny's Leters,

give us useful evidence of the meaning attached to nobilis/nobilitas in the

Flavian period. There are four relevant passages. In the epithalamium in

honour of L. ArruntiusStella, patron of Martial and Statius, a cupid, addressing

Venus, says of Stella:

clarus de gente Latina

est iuuenis, quem patriciis maioribus ortum

nobilitas gauisa tulit.

(I, 2, 70-2).

What is known of Stella does not suggest that the nobilitas which joyfully

brought him forth can have been very restricted in its scope. Though he was

later to become consul, his marriage took place in 89, before he reached the

praetorship. His father was given the equestrian office of curator udorumbyNero in 55 A.D. (Tac. Ann. XIII, 22). The family came, according to Martial

(I, 6i, 4), from Patavium and there is no evidence of any connection with that

77 R. E. s.v. Silius (stemma). 17. Syme, Tacitus P. 88 al.




branch of the Arruntiiwhich gained its first consulship in 22 B.C.The patrician

ancestry must be ascribed, with P.I. R., either to Stella's mother or to hisfather's adlection into the patriciate by Vespasian.78

Secondly there is C. Rutilius Gallicus, one of Domitian's generals, of whom

Statius writes:

genus ipse suis permissaqueretro

nobilitas; nec origo latet sed luce sequente

uincitur et magno gaudet cessisse nepoti.

(Silu. I, 4, 68-70)

He is said to have been born of equestrian stock in Augusta Taurinorum.79Genus ipse suis recalls the uses of facere genus and facere nobilem

discussedabove (P. 24I f.). Rutilius founded the family and, like Otho, conferred

on it a nobilitaswhich Statius suggests is reflected back upon himself. But it is

not a nobilitaswhich goes back to the Republic or even to Augustus.

The other two passages which concernus are III, 2, 20 and IV, 8, 3-5. The

former relates to M. Maecius Celerwho, like Arruntius Stella and probably in

the same year, was to achieve the consulship. He is described as:

nobilis Ausoniae Celerarmipotentis alumnus.

Such Maecii as areknown in the Republic werebusiness men. Statius' reference

(line I24) to Maecius having worn the latus clauus as a boy suggests that his

family was senatorial, but there was no consul in the family previously and

Maecius himself had yet to achieve the consulship.80The epithet cannot,

therefore,have Gelzer'srestricted meaning. The explanation of its use probably

lies in Ausoniae, - i.e. Maecius was an Italian, not a Roman, nobilis.

A similar use of nobilis occurs in IV, 8, a poem celebrating the birth of a

third child to Julius Menecrates,son-in-law of another of Statius' patrons, the

wealthy Pollius Felix. Addressingthe city of Naples, Statius writes (lines 3-5):

clari genus ecce Menecratisauget

tertia iam suboles. procerum tibi nobile uulgus

crescit et insani solatur damna Veseui.

It is probablethat Menecrateswas an eques,with ambitions, as is indicated at

the end of the poem, that his children might enter the Roman senatorial

aristocracy. In that case, as in the case of Maecius, procerumnobile uulgusis probably a reference to the local aristocracy of Naples.81

78 P.I.R.2 A II5I. Syme, Tacitus P. 88. 666.

79 R.E. s.v. Rutilius i9. Syme, o.c. P. 230. 596.80 R.E. s.v. Maecius and No. 6. Syme, o.c. 667.81 R.E. s.v. Iulius 358.



250 H. HILL, Nobilitas in the Imperial Period

Our examination of the ancient evidence suggests, therefore, that three

Emperors, Otho, Vitellius and Titus, and a number of others, including SiliusItalicus and Barea Soranus, acquired nobilitas after I4 A.D. and that writers

of the imperial period were familiar with the process of ennoblement. In all

cases where individuals are named, the consulship seems to have conferred the

nobilitas, which suggests that the republican practice continued in the imperial

period. There is also strong evidence, especially in their application to non-

Romans, that the terms nobilis/nobilitaswere used in a wider sense, as general

words for the aristocracy.

University College of Wales,Swansea H. HILL

hill, nobilitas in the imperial period

Documents