P R E F A C E.

Recount from the monuments of the ancients the auspices, the progress, and the end of any kingdom or republic you wish, and you will find none that has not been extinguished and oppressed by a similar fate. For Greece, which flourished in fame, glory, and martial praise, lost these no sooner than the Persians arrived in Greece; nor did the Persians (whose name was most illustrious after the Greeks) lose theirs before the Macedonians penetrated into Persia. Thus, the glory of the Macedonians easily yielded to Roman virtue. But indeed, were the Romans not also cast down by a similar fate, once they had been placed at the highest peak? For behold, those who flourished in wealth, in glory, and in the empire of all nations, who feared no external wars, no kings, no people, nor any nation whatsoever, they were first weakened by internal and domestic war through their own treachery, soon oppressed by the arms of barbarian peoples, and stripped of their empire. Such, indeed, is the condition and nature of human affairs, that nothing is eternal, nothing firm; all things are mortal and fleeting.

Therefore, by the same fate as the republic, the Roman nations and families also fell. For the Emperors, who managed all things in the republic according to their own whims and nothing by the judgment of the Senate, removed every excellent man, so that no place was left for virtue. Thus, when the republic was exhausted by the most unworthy and great slaughters and deprived of its citizens, they elected foreign and barbarian peoples not only into the citizenship but also into the most ample Senatorial order. When the empire was soon transferred to them, the splendor of the Roman nations was at that time chosen; when the empire was later transferred to Thrace, it was clearly removed and extinguished. In my opinion, this is the reason why no trace of the Roman nations now exists.

But enough of this. Now we shall briefly explain what a gens clan/lineage is, what a familia family is, and in what they differ. The Romans, by a change of word rather than true meaning, use the term gens for familia for the sake of similarity (even though the nature and meaning of the terms are distinct). For as we call a multitude of people a gens, so they named several families, which were of the same lineage, name, and origin, a gens. Hence it is that Festus says, "The Aelian gens is named, which is composed of many families." For some are the Paeti, others the Ligures, others the Cati, and others the Lamiae. And those are called gentiles those of the same clan who (as Cicero writes in his Topics according to the opinion of the jurist Scaevola) are among themselves of the same name, who are born of free-born men, whose ancestors never endured servitude, and who have not suffered a reduction in status original: "capite non sunt diminuti", meaning a loss of citizenship or liberty. Thus, the Cornelia gens exists, as do the Fabia, Claudia, and Junia. But gentiles are those who are called by a similar name, such as the Cornelii, Fabii, Claudii, and Junii; but not the Scipiones and Bruti, as Boethius, a man of very sharp intellect, writes in his commentary on Cicero’s Topics. For those should rather be called familiares family members from the familia, as is apparent from Festus, than gentiles. And I do not know if Festus is even more correct, as he defines gentiles as those who are both born from the same lineage and are called by a similar name. He certainly limited that which was broadly and variously spread within its own boundaries. For the Valerii, Fabii, Claudii, Papirii, and Tullii—while of the same name—are of different gentes, since some are found to be patrician and others plebeian. For the Claudii Pulchri or Nerones are not gentiles of the Marcelli, nor should the Fabii Vibulani be considered gentiles of those who are called the Dorsi, or the Papirii of those who are called the Carbones: for they are different lineages, different families, and finally, different stocks. Rightly, therefore, in my opinion, did Festus say that those born from the same lineage are gentiles.

And these things certainly pertain most to gentilitial rights. In this matter, we establish that there are some rights common to all gentes, and some proper and peculiar to each gens. Common are inheritances and guardianships, which, according to the Law of the Twelve Tables, pertain to agnates relatives through the male line and gentiles. For the laws on this matter were enacted by the Fifteen Men, as the author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium (Book 1) and Cicero in his second book of Rhetorics testify, in addition to the jurists. And concerning inheritance: IF A FATHER OF A FAMILY DIES WITHOUT A WILL, HIS FAMILY AND WEALTH SHALL BELONG TO HIS AGNATES AND GENTILES. And concerning guardianship: IF HE IS INSANE, THE POWER OVER HIM AND HIS WEALTH SHALL BELONG TO HIS AGNATES AND GENTILES. But these rights, which we said are common—and whatever others exist in the books of the jurists—Scaevola writes are lost through a reduction in status. Therefore, neither that young man whom M. Curius, the Consul, put under the spear referring to an auction of goods because he did not respond to the levy, nor one whom a father or the people sold into slavery, are gentiles. Nor are Q. Fabius and P. Cornelius Aemiliani, one of whom passed into the Fabian gens and the other into the Cornelian by adoption, gentiles of the Aemilii: for the former lost both their gentility and their gentilitial rights through a maximum reduction in status, the latter through a middle reduction. The former, because they became slaves and lost citizenship and liberty; the latter, because by adoption, just as they acquire other innumerable things (as Cicero writes in Pro Domo), so they acquire the inheritances, names, wealth, and sacred rites of the family into which they were adopted. The case of the emancipated is the same. That emancipated men are not gentiles is apparent from the fact that while gentiles succeed a father who dies intestate, emancipated men acquire neither legitimate guardianship nor the inheritances of fathers who die intestate under the Law of the Twelve Tables.

The rights which we said were proper are the gentilitial sacred rites, which were performed annually by the gens in a specific place. Thus, the sacred rites of Hercules are proper to the Potitia and Pinaria gentes; of Venus to the Julia; of Pallas to the Nautia; of the Sun to the Aurelia; of Father Dis to the Valeria. Thus Livy, in his fifth book, writes that the Fabian gens performed sacred rites on the Quirinal Hill in the Gabine cincture. Hence the mention of inheritances with sacred rites and without sacred rites in Plautus and Cicero; these were invented and established so that the sacred rites might be preserved and handed down to descendants, all of which those who have suffered a reduction in status lose. There are also certain rights proper to families: such as that which Cicero mentions in his second book De Legibus, and Plutarch in the Life of Poplicola, regarding the Poplicolae and the Tuberti, to whom it was granted for the sake of their virtue that they be buried within the city, which their descendants held by right. Therefore, those who are gentiles share in and communicate among themselves first those rights that are common to all gentes, and then those that are proper to each gens.

A familia is, however, a part of the gens: and as from gens comes Gentiles, so from familia comes Familiares, on the authority of Festus. A familia therefore differs from a gens in that a familia is a part of the gens as a whole. For a gens contains many families within itself; but families are distinguished by a surname: hence different surnames constitute different families. For in the Julia gens, some are Julii, others are Caesars. There are therefore two families of the Julia gens: one of the Julii, the other of the Caesars. Thus in the Fabia: Vibulani, Ambusti, Maximi, Pictores; in the Furia: Fusii, Medullini, Camilli; in the Quinctia: Capitolini, Barbati, Cincinnatii, Flaminii: and the same logic applies to the others. This opinion of ours is confirmed by the authority of many, including that of Livy in his thirty-eighth book, where he says that P. Scipio Nasica gave a speech full of true honors, not for the Cornelia gens in common, but for his own specific family: from which it is also evident that the nomen clan name refers to the gens, and the cognomen surname/family name refers to the familia. And this discussion pertains to the jurists—the Roman jurists, I mean—who must distinguish the familia from the gens when dealing with inheritances and guardianships. For Crassus in Cicero, when he wishes to prove that a knowledge of civil law is necessary for an orator, says, "What, concerning the matter about which the centumviri board of one hundred judges judged between the Marcelli and the Claudii? When the Marcelli claimed that the inheritance of the patrician Claudius of the same name had returned to them through the gens from the offspring of a freedman, did the orators not have to speak about the entire law of lineage and gentility in that case?" Now, I believe it is sufficiently established what the origin and progression of the Roman gentes are, and what a gens is, and what a familia is: it remains for us to treat of the patrician and plebeian families.