“The τrigins of the Roman clientelaμ between friendship and kinship”, inμ De χmicitia -

Social Networks and Relationships: Passages from Antiquity to the Middle Ages III,
University of Tampere, Finland 17-19.8.2007.

THE ORIGINS OF THE ROMAN CLIENTELA:

BETWEEN COMRADESHIP AND KINSHIP

by Aleksandr Koptev

In his treatise De amicitia Cicero depicts an ideal of friendship as the model of

relationship among the people connecting each other by sympathy. 1 Cicero carefully specifies
the qualities and forms of attitude to the friends, which are necessary to avoid for the amicitia
would be corrupted by an external interference. The friendship (amicitia) is relationship built
on the personal feeling of free individual or, more exactly, citizen. Cicero obviously took in
account the only male citizens, not women (the relation to whom is amor),2 foreigners
(hospitium), clients (fides), or slaves (dominium). He also implies the men of the same
quantity and social class, because the ideal civil community supposed equality of citizens in
public rights. In addition to the gentilician ties, the amicitia had the purpose to create the
horizontal social links.3 At the time of crisis, the need in the relationship, built on the
faithfulness and depth feelings, was especially great.4
Inequality between the ordines and the plebs did not put an insuperable barrier before
amicitia, because the friendship, according to Cicero, had the purpose to ennoble a lower and
to lower a higher. However, the relations with the citizens of lower class were clientele, which
was built on the fidelity (fides) and a series of mutual obligations non-invested with a legal
form. Cicero meant amicitia for the relationship inside the patriciate and nobility, while

1
See Brunt P.A. Amicitia in the late Roman Republic, in: The Fall of the Roman Republic and related essays,
Oxford 1988, p. 354: amicitia from amo and equivalent to amor. Cf. Konstan D. Friendship in the Classical
World, Cambridge 1997, p. 122-124.
2
On the friendship between men and women, see Konstan D. Friendship in the Classical World, p. 146, who
emphasizes that the tendency to equality between spouses more often was called concord and partnership.
3
On the utilitas of amicitia, see Cic. de inventione II, 166-168.
4
See Cic. epist. ad Quint. I, 5, 16: optimum quemque hospitio amicitiaque coniungi dico oportere; nimiae
familiaritates eorum [Graecorum] neque tam fideles sunt. For fides and officium as the background for amicitia,
see Spielvogel J. Amicitia und res publica: Ciceros Maxime während der innenpolitischen
Auseinandersetzungen der Jahre 59-50 v. Chr., Stuttgart, 1991, S. 14.
1
clientela served for the relations between the patriciate/nobility and people. 5 Therefore, the
friendship between superiors and inferiors was rather a euphemism for the dependency of
patronage.6 The inequality between patrons and their clients was excluded from the sphere of
public law and belonged to the competence of gods.7
Archaic society differed from the civil community. It was the society of statuses with a
determined volume of rights: the patricians, the clients, and the plebeians. Friendly feelings of
personal sympathy clearly had been arisen in that epoch too, but they could not create an
institution like the amicitia. The history of early Rome, depicted by Livy and Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, is full of examples of brave activity in favour of the Roman community and
the ancestors, but there is no any example of friendship. Only in the second century BC,
Panaetius had created the philosophy of friendship as the ideology of Scipio χemilianus’
group, from which Cicero took ideas and images of his ideal friends. 8 Plautus’ discussing of
amicitia can be regarded as an echo of the public discussion. 9
Modern scholarship identifies archaic Rome with the society of gentes, vertically
structured for the patres, the patricians, and the clients. What kind of relationship did ensure
the horizontal unity of the early Roman community, which was rending by the contradictions
between both the competitive gentes and between the patricians and the plebeians?
The hypothesis I try to discuss supposes the earliest Roman society based on the
system of socially recognized life stages, “age grades” (e.g., youth, warrior, elder), each
associated with a variety of appropriate roles. Modern ethnology also use the notions “age
strata” or “age set” refers to the named groups of people who are born in the same time period
and who proceed together at culturally prescribed intervals of transition from one age grade to
another.10 The relations between individuals in these age groups can be characterized
“friendship as duty”. Age as the basis for social structure was not the category relevant in the
Roman civil community. 11 But it hardly was so in the period of formation of the civil
community, the Indo-European past of which gives a lot of examples relating to age-set
institutions.

5
Spielvogel J. Amicitia und res publica, S. 5 and 14-15.
6
See Konstan D. Patrons and Friends, AJPh 90, 1995, p. 328-342; Konstan D. Friendship in the Classical
World, p. 136-137, cf. Saller R.P. Patronage and Friendship in Early Imperial Rome: Drawing the Distinction,
in Patronage in Ancient Society, ed. A. Wallace-Hadrill, London 1989, p. 49-62: 57.
7
According to the XII Tables: VIII, 21, a patron, who has wronged a client, is to be accursed (patronus si clienti
fraudem fecerit, sacer esto).
8
See Steinmetz F-A. Die Freundschaftslehre des Panaitios, Wiesbaden 1967.
9
See Raccanelli R. δ’amicitia nelle commedie di Plautoέ Un’indagine antropologica, Bari 1998.
10
Foner N. Age and Social Change, in Age and anthropological Theory, edited by David I. Kertzer and Jennie
Keith Ithaca 1984, p. 195-216: 205, 211-212.
11
See Bernardi B. Age class systems: social institutions and polities based on age; translated from the Italian by
D.I. Kertzer, Cambridge 1985, p. 1-2.
2
 1. The archaic comradeship of the sodales

According to the definition in Festus’ dictionary, “sodales are called those who sit
and eat together, or who habitually consume that they give from the own, or who alternately
among themselves consult that for them is useful”. 12 In Gaius’ comment to a law of the XII
Tables (VIII, 27), “sodales are those who belonged to the same college that by Greeks is
called ἑ α ία . The law provides them the authority to enter in the agreements if the latter
violate nothing of public law”.13 The sodales are showing up in our sources either as a group
of comrades who function as a kind of somebody’s retinue (“Gefolgschaft”), 14 or as ritual
confraternity for religious rites. 15 H. Versnel drew attention to the fact that the term sodalis
appears in the republican literature in very vague, unspecified sense of “friend” and
“comrade”, so that its difference from amicus not always is clear and sometimes lacking
altogether.16 Below are several examples of fidelity to particular group interests in the Roman
historical tradition.
(a) Livy (I, 5, 1-4) refers to Romulus’ young age when he with his coevals arranged
the camp in the Palatine hill and celebrated the ceremonies in honour of Faunus. When the
young men were engaged in the festival, the brigands, enraged at losing their plunder,
ambushed them. Romulus successfully defended himself, but his brother, Remus, was taken
prisoner and brought before the king Amulius, being impudently accused by his captors of
their own crimes. The principal charge brought against him was that of invading the royal
brother Numitor’s lands with a body of young men and carrying off plunder as though in
regular warfare.
Dionysius (I, 80, 1) ascribes the story to Aelius Tubero, “a shrewd man and careful in
collecting the historical data”. The festival that the youth celebrated in honor of Faunus was

12
Paul.-Fest. 383 L: Sodales dicti, quod una sederent et essent, vel quod ex suo datis vesci soliti sint, vel quod
inter se invicem suaderent, quod utile esset.
13
Dig. XLVII, 22, 4 Gaius libro quarto ad legem duodecim tabularum: Sodales sunt, qui eiusdem collegii sunt:
quam Graeci ‛ α ία vocant. His autem potestatem facit lex pactionem quam velint sibi ferre, dum ne quid ex
publica lege corrumpant. The equation of the sodales with the colleges seems to be a later idea developed in the
civil society.
14
Versnel H.S. Historical implications, in Lapis Satricanus. Archaeological, epigraphical, linguistic and
historical aspects of the new inscription from Satricum, ed. by C.M. Stibbe etc., The Hague 1980, p. 97-150:
108-121.
15
In later time, sodales represented various groups of “friends”, whose common feature was legal equality to
each other. Cf. Dig. XLVII, 22, 4: Nam illuc ita est: quod si pagus vel curiales vel sacrarum epularum vel
mensae vel sepulcri communione iuncti vel sodales vel qui ad praedam faciendam negotiationemve
proficiscuntur quidquid horum inter se constituerint, id ratum esse, nisi publicae leges obstent. On the religious
confraternity, for instance, see Versnel H.S. Historical implications, p. 109-112.
16
Versnel H.S. Historical implications, p. 113-114.
3
called Lupercalia.17 The behavior of Romulus’ attendants was typical for the members of the
youth unions which were organized for the time of initiative rites, so that the luperci resemble
the initiating youth in the role of wolves (sodales).18 The Lupercalia was a kind of wolves-
festival, Romulus and Remus had been grown up under the care of the she-wolf (lupa). Their
step-mother Acca Larentia had a duplicate-prostitute (Latin lupa), who met the men in the
temple of Hercules (Plut. Rom.V). It was an archaic Indo-Europeans custom to call “dogs” or
“wolves” the boys, who had to live away from civilised society during their initiation
period.19
(b) Livy (I, 6) and Dionysius (I, 83-85) write that a group of youth with Romulus at
the head supported Numitor against the usurper Amulius and, after the revolt was successful,
they granted to Numitor the royal power in Alba Longa. Then the young men had left the city
and built for themselves a new settlement on the Palatine hill, where first time they lived
without women. The group of Romulus’ coevals looks like his retinue, a kind of
“Männerbund”. χfter the city was built, the leader of the retinue became the king, and his
“friends” in the role of bachelors took part in the famous rape of Sabine girls to marry with
them.
(c) Retinue of early Indo-European chiefs usually numbered 50 (40) men that
resembles the early Roman horsemen.20 According to the historical tradition, Romulus had
created the corps of 300 celeres with the title Titienses, Ramnienses, Luceres, and then, after
the well-known debate with the augur Attus Navius, the king Tarquinius Priscus doubled the
three Romulean equestrian centuriae. 21 They were thus designed in six parts, Ramnes, Tities,
Luceres priores et posteriores, which are associate with the republican sex suffragia.22 Thus,
the 300 celeres formed three centuriae with two sets (priores and posteriores) for 50 men in
each. The fifty-man group seems to be sodales. Their leader held the title of tribunus celerum.
17
On a Greek parallel of this legend, see Paus. VI, 6, 4-11, Gershenson D.E. Apollo the Wolf-god, Journal of
Indo-European studies Monograph; no. 8, 1991, p.100.
18
Cic. pro Caelio 26: Neque vero illud me commovet, quod sibi in Lupercis sodalem esse Caelium dixit. Fera
quaedam sodalitas et plane pastoricia atque agrestis germanorum Lupercorum, quorum coitio illa silvestris ante
est instituta quam humanitas atque leges, siquidem non modo nomina deferunt inter se sodales, sed etiam
commemorant sodalitatem in accusando, ut, ne quis id forte nesciat, timere videantur! Cf. Neraudau J.P. La
jeunesse dans la littérature et les institutions de la Rome républicaine, Paris 1979, p. 200-211, 219-221; Ginestet
P. Les organisations de la jeunesse dans l'Occident Romain, Bruxelles 1991, p. 34-35. On a ritualistic aspect of
the sodalitas, see Corsano M. «Sodalitas» et gentilité dans l'ensemble lupercal, in RHR 191, 1977, p. 137-158.
19
See Alföldi A. Die Struktur des voretruskischen Romerstaates, Heidelberg 1974, S. 86-88; Bremmer J.N. The
Suodales of Poplios Valesios, in ZPE 47, 1982, p. 141 n.35. Binder G. Die Aussetzung des Königskindes Kyros
und Romulus, Meisenheim am Glan, 1964, S. 78-115; Bremmer J.N. Romulus, Remus and the Foundation of
Rome, in Bremmer J.N.-Horsfall N.M. Roman Myth and Mythology, London 1987, p. 25-48.
20
See Bremmer J.N. The Suodales of Poplios Valesios, p. 138-140. On the celeres as equites, see Neraudau J.P.
La jeunesse dans la littérature, p. 259-287; Ginestet P. Les organisations de la jeunesse, p. 44-46.
21
Liv. I, 36, 2; Dionys. III, 71, 1; Cic. de rep. II, 20, 36; Val. Max. I, 4, 1; III, 4, 2; Flor. I, 1, 5, 2; Fest. 168 L.
s.v. Nauia; Gr. Licinianus 26, p. 3 (Flemisch).
22
Fest. 452 L.: sex suffragia appellatur in equitum centuriis, quae sunt adiectae ei numero centuriarum; quas
Priscus Tarquinius rex constituit.
4
On February 27, 509 BC, being a tribunus celerum, L. Junius Brutus performed the ritual of
Equirria together with his companions, Arruns, Titus and Sextus Tarquinii, Tarquinius
Collatinus, and Publius Valerius in the role of fifty-horseman leaders.
(d) From the speech delivered by the emperor Claudius in the Roman Senate we know
that Servius Tullius, before to become the Roman king, had been a sodalis of the Etruscan
hero Caeles Vibenna. 23 The link between the name of Caeles and the Caelian hill allowed the
ancients to state that Caeles Vibenna, together with his companion Mastarna, captured Rome
at the time of the first Tarquin. The involvement of the heroes, Caeles and Mastarna, in the
release of their comrade is depicted in the painting of the François Tomb, in whom Mastarna
kills a certain Gnaeus Tarquinius of Rome (Cneve Tarchunies Rumach).24 The painting is
dated by the fourth century BC, and the heroes resemble Greek ritual unions of noble coevals
(ἑ αῖ ).25
(e) At the first year of the Republic, the Roman youth organised a conspiracy in favour
of the younger Tarquins who together with their father, the king, had been banished by Brutus
and the Roman patres. Livy calls the conspirators “coevals and sodales of the young
Tarquins”.26 Roman historians believed that the young Aquillii, Vitellii and Junii among the
conspirators were relatives of the Tarquin family. According to Plutarch (Poplic. III, 3),
Tarquinius Collatinus had two sisters, one of whom was married to Aquillius, and the other to
Vitellius, and the both sisters’ sons, the young χquillii and Vitellii, were among the
conspirators.27 The sister of the Vitellii was ψrutus’ wife, and they had tree sons who were
coevals of the royal sons. 28 Brutus was the son of the king Tarquinius’ sister, the grandmother
of the young Junii, who thus were royal second cousins. Thus, the later Romans tried to
explain the youth conspiracy with the fact that all the participants were relatives of the
Tarquins and had been directed by their family feelings. More likely, however, for the ancient
time, that the young coevals were members of the same age organisation and to support each

23
CIL XIII,1668, I, 17-19: Servius Tullius, si nostros sequantur captive natus Ocresia, sia Tuscos Caeli
quosdam Vivennae sodalis fidelissimus omnesque eius casus comes.
24
On the painting in the François Tomb, see Alföldi A. Early Rome, p. 212-231; Thomsen R. King Servius
Tullius. A Historical Synthesis, Copenhague 1980, p. 68-84, 87-108; Coarelli F. Le pitture della Tomba François
a Vulci: una proposta di lettura, in DArch 1, 1983, p. 43-70; Kuhoff W. «La Grande Roma dei Tarquini» : Die
früheste Expansion des römischen Staates im Widerstreit zwischen literarischer Überlieferung und historischer
Wahrscheinlichkeit, Augsburg, 1995, p. 27-43; Poucet J. Les rois de Rome. Tradition et histoire, Bruxelles 2000,
p. 108-113, 193-194.
25
On the ἑ αῖ , see Welwei K-W. Polisbildung, Hetairos-Gruppen und Hetairien, in Gymnasium 99, 1992, S.
481-500.
26
Liv. II, 3, 2 Erant in Romana iuuentute adulescentes aliquot, nec ii tenui loco orti, quorum in regno libido
solutior fuerat, aequales sodalesque adulescentium Tarquiniorum, adsueti more regio uiuere.
27
Cf. Franciosi G. La relazione avuncolare in Roma antica (a proposito della congiura degli Aquili e dei
Vitelli), in Studi in onore di Arnaldo Biscardi, vol. 4, Milano 1983, p. 489-494; Bettini M. Familie und
Verwandschaft im antiken Rom, Frankfurt a.M., 1992, S. 61-65.
28
Liv. II, 4, 1; Dionys. V, 6, 4; Plut. Poplic. III.
5
other was their duty, which they could not break even before the face of the death. The
obligation to die in the case of their leader death was a typical feature of Indo-European
“εännerbundes”. The most known example is the death of the γ00 Spartans together with
their king Leonides in the Battle of the Thermopylai in 480 BC. 29
(f) Livy (II, 12) delivers the story of a young noble, C. Mucius, who decided to kill the
Etruscan king Porsenna to liberate Rome from the besiege. Dealing with the Senate’s
approval, he had swum across the Tiber, penetrated the enemy’s camp but, instead of the king,
killed his secretary dressing like the latter. Seized by the king’s bodyguards, Mucius, to
demonstrate his fearlessness, plunged his right hand into a fire burning on the altar. The king,
astounded at his striking behaviour, ordered the young man to be released, and Mucius,
reciprocating this generous treatment, responded by saying to the king that there were three
hundred of the foremost amongst the Roman youth who have sworn to attack him in this way,
and after his own fiasco the next would try until fortune should give them a favourable chance
against the king. These young warriors resemble the corps of 300 celeres in the role of ritual
“Jungmannschaft”.
(g) The Lapis Satricanus with the inscription “ieisteterai Popliosio Valesiosio suodales
mamartei” is dated back to ca. 500 BC.30 The suodales had been often considered a
compagnionage of young warriors functioning as the retinue of a noble Roman or inhabitant
of Satricum, Publius Valerius (Popliosius Valesiosius).31 Publius Valerius is often identified
with the famous Roman consul, Publius Valerius Poplicola. 32 Some scholars argue a
gentilician aspect of the group of Valerius’ attendants33 or their ritual confraternity. 34
(h) Dionysius (V, 40, 3) retells the story of the influential Sabine, Titus Claudius, from
the city Regillum, who removed with their whole households, not less than five hundred in all
who were able to bear arms, to Rome bringing with him many kinsmen and friends and a
great number of clients ( λά α ). The reason that compelled him to remove to Rome was a
political conflict with the other men in power. The Roman senate and people enrolled him
among the patricians and gave him a portion of the city for building houses; they also granted

29
Cf. Herodot. IV, 72; Caes. bello Gallico III, 22; Tacit. Germ. XIII. More examples, see Versnel H.S.
Historical implications, p. 115-116.
30
On an alternative later dating, see Ferenczy E. Über das Problem der Inschrift von Satricum, in Gymnasium
94, 1987, p. 97-108.
31
On the suodales as retinue, see Versnel H.S. Historical implications, p. 112-121; Bremmer J.N. The Suodales
of Poplios Valesios, p. 137-146; Hermon E. Le Lapis Satricanus et la colonisation militaire au début de la
République, in MEFRA 111, 1999, p. 847-881.
32
For Poplios Volesios, see De Simone C. δ’aspetto liguistico, in Lapis Satricanus. Archaeological,
epigraphical, linguistic and historical aspects of the new inscription from Satricum, ed. by C.M. Stibbe etc., The
Hague 1980, p. 71-94: 81-84; Versnel H.S. Historical implications, p. 128-137.
33
Welwei K.-W. Gefolgschaftsverband oder Gentilaufgebot? Zum Problem eines frührömischen familiare
bellum (Liv.II 48,9), in ZRG 110, 1993, p. 60-76.
34
Prosdocimi A. Satricum. I sodales del Publicola steterai a Mater (Matuta?), in PdP 49, 1994, p. 365-377.
6
to him from the public land the region that lay between Fidenae and Picetia, so that he could
give allotments to all his followers. The immigrants formed the Claudian tribe. According to
Livy (II, 16, 4-5), the name of the Sabine refuge was Attius Clausus, which resembles the
notion pater (Atta) of the Claudian familia or gens.35 He arrived in Rome with a large body of
clients under 504 BC.36 They were admitted to the citizenship and received a grant of land
lying beyond the Anio, where with an addition of fresh tribesmen from that district they
established the Claudian tribe. Clausus changed his name to Appius Claudius and was elected
into the Senate fast gaining there a prominent position. In Plutarch (Poplic. XXI), Appius
came to Rome, bringing five thousand families of his friends ( ὺ ίλ ), with their wives
and children. Every one of them was allotted with two acres of land and Clausus with twenty-
five acres. Scholars rightly doubt in the figure of ωlausus’ 5,000 clients which is not
appropriate for the end of the sixth century BC.37 δivy’s emphasising on ωlaudius’ huge
clientium comitatus casts a shadow on the role of his friends (amici) who also were among his
attendants.38
(i) Under 478 BC, Livy (II, 49, 3-5) refers to a Veientine war which was waged by the
sole Fabian clanμ “Never has an army marched through the City smaller in numbers or with a
more brilliant reputation or more universally admired. Three hundred and six soldiers, all
patricians, all members of one house, not a single man of whom the Senate even in its palmist
days would deem unfitted for high command, went forth, threatening ruin to the Veientines
through the strength of a single family. They were followed by a crowd; made up partly of
their own relatives and sodales, whose minds were not occupied with ordinary hope and
anxiety, but filled with the loftiest anticipations; partly of those who shared the public anxiety,
and could not find words to express their affection and admiration”.39 The sodales are counted
here together with the Fabian relatives (cognati) in the description of their gens leaving the
City against Veii. 40 The Fabii were all cut down to a man: it was generally agreed in antiquity

35
Cf. Sueton. Tib. I, 1: Atta Claudio gentis principe...; atque in patricias cooptata agrum insuper trans Anienem
clientibus locumque sibi ad sepulturam sub Capitolio publice accepit.
36
Liv. II, 16, 4: magna clientium comitatus manu; Sueton. Tib. I, 1: cum magna clientium manu conmigrauit.
37
See Smith Chr.J. The Roman Clan: The Gens from Ancient Ideology to Modern Anthropology, Cambridge
2006, p. 1ι0, who, following χ. Drummond’s estimation of β0 or γ0 clientes per patron, stresses that this
prevents us from falling into a trap of believing in vast armies of clientes.
38
Cf. Serv. ad Aen. VII, 706: nam Clausus, Sabinorum dux, post exactos reges, ut quidam dicunt, cum quinque
milibus clientum et amicorum Romam venit, et susceptus habitandam partem urbis accepit: ex quo Claudia et
tribus est et familia nominata.
39
Liv. II, 49, 6: Sequebatur turba propria alia cognatorum sodaliumque, nihil medium, nec spem nec curam, sed
immensa omnia uoluentium animo, alia publica sollicitudine excitata, fauore et admiratione stupens.
40
Bremmer J.N. The Suodales of Poplios Valesios, p. 136 argues, against Versnel’s and common opinion, that in
δivy’s description of the Fabii’s departure their cognate and sodales did not join the Fabii on their dangerous
military campaign but were seeing them of. It seems not convincible to search literary exactness in the later
narrativeν δivy tries to give prove the idea that Fabii’s army was small (γ0θ) and brave, i.e. without friends and
relatives who were obliging in usual case.
7
that three hundred and six men perished, and that one only, an immature youth, was left as a
stock for the Fabian house.41
The Fabian war against the Veientines has been usually considered an example of the
gentilician armies which had been used by the Romans before the Servian reforms. 42
However, the gentilician aspect in many forms could be a later annalistic addition to the
original model of which the Fabian story was fashioned. The model was Herodotus’ narration
of the 300 Spartans perished together with the king Leonides in the Battle of the Thermopylai
in 480 BC. The death of the Fabii under the Cremera can be regarded as a narrative
developing the oath of the sodales to follow to their leader in death. According to Dionysius
(IX, 15, 3), their leader was Marcus Fabius, the man who had been consul of the preceding
year and had conquered the Tyrrhenians in the late battle. Dionysius depicts him like Atta
Clausus as a clannish principal, who headed ca. 4,000 warriors, the greater part of whom
being clients and friends (π ῖ π αῶ αὶ ἑ αί ), while of the Fabian clan there
were 306 men. The numerals, 4,000 and 306 do not accepted by scholars as real; at the same
time, the 306 look like the 300 celeres and their six “centurions”. 43
(j) Livy (III, 11) recounts a story of a noble youngster, Caeso Quinctius, who headed
the patrician youth. He committed great acts of bravery during the war and showed brilliant
eloquence in the Forum so that nobody could be seen more courageous and eloquent than he.
He and his friends had delivered so many blows to the people, that when once a tribune
accused Caeso in murder, angry citizens approved for the accusation. Released on the
security, Caeso escaped to Etruria, and his guarantors and father, later the well-known dictator
Cincinatus, were deprived the pawned property. The patricians were cowed by the banishment
of Caeso, and the tribunes decided to use the case to issue a law favourable for the plebeians.
Then, Livy (III, 14, 2-4) writes, the youth, who had been ωaeso’s intimates, attacked the
plebeians “with a huge army of clients”, so that the plebeians complained that “for one ωaeso
thousands had sprung up”. During the intervals when the tribunes were not agitating the law,
Livy continues, “nothing could be more quiet or peaceable than these same menν … they were
never disagreeable to any one either in public or private … and were friendly with the

41
The survived Fabius was necessary for the role of princeps gentis to explain a later genealogy of the gens. Cf.
Paul. Fest. p. 451 L: Scelerata porta, quae et Carmentalia dicitur, vocata, quod per eam sex et trecenti Favii
cum clientium millibus quinque egressi adversus Etruscos, ad amnem Cremeram omnes sunt interfecti.
42
On the gentilicean and hoplitic armies, see Richard J.-Cl. Historiographie et histoire: l'expedition des Fabii a
la Cremere, in Latomus 47, 1988, p. 526-553. = Staat und Staatlikeit in der fruhen romischen Republik, hrsg. W.
Eder, Stuttgart 1990, p. 174-199; Welwei K.-W. Gefolgschaftsverband oder Gentilaufgebot? p. 62-67. Cf. Smith
Chr.J. The Roman Clan, p. 281-298.
43
Some authors write of 300, not 306, Fabii. See Diodor. XI, 53, 6; Plut. Camil. XIX,1; Ampel. lib. mem. XX, 2;
Eutrop. I, 16, 1-3; Hieronym. Chron. p. 103 Schoene. Holleman A.W.J. Myth and Historiography, the Tale of
the 306 Fabii, in Numen 23, 1976, p. 210-218, explains the Fabian number with the help of the Romulean
calendar.
8
people”. Livy’s attempt to characterize the group of patrician youth as a kind of ωaeso’s
factio reflects the relationship of his own epoch.44 In early Rome these young men rather were
the sodales of Caeso.
(k) A similar retinue accompanied the noble youngster Gn. Marcius, when he deserved
his cognomen Coriolanus, being at the head of the warriors who captured the Volscan city,
Coriolae, in 493 BC (Liv. II, 33, 7). Dionysius calls him the leader of a large faction (ἑ α ία

ά ) of young men of noble birth and of the greatest fortunes, as well as many clients who
had attached themselves to him for the sake of the booty to be gained in the wars. 45
These examples depict one and the same institution of the youth brotherhood
(sodalitas, Greek ἑ α ία).46 The only artificial stories of the Claudii’s emigration and the
Fabii’s decease, which are later constructions for honouring the two Roman gentes,
emphasize rather the clientele. 47 In most of the passages, the sodales are young men. This can
hardly be chance; youth usually are less integrated into the society, and the latter contrives
various means and forms to use young people before they became married. Among the Indo-
European peoples the pre-adult males often constituted a separate group which occupied a
place at the margin of society.48 This marginal position consequently attached other marginals
such as run-away slaves, outlaws and exiles. 49 It would be very worthwhile to pursue this
theme in the stories of Romulus and Remus’ band of shepherds and robbers or Romulus’
asylum.
The youth who achieved the age of initiation formed a special social class, in which
relations of mutual fidelity cultivated, similar to the civil amicitia. The relationship was not
between single individuals, but a kind of group relations inside of every age class. In early
time (before Servius Tullius whose name associates with a military reform) the army perhaps
consisted of the only youth, who formed a male union (Jungmannschaft).50 Military affairs
initially were in the hands of the people who were in a special social position between the

44
Cf. Sallust. Bell. Jug. XXXI, 15: sed haec inter bonos amicitia, inter malos factio est.
45
Dionys. VII, 21, 3: ὁ Μά ἐ ῖ ὁΚ ά … ἦ ὲ π ὶ αὐ ὸ ἑ α ία ά έ ὐ ῶ ,
ἦ ὰ έ α ή α α ί αὶ π ά α υ ὶ υ ό ἐπὶ αῖ ἐ ῶ π έ ὠφ ία ·
46
On the collegia iuvenum as a relic of early groups of sodales in Italy, see Versnel H.S. Historical implications,
p. 119-120.
47
The accents on the gentilician character of retinues of the early Roman noble men, who resemble thus
principes gentium, see Welwei K.-W. Gefolgschaftsverband oder Gentilaufgebot?, p. 60-76; idem, Die
frührömische Klientel im Spiegel der Überlieferung, in ZRG, RA 118, 2001, S. 220-233.
48
See Sergent B. δes troupes de jeunes homes et l’expansion indo-européenne, in DHA 29,2, 2003, p. 9-27.
49
See Versnel H.S. Historical implications, p. 119-120; Bremmer J.N. The Suodales of Poplios Valesios, p. 137,
145-147.
50
Jeanmaire H. Couroi et Courètes : essai sur l'éducation spartiate et sur les rites d'adolescence dans l'Antiquité
hellénique, Lille 1939, p. 26-43, has shown the Greek kouroi or kouretes, similar to the Latin quirites, was a
typical term for the age-set of the young warriors. Cf. Ginestet P. Les organisations de la jeunesse, p. 48-49. The
objections to the approach see Welwei K.-W. Gefolgschaftsverband oder Gentilaufgebot?, p. 75.
9
society and the outer world. They were those who had entered into their initiative period but
did not yet became men of full rights, i.e. the youth between ca. 17 and 24 years.51
Relationships among the sodales were determined by the oath of fidelity, which had
been sworn once in the youth, and were absolute and indisputable for the whole following
life. χ comparison of the Fabii’s story in Livy II, 49, 6: propria alia cognatorum sodaliumque
and Servius ad Aen. VI, 845: fuerunt de una familia cum coniurati shows the identity between
the notions sodales and coniurati. As coniurati are called by Livy (II, 4, 3; 5; 7) the young
Junii, Aquillii and Vitellii, who joined in a conspiracy in the favour of their coevals Tarquinii.
The king Tarquinius accusing his nephews Brutus and Collatinus said that he was banished
from Rome by their coniuratione.52 Mucius Scaevola, released by the king Porsenna,
informed him that three hundred of the foremost amongst the Roman youth have sworn to
attack the king. 53 They were not able to break their oath and, after εucius’ failure, were
obliged to try again and again till fortune shall give them a favourable chance to kill Porsenna.
Also, the example of the young Junii and Aquillii shows the absolute character of fidelity of
sodales. Nothing could change the sodalitas, as well as nothing can change the kinship
established by birth. Therefore, the sodales can be regarded as social or sworn brothers
(fratres coniurati), and the sodalitas as brotherhood.54 Citizen became a social brother of his
sodales, and, as later in familia, his relationship with them did not concern the society in
whole, outside his male group (curia). One can suppose that the sodalitas also continued after
the youth transformed into mature men; age-sets among the Indo-Europeans were not
exclusively composed of youth. The “Jungmannschaften” showed a tendency to develop into
a proper “εännerbund”. In ancient Greece the ἑ αῖ often were groups of adult men. 55

2. The Roman age grades.

Age groups in ancient Rome have been recently much discussed in scholarship.56 In
historical time, the Roman age grades had been changed together with the evolution of the

51
Cf. Binder G. Die Aussetzung des Königskindes, p. 40: the Luperci, who represented wolves, can be
considered the symbols of death-murder.
52
Liv. II, 6, 2: a proximis scelerata coniuratione pulsum.
53
Liv. II, 12, 15: trecenti coniurauimus principes iuuentutis Romanae.
54
On the similarity between brothers and sodales, see Versnel H.S. Historical implications, p. 112-114; on the
coniurati, see p. 115.
55
See the review of the literature by Bremmer J.N. The Suodales of Poplios Valesios, p. 145-146.
56
Berger A. Minores, in RE 15,2, 1932, Sp. 1860-1889; Gagé J. Classes d'age, rites et vetements de passage
dans l'ancien Latium, in Cahiers internationaux de sociologie 24, 1958; Eyben E. Antiquity's View of Puberty, in
Latomus 31, 1972, p. 677-698; idem, Roman notes on the course of life, in Ancient society 4, 1973, p. 213-238;
idem, Die Entstehung des menschlichen Lebens im römischen Altertum, in RhM 116, 1973, p. 150-190; idem,
Was the Roman Youth an "adult" society?, in AC 60, 1981, p. 328-350; idem, Juvenes et equites dans la Rome
ancienne, in AC 61, 1982, p. 265-277; idem, Restless Youth in Ancient Rome, London, NewYork 1993;
10
whole kinship system, as well as they were subjected to the influence of the Greek
philosophical theories. In civil community, the age gradation was represented by informal
grades with approximate and indicative value: childhood, youth, and old age (pueritia,
iuventus, senectus). Antiquarian writers used such terms as infantia, pueritia, adulescentia,
iuventus, senectus (Varro ap. Serv. Aen. V, 295) and puer, adulescens, iuvenis, senior, senex
(Varro ap. Censor. de die nat. XIV, 2).
The age grade of youth (iuvenes, iuventus) began in Rome, as by many other nations,
with the achieving of sexual maturity (pubertas) and was marked with the change of a
childish costume (toga praetexta) to the clothing of adult man (toga virilis).57 The archaic
custom and some others were more preserved by noble Romans. In the later imperial epoch,
this act, which was connected with the receiving of some rights, was celebrated in the age
between 14 and 17 years.58 In early time, the leaving of the childish condition happened in 17
(Tubero ap. Gell. X, 28, 1-2.).59 Perhaps, in this age an individual received his name of mature
man.60 The idea of changing of the human nature together with achieving the mature
condition was realized by the Romans. 61 For instance, the praetexta symbolised the
preparation of boys between 8 and 16 for the entering to the male community (initiation). The
well-known story of a young Praetextatus, who accompanied his father to the meetings of the
Roman Senate, most likely was a remnant of the ancient custom (mos antea senatoribus
Romae fuit).62 The custom is comparable with the participation of boys in the Spartan φ ί α
together with their fathers.63

Sluçanski D. Le vocabulaire latin des gradus aetatum, in Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 19, 1974, 2, p. 103-
121; 3, p. 267-296; 4, p. 345-369; 5, p. 437-451; 6, p. 563-578 ; Giuliano L. Gioventu e instituzioni nella Roma
antica: Condizione giovanile e processi di socializzazione, Rome 1979; Neraudau J.P. La jeunesse dans la
littérature et les institutions de la Rome républicaine, Paris 1979; idem, Jeunesse et politique a Rome au Ve
siecle av. J.-C., in Melanges à P.Wuilleumier, Paris 1980, p. 251-260; Karras M., J.Wiesehöfer, Kindheit und
Jugend in der Antike. Eine Bibliographie, Bonn 1981; Gray-Fow M.J.G. The nomenclature and stages of Roman
childhood, Diss. Wisconsin-Madison 1985; Wiedemann T. Adults and Children in the Roman Empire, New
Haven, London 1989; French V. Children in Antiquity, in Children in Historical and Comparative Perspective:
An International Handbook and Research Guide ed. by J.M.Haws and N.R.Hiner, New York 1991, p. 13-29;
Kleijwegt M. Ancient youth, The ambiguity of youth and the absence of adolescence in Greco-Roman society,
Amsterdam 1991; Ginestet P. Les organisations de la jeunesse dans l'Occident Romain, Bruxelles 1991; Kastner
M.-O. L'enfant et les jeux dans les documents d'epoque romaine, in BAGB, 1995, p. 85-100; Rawson B.
Representations of Roman Children and Childhood, in Antichthon 31, 1997, p. 74-95.
57
See Gabelmann H. Römische Kinder in Toga Praetexta, in JDAI 100, 1985, S. 497-541.
58
Wesener G. Pubertas, in RE 14, 1974, Sp. 571-581.
59
Cf. Marquardt J. Das Privatleben der Römer, Bd. I, Leipzig 1886/1964, S. 132.
60
Varro ap. Auct. inc. de praenom. 3: pueris non prius quam togam virilem sumerent, puellis non ante quam
nuberent praenomina imponi moris fuisse. Q. Scaevolae auctor est. Cf. Franciosi G. Clan gentilizio e strutture
monogamiche, vol.1, Napoli 1978, p. 126.
61
See Sen. Ep.118,14: … quaedam crescendo mutariέ Infans fuit; factus est pubes; alia eius proprietas fit: ille
enim inrationalis est, hic rationalis. Quaedam incremento non tantum in maius exeunt, sed in aliud. Cf. Eyben
E. Roman notes, p. 226.
62
See Cato ap. Gell. I, 23, 4-13; Macrob. Sat. I, 6, 19-25.
63
On the communal meal or banquets as the earliest form of sodalitates, see Versnel H.S. Historical
implications, p. 110, 117-118.
11
 The adulthood of men began in 17, the age of social activity (legitima aetas) which
continued until 60, when men were absolved from public duties and military service. 64 After
60, the old age (senectus) began.65 But in archaic Rome, the calculation seems to be different.
Cicero includes in the mouth of Cato the Major the words that Roman ancestors counted the
beginning of old age from 46.66 The discrepancy between younger men (iuniores viri) and
older men (seniores viri)67 seems to be the result of the moving of the beginning of senectus
from 46 to 60.68 According to Q. Aelius Tubero, the Roman age gradations, like the children
(pueri) until 17, the iuniores between 17 and 46, and the seniores, were created by the king
Servius Tullius (Gell. X, 28, 1).69 The age stratification, ascribed to this king, based on the
five-year lustrum cycle (Gell. X, 28, 1; Varro ling. Lat. VI, 11). Varro depicted this in the
form of five age grades: pueri till 15, adulescentes till 30, iuvenes till 45, seniores till 60,
seneces after 60 years (Censor. de die nat. XIV, 2). While “adulthood” began at age 17 (when
a Roman male was eligible for the levy), the Servian military category of iuventus allows
supposing an earlier version of “youth” at Rome.70 Historical Romans had an approximate age
of transition from childhood to adulthood, which varied between 14 and 16 years.71 The 14-
year age evidently gained in importance under the influence of Greek culture. 72 The full 16
seem to be a rest of a more ancient age system, in which the original age status (age strata)
counted in eight years.
The orientation towards the eight-year cycle was widespread in the ancient

64
Varro ap. Non. Marc. XII, 523M: cum in quintum gradum pervenerant, atque habebant sexaginta annos, tum
denique erant a publicis negotiis liberi atque otiosi. Aug. Quest. Ev. I, 9 (PL 35, 1326): solet enim otium concedi
sexaginariis post militiam, vel post actiones publicas. On the social age, see Neraudau J.P. La jeunesse dans la
littérature, p. 114-121.
65
Aug. Div. Quest. 58, 2 (PL 40, 43): nam cum a sexagesimo anno senectus dicatur incipere. See Parkin T.G.
Old Age in the Roman World. A Cultural and Social History, Baltimore and London 2003, p. 312 n. 4, who
however thinks that ancient Greeks and Romans never had any exact definition of old age and the sixty-year
border was Varro’s philosophical speculation, which also was borrowed by later authors. See ibid., p. 1θ and βθ.
66
Cic. de senectute XVII, 60 : cuius inter primum et sextum consulatum sex et quadraginta anni interfuerunt.
Ita, quantum spatium aetatis maiores ad senectutis initium esse voluerunt, tantus illi cursus honorum fuit.
67
On iuniores and seniores, see Neraudau J.P. La jeunesse dans la littérature, p. 299-310.
68
A connection of military service with the category iuvenes was preserved. See Varro ap. Censor. de die nat.
XIV, 2: iuvenis appellatos, eo quod rem publicam in re militari possent iuvare; Polyb. VI, 19, 2: ῶ πῶ
ὺ ὲ ἱππ ῖ έ α, ὺ ὲ π ὺ αὶ ( έ α) ῖ α ία ῖ α ´ἀ ά ἐ ῖ α ά α;
Flor. I,1: Iuventus divisa per tribus in equis et armis, aut ad subita belli excubaret… consilium rei publicae
penes senes esset.
69
Cf. Neraudau J.P. La jeunesse dans la littérature, p. 116-117.
70
On iuuentus, see Ginestet P. Les organisations de la jeunesse, p. 47-73.
71
Censor. de die nat. VII, 4: post quartum decimum annum nonnullos, sed omnes intra septimum decimum
annum pubescere.
72
See Censor. de die nat. XIV, 8: de tertia autem aetate adulescentulorum tres gradus esse factos in Graecia
priusquam ad viros perveniatur, quod vocent annorum quattuordecim πα α, φ β autem quindecim, dein
sedecim ’ φ β , tum septemdecim ’ φ β .
12
Mediterranean and had solar and stellar observations in the background.73 Age cycles and the
duration of generations were determined by calendar cosmic cycles. Numeral constructions
fixed universal order in human life as well as in society and cosmos.74 Social structure had
been considered a reproduction of the cosmic structure, the world of people regarded as
calques of the pax deorum, and the early laws were leges sacratae ensured by the gods.75 The
eight-year cycle based on the compliance between the five periods of the Venus’ revolution
round the Sun (~584 x 5 = 2920 astronomical days) or 100 Lunar months (~29,2 x 100 = 2920
astronomical days) and eight Solar years (~365 x 8 = 2920 astronomical days).76
In Greek mythology, the number “eight” was devoted to Poseidon (Plut. Thes.
XXXVI, 4). His Roman counterpart, Neptune, belonged to the next generation deities, who
were considered “descendants of water” like the Indian χpam σapat or the Irish σechtan.77 In
Roman mythology, water was replaced with fire in the role of the transitive space to another
world, and the god of fire, Vulcan, replaced an original Water-god.78 Even in historical time,
Vulcan continued to be offered with fish. In the story told by a Greek Promathion, Vulcan
acted in the role of father of Romulus and Remus. 79 Another Greek, Diocles of Peparethos,
created the classical story of Romulus and Remus’ origin on the model of the liaison between
Poseidon and Tyro.80 Pliny (nat. hist. XVI, 236) ascribes to Romulus the founding of
Volcanal, while Plutarch (Rom. XXVII) reports of Romulus’ death in the temple of Vulcan. 81
The mythology shows that the founder Romulus was strongly tied with Vulcan.

73
See Boll F. Die Lebensalter. Ein Beitrag zur antiken Ethiologie und zur Geschichte der Zahlen, in Neue
Jahrbücher für das klass. Altertumsgeschichte und deutsche Literatur 31, 1913, S. 89-145. = Boll F. Kleine
Schriften zur Steinkunde des Altertums, Leipzig 1950, S. 156-224.
74
Cf. Macrob.S. Scip. I, 19, 23: (Ptolemaeus ait) vitam vero nostram praecipue sol et luna moderantur.
75
Cf. Boll F. Die Lebensalter, S. 107; Höhn 20; Eyben E. Die Entstehung des menschlichen Lebens, p.165.
76
Plin. hist. nat. II, 215: per octonos quosque annos ad principia motus et paria incrementa centesimo lunae
revocantur ambitu. O'Neil W.M. Time and the calendars, Manchester 1976, p.42, 121. Cf. Stevens W.M. Cycles
of Time: Calendrical and astronomical Reckoning in Early Science, in Time and Progress: The Study of Time
VII, ed. J.T. Frazer and L. Rowell, Madison 1993, p. 27-51: 31.
77
See Dumézil G. Mythe et épopées. III. Histoires romaines, Paris 1973, p. 19-89; Briquel D. Vieux de la mer
grecs et Descendant des eaux indo-européen, in D'Héraklès á Poséidon: Mythologie et Protohistoire, par R.
Bloch, Genève-Paris, 1985, p. 141-158; idem. Tarquins de Rome et idéologie indo-européenne (I) Tarquin
l'Ancien et le dieu Vulcain, in RHR 215, 1998, p. 372-376.
78
See Littleton C.S. Poseidon as a Reflex of the Indo-European “Source of Water’s God”, in JIES 1, 1973, p.
423-478.
79
Promathion FGrHist 817 F1 = Plut. Rom. II, 4; cf. Plutarco. Le vite di Teseo e Romulo, a cura di C. Ampolo e
M. Manfredini, Milano 1988, p.272-276; Wiseman T.P. Remus: a Roman Myth, London 1995, p. 57-61;
Capdeville G. Volcanus. Recherches comparatistes sur les origines du culte de Vulcain, École française de
Rome, 1995, p. 62-67; Meurant A. L'idée de gémellité dans la légende des origines de Rome, Bruxelles, 2000, p.
81-82; 161-167. For previous literature, see Poucet J. Les origines de Rome, p. 58 n. 75.
80
See Trieber C. Die Romulussage, in RM 43, 1888, p. 569-582; Forsythe G. The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso
Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition, Lanham 1994, p. 125.
81
On the identification of the Volcanal with the Niger Lapis, see Coarelli F. Il Comizio dalle origini alla fine
della Repubblica (Cronologia e Topografia), in Lazio arcaico e mondo greco (= La Parola del Passato) 32,
1977, p. 215-229; idem, Il Foro Romano. I. Periodo arcaico, Rome 1983, p. 161-164 and 167 n. 5; 189
(Romulus and Vulcan); Capdeville G. Volcanus, p. 86 and 87-94, 416 (the connection of Romulus with Vulcan).
13
 The Roman historical tradition placed the establishment of the censure in 443 BC. But
the first census was ascribed to Servius Tullius, the mythological son of Vulcan too. The
office of censors was created after the calendar reform of the second Decemvirs. The new
calendar based on the intercalations and the four-year cycle, so that a new one started every
fifth year. The five-year censorial cycle was also multiple with fifteen-year cycle, which,
according to John Lydus (de mens. III, 15), was devoted to Mars. The synodic period of the
Mars is 780 astronomical days, so that 780 х 8 = 5460 days = 364 х 15. As warrior-god, Mars
gave his name to the Field of Mars, where the Roman centuriate assembly voted and passed
the lustrum every fifth year, according to the order established by Servius Tullius.
The analysis of the duration of lustral cycles in the early Republic shows that the five-
year period became strong keeping only by the end of the third century BC. In earlier time,
the periods between censuses usually were longer, in average about eight years.82 The eight-
year cycle ceased to play the main role in the structure of age groups and was replaced by the
five-year cycle after the mythological version of Romulus’ origin from εars had penetrated
into the public conscience since 300 BC.83 χccordingly, Varro’s account of age grades was
preceded a more ancient conception with the eight-year period in the background: the pueri to
17, the adulescentes to 24,84 the iuniores viri to 45 (24-31, 31-38, 38-45), the seniores viri
between 46 and 60.85
The three age grades inside the category of iuvenes viri resemble the story of the
fighting between two triplets, the Horatii and the Curiatii. The word iuvenes has been

82
On the irregularity of the lustra, see Mommsen Th. Die römische Chronologie bis auf Caesar, Berlin 1859, S.
162-171; Astin A.E. The Censorship of the Roman Republic: frequency anf Regularity, in Historia 31, 1982, p.
174-187; Liou-Gille B. Le “lustrum”μ périodicité et durée, in Latomus 60, 2001, p. 573-602. A.E. Astin states
that, before the year 318, the average census interval was approximately nine years (actually 8.93 years for 443-
318), not five. Only from the year 253 there were signs of a greater regularity, with a marked preference for five
years, and in 209-202 the interval became firmly established as five years. The irregularity, multiplied by the
ambiguity of the tradition, makes it difficult to assess the accuracy of the traditional data. In 443-403 and 363-
318, the average interval was eight years.
83
The Roman Republic, like the Etruscans, used a "market week" of eight days, the "nundinal cycle" which
formed a basic rhythm of day-to-day Roman life. The nundinae, the market days which fell on the eighth day, so
called because in the Roman system of inclusive counting they came every nine days. The nundinae are related
to the nonae, which thought to have originally been the day of the half moon in the original lunar calendar. From
the nones to the ides there was exactly one market week. According to Granius Licinianus, nundinas Iovis ferias
esse (Macrob. Sat. I, 16, 30); the establishment of them were ascribed to Romulus (Sempronius Tuditanus) or
Servius Tullius (Cassius Gemina) (Sat. I, 16, 32-33; Dionys. II, 28), i.e. perhaps in the association with the
introduction of the cult of Jupiter Capitolinus; and they were reformed by the Lex Hortensia in 287 BC.
84
On iuvenis and adulescens, see Neraudau J.P. La jeunesse dans la littérature, p. 126-134.
85
The head of curia (curio) and curial priests had been chosen among the most authoritative and expired men not
younger than 50 years old (Dionys. II, 21, 2–3). This could be considered a reminiscence of ancient age status.
On familiarity between seneces and seniores, see Isid. Hisp. Diff. I, 531 (PL 83,63): inter senium et senectutem.
Senectus est gravior aetas post iuventutem succedens, senium autem ultima aetas post gravitatem veniens. Sic
senex et senior. Nam senior adhuc viridior. Isid.Hisp. Orig. XI, 2, 25-26: senior est adhuc viridior… ut senior
minus sene… sicut iunior inter iuvenem; Aug. Quaest.Hept. I, 35 (PL 34, 557): seniorum aetas minor est quam
senum quamvis et senes appellentur seniores.
14
etymologically derived from Iuno.86 In turn, the goddess Iuno had the epithets Curitis and
Hora, which one can see in the background of the “gentilities” Curiatii and Horatii. Thus, the
Horatii and the Curiatii look like representatives of the main adult age classes of both the
nations, the Romans and the Albans. A lance (curis) was an ancient attribute of the goddess
Iuno, which promotes one of the etymologies for the word quirites (Curitis uires).87
The principle of blood kinship hardly could be dominating in the social arrangement
until the late seventh century BC, because we have no evidence for gentilities and double-
name system in more archaic period. One can suppose that the early society was structured
with age grades and age sets (sodalitas).88 Citizen, from he had achieved adulthood and until
he left the socially active age, was obliged with duties and fidelity towards his coevals and
especially to those of them, who belonged to the same age unit (sodales).89 Etymologically
the term suodales associates with the notion sobrini, which in historical time was applied to
cousins.90 The both terms most likely had common origin from the Indo-European root swe-
(in the syntagmic form swe-dh-) with the meaning of kinship or social relationship.91 The
belonging to a certain social group of “the own people” (swe-dh-class) have lost in time its
original multivalence; sobrinus (from swe-dh-rinus) became the term for kinship, and sodalis
(от swe-dh-alis) was used to define comradeship.
The members of swe-dh-groups, who together had entered the social active life in their
17, together passed all stages of life and together left the active life in 46/60 years old. They
were viri, organized as an age-set union or a Männerbund, preceded to the curia. A.
εomigliano wrote “we hear nothing of the curiae as military units”, 92 but, according to Chr.
Smith, it is difficult to deny that the curiae at some time had played a role in the recruitment
of the army. 93 The curiae were not unions of the gentes, as B.G. Niebuhr thought.94 He based
on the quotation from Laelius Felix that the centuriate assembly voted according to age and
status, the tribal assembly on the basis of regional groups, and the curiate assembly voted by
86
See Neraudau J.P. La jeunesse dans la littérature, p. 98-100, 185-193.
87
In Dumézil’s interpretation *couirīa- from *Couirī-no-, Quirinus, as the patron of Quirites (*couirites). See
Dumézil G. Mythe et épopée. III, p. 206.
88
Cf. Bernardi B. Age class systems, p. 26, argues that age-set systems provide an alternative answer to the
problem of maintaining social order in a non-centralized polity.
89
Versnel H.S. Historical implications, p. 120-126 and Bremmer J.N. The Suodales of Poplios Valesios, p. 134-
135 compare sodales, among others, with Homeric ἑ αῖ as comradeship (“Genossenschaft”) in time of peace
and “Gefolgschaft” of an aristocrat or prince in wartime.
90
Bettini M. Familie [n. 23], S. 189-190.
91
See Benveniste E. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-europeennes, vol. I, Paris 1969, p. 331-332 and a wide
linguistic analysis in Petit D. *Sue- en grec ancien : la famille du pronom réfléchi: linguistique grecque et
comparaison indo-européenne, Leuven 1999, p. 92-159. Cf. Dumézil G. The Destiny of the Warrior, Chicago
1969, p. 61-64; De Simone C. δ’aspetto liguistico, p. 84.
92
Momigliano A. An Interim Report on the Origins of Rome, in JRS 53, 1963, p. 95-121: 112.
93
Smith Chr.J. The Roman Clan, p. 209
94
See Niebuhr B.G. Römische Geschichte, Berlin 1847, Bd. I, S. 306-337; Mommsen Th. Römisches
Staatsrecht, Leipzig 1887, Bd. III, S. 89-94. Cf. Smith Chr.J. The Roman Clan, p. 184.
15
genera hominum.95 The genera hominum (“kinds of men”) were people of diverse
generations, rather than the patrician gentes.96 According to Paul Kretschmer, curia is a
derivation from co–viria – union of men (viri).97 There is no evidence that the curia had the
subdivisions as families or clans, but every curia always acts as a union of men in whole. Men
took part in the curiate assemblies (comitia curiata), 98 and they (not families) received a plot
of land from the Roman community (viritim).99 The word curia is translated in Greek sources
(e.g. Dionys. II, 7, 3) as φ α ίᾳ, i.e. brotherhood, in the sense of a social group. Actually, the
relations in a curia seem to continue on another level the relationships among the youth. The
Romans had thirty curiae, and their number coincided with the number of tribes after The
Latin League was replaced by the Roman community.
R.E. Mitchell argues that the curiae did not to exist in the pre-Etruscan Rome, but
were an artificial construct by the state. Varro derives the etymology of curia from cura
(Varro ling. Lat. VI, 46; Non. Marc. I, 57M). The comitia curiata preceded the tribal, not
centuriate assembly. 100 The urbanization organized early Männerbundes to the curiae, which
represented the Roman tribes in the sacred space inside the pomerium (Urbs). Their number
had been increased with the addition of new Roman tribes and achieved 30 by the end of the
fourth century BC. At the same time, the socially active age was enlarged to 60, when the
aged citizens were obliged to guard the City walls in addition to the field Servian legion
(classis). The original curiate assembly in the Comitium unified all male citizens, while the
centuriate assembly in the Field of Mars gathered firstly the only youth, then the iuniores
men, and later they were added with the aged men. The importance of the centuriate assembly

95
Gell. XV, 27, 5: Cum ex generibus hominum suffragium feratur, "curiata" comitia esse; cum ex censu et
aetate, "centuriata"; cum ex regionibus et locis, "tributa"; centuriata autem comitia intra pomerium fieri nefas
esse, quia exercitum extra urbem imperari oporteat, intra urbem imperari ius non sit. Propterea centuriata in
campo Martio haberi exercitumque.
96
Smith Chr.J. The Roman Clan, p. 202, believes that genera hominum in Laelius Felix´s definition are kinship
groups. Cornell T.J. The Beginnings of Rome : Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-
264 BC), London-New York 1995, p. 11θ, sees in the “kinds of men” “groups whose membership was
determined by birth”.
97
Kretschmer P. Lateinische quirites und quiritare, in Glotta 10, 1920, S. 145–157; against see Walde A.,
Hofmann J.B. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 Aufl., Heidelberg 1954, s.v. Quirites; Ernout A.,
Meillet A. ϊictionnaire ́tymologique de la langue latineμ histoire des mots, Paris 1959, s.v. quiris; Deroy L. Le
combat légendaire des Horaces et des Curiaces, in LEC 41, 1973, p. 201-204; Poucet J. Les origines de Rome, p.
308-309. For more literature, see Smith Chr.J. The Roman Clan, p. 184-234.
98
In Lelius Felix ap Gell. XV, 27 (Cum ex generibus hominum suffragium feratur, "curiata" comitia esse),
scholars usually derive genera hominum from gentes, following the similarity between genus and gens. See
Palmer R. E. A. The Archaic Community of the Romans, Cambridge 1970, p. 72–74; Richard J.-Cl. Les origines
de la plèbe romaine. Essai sur la formation du dualisme patricio-plébéien, École française de Rome 1978, p.
197–199.
99
Paul. Fest. 519 L: Viritim dicitur dari, quod datur per singulos viros. Cato (inc. θ)μ “Praeda quae capta est,
viritim divisa”. On the assignation viritim also see Varro re rust. I, 10, 2; Plin. nat. hist. XVIII, 7; Cic. rep. II, 16,
26; Plut. Numa XVI, 3.
100
Mitchell R.E. Patricians and Plebeans. The Origin of the Roman State. Ithaca 1990, p. 35-41, 49-53, 145-
147, 235-236. Cf. De Francisci P. Primordia civitatis, Roma 1959, p. 577-591.
16
has been increased with the gradual inclusion of older men into the legion. 101
The original connection between curiae and centuriae is reflected in the formulae
populus Romanus Quirites. There are various indications that populus has a military
connotation; the verb populari means to sack or destroy; the ancient term for a leader of the
army was magister populi; and in the carmen saliare, we find the phrase pilumnoe poploe
(pilum-bearing people, the pilum being an early javelin).102 In own turn, the Quirites,
according to modern scholarship, has connection with the curiae. Although opinion varies, it
would appear that the Quirites came to represent the civic community, as opposed to populus
Romanus which reflected the Roman army. According to Suetonius (Iul. 70), in order to deny
his troops their military qualities, Caesar addressed them as Quirites. In his time, Quirites
became an increasingly civilian term, just as, over time, populus lost some of its original
military overtones. In ancient time, thus, quirites, from viri, were members of curiae, and the
term populus has been used for the young warriors, a part of viri. Since the Servian reform,
the quirites and the populus seems to become synonymous. Smith concludes that the Quirites,
as members of the curiae, had a military function, but that the centuriate organization
superceded it, and the concept of the Quirites became a political and communal one.103 The
absence of the curiae from the most of the narrative of Republican history indicates that they
were replaced with the centuriae when all age sets were included into the classis, rather than
that the curiae had ceased to be of any significance in the early Republic. When the power of
military leaders and the volume of captured spoils increased, many matured men were
interested to take part in military campaigns. With their participation, the meeting of warriors
transformed into the centuriate assemblies.
Early age system based on four eight-year statuses of the social active generation: 16-
24, 24-31, 31-38, 38-45 years. Every new group of coevals received an especial name. An
individual received the name in his 17 and lost it in his 45, at the moment he became old man.
Such names for the male groups were needed four, after that the assortment of the names
repeated in the same order. Thus, four age groups of each curia, “marked” with certain names,
formed a 30-year generation as a social unit. Outside the 45-year age, the age groups
disintegrated, but at the same time they left their name to a new group including the latter in
the system. Achieving the age of 38, the group had the right to prepare during the next eight

101
Smith Chr.J. The Roman Clan, p. 201 concludes that the Quirites, as members of the curiae, had a military
function, but that the centuriate organization superceded it, and the concept of the Quirites became a political and
communal one. The absence of the curiae from the most of the narrative of Republican history indicates rather
that they were replaced with the centuriae when all age sets were included into the classis, than that the curiae
had ceased to be of any significance in the early Republic.
102
Cornell T.J. The Beginnings of Rome, p. 448 n. 60; Smith Chr.J. The Roman Clan, p. .
103
Smith Chr.J. The Roman Clan, p. 201
17
years a new group of children to initiate them into the social system. They “received” the
children for education in the eight-year age and initiated them into the system in 17.
The men, who left their name in their 45, acted the role of social fathers (patres), and
the youth was given their name were considered their social “sons”. χ part of own
(biological) children of the patres also were among their social sons. For such the children,
their father acted the double role of genitor and pater. In the status age of 38-45, the patres
also patronized over the youth of 16-24. In the Roman private law, a real full-right status
began in the age of 25 years, while before that the youth had been considered personae
minores. At that rate, the patres of 38-45 had control over the children who had been born by
them during their being in the statuses of 24-31 and 31-38.
In historical time, the real marriage age of Roman girls was around 15 and men
around 24.104 It could be inherited from archaic epoch, when the youth was given the right to
marry only in 24. Marriage was connected with the transition to the status of the full-right
householders and imposed new duties upon the men. Unmarried youth in the status of 16-24
performed military functions and defended the community against the enemies. Such the
youth army was under the control of the oldest age group of patres. Women, who did not
concern to military service, get married in the 16-year age, i.e. one status younger than their
husbands. Individual family was included into the age system and subjugated to the latter; the
lack of the developing private property did not demand to reckon the biological kinship.
The increase of population and development of property changed the social accent
from age groups to patrilineal kinship in the eighth and seventh centuries BC. According to
the data of archaeology (widespread of rich funerals) and onomastic (appearance of binomial
system), individual kinship came to the forefront in the late seventh century BC. The lineal
kinship demanded the fathers to have preserved their dominating position in the society after
they achieved their 45. Young men received the right to get married and give birth to their
legal children in the 16-year age, when they were initiated in the status of adult men. Now the
16-year “sons” had been initiated in the system 30 years after their 46-year patres. 105 But
practically the sphere of age set institutions was essentially narrowed and preserved only in
military organisation and political rituals. Social relationships developed on the basis of
individual agnatic kinship. For the patres their own biological children became especially
valuable.

104
Thomas Y. Rom: Väter als Bürger in einer Stadt der Väter (2.Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr.),
in Geschichte der Familiae: Altertum, hrsg. A. Burguière, etc. Frankfurt a. Main, 1996, p. 318.
105
The thirty-year period was regarded by the Greeks and Romans as a generation, an aetas, during which the
nature ab sementi humana ad sementium revertitur (Censor. de die nat. XVII, 2). Cf. Serv. Georg. III, 190: nam
aetatem plerumque generaliter dicimus pro anno et pro triginta et pro centum et pro quovis tempore. Eyben E.
Roman notes, p. 230-231 n. 68.
18
 3. From the age sets to agnatic kinship: clients.

The social system based on age classes fall into decay, when the development of
private property stimulates the fathers’ interest to their biological descendants.106 Some
remnants of the ancient age system had been preserved during the transitive period from
archaic society to the civil community, i.e. from the seventh to the fourth centuries BC. The
laws of XII Tables consolidated the new system of kinship, in which there were represented
blood relatives throughout the father – sui heredes107 and adgnati proximi, as well as social
relatives throughout their common pater – gentiles108 and clientes. Scholars suppose that the
XII Tables fixed the notion of clientele on a certain stage of its long development, because
Dionysius (II, 10, 3) includes the rights and duties of patrons and clients among Romulus’
laws.109 Actually, the law of the XII Tables is restored on the basis of the comment by
Servius, a later grammarian, who quoted the law to found similarity between patrons and
fathers and between clients and children. 110 In the above-quoted text of the XII Tables, «If a
patron shall have wronged a client, he is to be accursed», nothing is speaking of the client’s
responsibility towards his patron: perhaps Servius argued in that sense that the client towards
his patron was in the same condition as a subjected son towards his pater familias. Gaius’
comment to the law of the XII Tables allows us to suppose that the exclusion of the patron-
client relationship from the court’s examination could follow from their association with
sodalitas (Dig. XLVII, 22, 4).
In historical time, the clientele accepted a lot of later developments and extraneous
features – relationships with freedmen, foreigners, plebeians, who entered under the patronage
of noble men. All these relations were individual and based on fidelity (fides). A. Drummond
stresses that clients had no allegiance to a gens, but only to an individual, and that we have no

106
Cf. Colonna G. Nome gentilizio e sociata, Studi Etruschi 45, 1977, p. 175-192: 185-186.
107
Sui heredes are familiares or free members of the familia under the potestas of the pater. At the same time,
we point the term sui which is derived from the ancient Indo-European *sui- connecting, in turn, with the group
*swe- (*sue-).
108
Cic. Top. VI, 29: gentiles sunt inter se qui eodem nomine sunt; Fest. 83 L.: gentiles mihi sunt, qui meo nomine
appellabantur.
109
More detailed, see Serrao F. Patrono e cliente da Romolo alle XII tavole, in Studi in onore di A. Biscardi 6,
Milano 1987, p. 293-309.
110
Serv. Aen. VI, 609: avt fraus innexa clienti ex lege XII tabularum venit, in quibus scriptum est ``patronus si
clienti fraudem fecerit, sacer esto'': si enim clientes quasi colentes sunt, patroni quasi patres, tantundem est
clientem, quantum filium fallere. Dionysius (II, 10, γ) explains what the phrase “sacer esto” meansμ ἰ έ
ἐ ί ύ απ α ό ἦ ῷ ό ῳ π ία , ἐ ύ ὁῬ ύ , ὸ ὲ
ἁ ό α ῷ υ έ ῳ ί ὅ ἦ ὡ ῦ α ῦ α α ί υ ό . (and whoever was convicted of doing
any of these things was guilty of treason by virtue of the law sanctioned by Romulus, and might lawfully be put
to death by any man who so wished as a victim devoted to the Jupiter of the infernal regions).
19
evidence of their involvement with gentilicial sacra and no mention in any source of the role
of the clients in inheritance. 111 Was it an initial feature of the clientele or a product of
historical development? Actually, the archaic clientele is represented by sources as a special
status condition, which distinguished the clients from persons of other statuses – the patricians
and the plebeians.
Later the Romans, trying to define the patronage (clientele), considered the institution
like quasi-kinship.112 From the point of view of civil society, which social unit was familia,
patronage was an aggregate of supremacy and functions which imitated the authority of father
(patria potestas). Patron looks like quasi-father, and client – quasi-son. This stable linguistic
and cognitive formula-cliché “client – quasi-son” inevitably comes in life in the contexts,
devoted to interpretation of client’s status or any other intellectual operations with this
term.113 For instance, such an interpretation is preserved by Dionysius of Halicarnassus:
“Accordingly, the connexions between the clients and patrons continued for many
generations, differing in no wise from the ties of blood-relationship and being handed down to
their children’s children. χnd it was a matter of great praise to men of illustrious families to
have as many clients as possible and not only to preserve the succession of hereditary
patronages but also by their own merit to acquire others”.114 The cliché perhaps based on any
real background rather, than merely was a literary metaphor. Similar to the persons subjected
to pater familias, i.e. slaves, children and wife (personae iuris alieni), clients could not testify
in court against their patron. χccording to Dionysius, “for both patrons and clients alike it
was impious and unlawful to accuse each other in law-suits or to bear witness or to give their
votes against each other or to be found in the number of each other's enemies”. 115 In the time
of Plutarch “for a patron to witness against his client, or a client against his patron, was what
no law nor magistrate could enforce”. 116 Aulus Gellius, representing degrees of affinity by

111
Drummond A. Early Roman clientes, in Patronage in Ancient Society, ed. by A. Wallace-Hadrill, London,
New York 1989, p. 89-115: 98.
112
Fest. 289 L.: patres senatores ideo appellati sunt, quia agrorum partes adtribuerant tenuioribus as si liberis
propriis ; Fest. 288 L: ξPatres appe>llantur, ex quibus senatus… <urbis> conditae Romulus C. <viros elegit
praestantissimo>s, quorum consilio atque … ξad>ministrareturν atque… quia agrorum partes adξtribuerant
tenuioribus>, perinde ac liberis.
113
See Serv. Aen. II, 609; Dionys. II, 10; Gell. V, 13; Dig. XXXVII, 12.
114
Dionys. II, 10, 4: Τ ά έ α ἐ π αῖ αῖ ὐ ὲ αφέ υ α υ ῶ ἀ α α ή αἱ
ῶ π α ῶ αὶ π α ῶ υ υ ία πα ὶ παί υ ά α , αὶ έ α πα ἦ ῖ ἐ ῶ
ἐπ φα ῶ ἴ ὡ π ί υ π ά α ά π ὰ φυ ά υ α ὰ ῶ πα ῶ αὶ ὰ
ἑαυ ῶ ἀ ἄ α ἐπ έ .
115
Dionys. II, 10, 3: Κ ´ἀ φ έ ὔ ὅ ὔ έ ἦ α ῖ ἀ ή ἐπὶ ί α ἢ
α α α υ ῖ ἢ φ ἐ α ία ἐπ φέ ἢ ὰ ῶ ἐ ῶ ἐ ά α.
116
Plut. Rom. XIII, 8: ὐ ό ῶ , ἀ ὰ αὶ π έ υ αέ α υ ό αὶ έα
υ ί , αα α υ ῖ π ά υπ ά ἢπ ά υπ ά ὔ ό ὐ ὶ ὔ ´ἄ
ἠ ά α .
20
Romans, on the first place after parents puts children, on the second - clients, on the third -
guests, on the fourth - relatives by birth and marriage.117 He quotes Cato the Major, whom he
ascribes the noticeable phrase about the possibility, according to mos maiorum, to testify
against the relatives in favour of the client, but testify against the client is not allowed.118 In
other words, in earlier times, client was regarded in a certain relation as closer connected with
pater familias than relatives outside of the circle of sui heredes. Stereotypical likening of
clients to children ( > cluentes liberi) could be the background for the play upon words by
Plautus (Men. 574: res magis quaeritur quam clientum fides, quoiusmodi cluerat; Trin. 471:
cluentibus) and for the folk etymology (clientes - cluentes), which is often considered
authentic by scholars. 119
Meanwhile, A. Ernout pointed out that the class of Latin substantives on -onus/-unus
to which patronus also belongs was formed not without an Etruscan influence. 120 At the same
time, G. Maresh compared the Latin cliens with the Etruscan clan (Gen. clenśi-) in the
meaning of “son”.121 The form clanti in some Etruscan inscriptions is interpreted as “adoptive
son”. H. Rix notes that clanti in the inscriptions had been used as personal name, cognomen
and gentilities.122 In the meaning of “adoptive son” clante or clanti began to be used in the
formative system of gentilician names ca. 700 BC. At the same time, a locative end – iήti,
which gives the form clan/clen- iήti, could transfer into the Latin *klienti (client- ) as a
definition for quasi-son’s status.
Considering clenti in the context of Etruscan family relations, scholars bring the term
together with the notion lautni – members of domestic community (Lat. familiares) from
lautn- family. 123 The term etera, which is used by inscriptions together with lautni, perhaps

117
Gell. V, 13, 2: ex moribus populi Romani primum iuxta parentes locum tenere pupillos debere fidei
tutelaeque nostrae creditos; secundum eos proximum locum clientes habere, qui sese itidem in fidem
patrociniumque nostrum dedideruntν tum in tertio loco esse hospitesν postea esse cognatos adfinesqueέ …in
accordance with the usage of the Roman people the place next after parents should be held by wards entrusted to
our honour and protection; that second to them came clients, who also had committed themselves to our honour
and guardianship; that then in the third place were guests; and finally relations by blood and by marriage.
118
Gell. V, 13, 4: M. Cato in oratione, quam dixit apud censores in Lentulum, ita scripsit: "Quod maiores
sanctius habuere defendi pupillos quam clientem non fallere. Adversus cognatos pro cliente testatur,
testimonium adversus clientem nemo dicitέ Patrem primum, postea patronum proximum nomen habuere”.
119
See Meyer L. Cliens, in Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 5, 1880, S. 176-177. On
cluentes as Worterspiel, “folk etymology”, see Ernout χ. Les elements étrusques du vocabulaire Latin, in Ernout
A. Philologica, vol. I, Paris 1946, p. 21-51: 40.
120
Ernout A. Les elements étrusques du vocabulaire Latin, p. 40.
121
See Maresh G. Herakles, in Mitteilungen des vereines klassischer Philologen in Wien 7, 1930, S. 30-32; Rix
H. Das etruskische Cognomen: Untersuchungen zu System, Morphologie und Verwendung der Personennamen
auf den jungeren Inschriften Nordetruriens, Wiesbaden 1963, S. 97, 104, 277-278.
122
Rix H. Das etruskische Cognomen, S.142, 265-267; idem, Zur Morphostrukture des etruskische s-Genitivus,
in Studi Etruschi 55, 1989, S. 169-193: 187-191.
123
See Mastrocinque A. Servitus publica a Roma e nella sociatà etrusca, in Studi Etruschi 62, 1998, p. 249-270:
255-256. In older literature, lauthni and etera were associated with the Roman liberti and servi. See quotations in
p. 255 n. 33. According to modern interpretations, the term etera could define both a social category of lesser
21
was familiar to the Greek ἑ αῖ 124
and comparable with the Latin sodales. 125 Several
inscriptions mention magistri of etera.126 Other materials of Etruscan epigraphy show that
there was a lot of etera, whose social condition served a channel to exploit them by noble
persons. The same perhaps happened with the Roman clients, but their personal status
continued to be free until the epoch of Justinian. 127
In many cases, ἑ αῖ in a narrower sense were the personal following of a leader in

the group, within which the leader himself was a ἑ αῖ . H. Versnel sees in the antique

descriptions of noble banquets a symbol of friendship between ἑ αῖ .128 Like the ambacti

and comites, these ἑ αῖ not only followed their leader in war, but their nucleus consisted
of a group of banqueting companions in peacetime. In early Rome their analogy could be seen
in curial units, which supposedly formed the curia as “χlterklassenverband”. The Roman
archaic social system differed from the Greek one despite they had a common source. Versnel
notes that Patrocles is the ἑ αῖ and ά ω of Achilles, while Achilles is certainly the

ἑ αῖ , but not the ά ω of Patroclos. In other words, Achilles is a leader, and

Patrocles – his close friend of his retinue. A similar situation is with the Roman sodales and
clientes of a gentile leader like Attius Clausus or Marcus Fabius. The similarity consists in
that the leader is the first among his comrades, ἑ αῖ and sodales, he is himself their

ἑ αῖ or sodalis, although at the same time he is higher of them in status, they are his

ά or clientes.129 The brotherhood of the ἑ αῖ had the same “figurative”

meaning which we encounter in the Latin term fratres applying to many Roman colleges
whose members called each other “brother”. However, in Rome (and Italyς) there was a
tendency to convert the young noble leader (Romulus, the Tarquin sons, Caeso Quinctius) to a
pater, and his retinue – to his gens (Clausius, Fabius). Atta Clausus, before to become the
Roman pater Appius Claudius, had been Sabinorum dux (Serv. Aen. VII, 706). Difference of

rang than full-right citizens, and an age class or kinship (youth, younger sons, etc.). Facchetti G.M. L'appellativo
etrusco 'etera', in Studi Etruschi 65-68, 2002, p. 225-235, associates etera with Roman clients.
124
The Greek ἑ αῖ is from *set- close to *(s)uet-, which is of the same root as *su-, *sue-. See Petit D. *Sue-
en grec ancien, p. 154.
125
See Dig. XLVII, 22, 4; Ginestet P. Les organisations de la jeunesse, p. 42-43; Mastrocinque A. Servitus
publica, p. 257-258.
126
TLE 145: cam i eterau; TLE 169: zila eterau; TLE 122: zileteraias. We know nothing of cam i, while zila
was an analogy to the Roman praetor. See Pallottino M. Nuovi spunti di richerca sul tema delle magistrature
etrusche, in Studi Etruschi 14, 1955-56, p. 45-72 = Pallottino M. Saggi di antichità. II. Documenti per la storia
della civiltà etrusca, Roma 1979, p.754-778.
127
См. Dig. XLIX, 15, 7, 1: clientes nostros intellegimus liberos esse. Cf. Magdelein A. Remarques sur la
societe Romaine archaique, in Jus Imperium Auctoritas. Etudes de droit romain, Rome 1990, p. 432-433.
128
Versnel H.S. Historical implications, p. 117.
129
ε.I. Finley, δ’invention de la politique, Paris 1λκη, p, 1β, defines the relations patronus-client as “une
relation réciproque entre inégaux”.
22
Rome from Greece consists in the absence in the Homeric variant of the element of quasi-
kinship between the leader and his retinue. In Rome, the leader had the title of pater/patronus,
and his retinue was regarded as his quasi-brothers (sodales) and quasi-sons (clientes). It
means that the institutions, ἑ α ία and sodalitas, similar in their origin, have been formed
on the different stages of social development and therefore had different results.
H. Rix considers the status of the Etruscan clanti on the analogy with the status of the
person, who was adopted as son, in son’s place (Plin. Ep. IV, 15, 9: in filii locum assumere).
Perhaps in this sense the clanti brought together with the wider category of etera. Similarly
one can suppose that the Roman clients were the category of people who were accepted under
the power of pater familias on the place of son, “adopted”. A problem, however, is that the
adoption established real kinship, while the clientele was regarded as quasi-kinship.130 In later
legal texts, Roman lawyers discussed impossibility of legal action in the case the client to rod
his patron, rather than legal similarity between client and son in family. 131
However, another version is possible. G. Colonna has suggested that clanti could
mean not adopted, but quite the contrary, son by birth.132 In this interpretation, the notion clan
means son by birth (by blood) and legitimate son (by law) in the same person, i.e. son in the
full sense of the word; while clanti – it is son by birth only. Such interpretation is close to our
reconstruction of Roman social-kindred statuses on the transitional stage from age classes to
the prevalence of blood kinship in Etruscan Rome.
From this point of view, the original background of the ancient clientele could be the
brotherhood of coevals in age sets; but the brotherhood, which was carried to the epoch of
rapid development of individual kinship. In pre-urban period, all members of age groups had
real fathers (genitores) and could call their social “fathers” (patres). But when the system of
age sets began to transform into a new system with advancing to the forefront of lineal
kinship, the situation changed. According to the version which seemed to Dionysius (II, 8, 3)
doubtful, “they were called patricians for the reason because these men only could point out
their fathers, as if all the rest were fugitives and unable to name free men as their fathers”.133

130
Aulus Gellius (V, 19) tells us that when outsiders are taken into another's family and given the relationship of
children, the process is called adoptatio or arrogatio. The adoptatio was done through a praetor and used when
those who are adopted was in the power of his father (in patria potestate). It seems to be a later, republican
institution. More archaic was adrogatio, when persons who were their own masters (sui iuris) delivered
themselves into the control of another. The arrogations were made through the people in the comitia curiata. In
historical time, the adrogatus, as well as the adoptatus, became son of his new father.
131
Dig. XLVII, 2, 90 (89): Si libertus patrono vel cliens, vel mercennarius ei qui eum conduxit, furtum fecerit,
furti actio non nascitur. Cf. Premerstein A. Cliens, in RE IV, 1901, Sp. 43.
132
Colonna G. Note di lessico etrusco (farthan, huze, hinthial), in Studi Etruschi 48, 1980, p.161-179: 166.
133
Dionys. II, 8, 3 ἱ ὲ π ὸ ὸ ἴ φ ό ἀ αφέ ὸ π ᾶ α αὶ α ά ἰ υ έ α ὴ
πό ὐ ὰ αῦ α πα ί υ ἐ ί υ αί φα , ἀ ´ ὅ πα έ α ἀπ ῖ α ό , ὡ ῶ
ἄ απ ῶ αὶ ὐ ἐ ό ὀ ά α πα έ α ἐ υ έ υ .
23
It seems possible that here we have a later rational explanation of a certain ancient formula,
which identified the patricians with ὅ α έ α ἀ ῖ α . Patres could be not
only biological parents; they could be the senators (patres conscripti), whose origin traced to
the foundation of the City. According to Livy, Romulus had separated the “fathers” (patres)
from the other people, and their descendants had received the name of patricians.134 In other
words, patricians had been considered those who could prove own kinship with the ancient
patres.135 Those, who could not do that, were given under the patronage of their patres as
their clients. The custom, which Dionysius (II, 8, 4) mentions, the heralds to call the
patricians to the assemblies both by their own names and by the names of their fathers,
whereas the plebeians were summoned en masse by the sound of ox horns, shows that
patrician nomen had been preserved by every generation as a great value.
According to the traditional version, Romulus distributed the plebeians among the
patres in the likeness of children under the title of clients (habuit plebem in clientelas
principum discriptam).136 The reform, which diminished social amount of age groups and
raised the value of blood kinship, belonged likely to the beginning of urbanisation in the
seventh century BC. The former ceaseless process of reproducing of age groups was stopped,
and those who were patres at the moment of the reform received the possibility to enforce
their status for own descendants. The group of the patres was allowed to hand down their
nomen to their descendants, patricii. All other members of the community were “assigned” as
their clients. They were those who were not in blood kin with their social pater, who now
became their patron. Patrons and clients in the new relationship were those, who were social
fathers (patres) and social children in the age-set system. 137
Certainly, a struggle began for the right to be among the patricians. It seems
noticeable, in this relation, the event of 265 BC in the Etruscan city Volsinii, where, according
to the later authors, slaves excited rebellion and exchanged the roles with their masters.
Those, whom later authors regarded as slaves because of their subjected condition, in archaic

134
Liv. I, 8, 6-7; Dionys. II, 8, 1; 9, 1-2; Cic. de re publ. II, 12; Fest. 288 L ; Paul. Fest. p. 289 L.; Plut. Rom.
XIII, 5-8.
135
The patricians distinguished themselves from other population with the help of “cleaning” of their genealogy,
because among their ancestors could be neither foreigners nor freedmen (libertini) nor clients (clientes). In other
words, they always must be liberi (free and children); and from this the idea that they always had known their
fathers arose. In legal language, they were called ingenui. See Fest. 277 L.: Patricios, Cincius ait in libro de
comitiis, eos appellari solitos, qui nunc ingenui vocentur; Liv. X, 8, 10: En unquam fando audistis patricios
primo esse factos non de caelo demissos sed qui patrem ciere possent, id est, nihil ultra quam ingenuos?
136
Cic. de rep. II, 9, 16; Fest. 262 L; Fest. 288 L.; Dionys. II, 9, 2-10, 1; Plut. Rom. XIII, 5; Serv. Aen. VI, 609.
137
Each of the patres chose them who were closer to him among the age class of their social sons. Cf. Dionys. II,
9, 2 Πα α α α ή α ὲ ῖ πα ί ὺ ὺ ἐπ έ α ἑ ά ῳ ῶ ἐ ῦπ ή υ ,
αὐ ὸ ἐ ύ , έ π ά … (He [Romulus] placed the plebeians as a trust in the hands of the
patricians, by allowing every patrician to choose himself for whom he would patronize).
24
society could have quite another status.138 The representatives of the age sets close to the 38-
45 chosen by the reformer claimed to be patres too. Also, their native children claimed to
change their status from clients to full-right sons. The status of patres was secured by the
membership in the Senate, and the new senators recruited to the body until the establishment
of the Republic. Their place in the Senate with the title patres conscripti was inherited by
their descendants perhaps until the lex Ovinia ca. 312 BC. Every pater represented his gens
and was surrounded with a group of adherents (sodales) and clients. The sodales were noble
coevals of the pater, who perhaps had no own gens represented in the Senate, and therefore
they associated themselves with another’s gens. The sodales in the stories of Atta Clausus and
the Fabian gens seem to be the heads of those families, who did not achieve the rank of
Roman senators, but also were not clients of the latter; owing to their authority they
distinguished from other plebeians. They formed a kind of high-rank retinue of a pater, whose
status differed from the status of his clients. The transformation of the former age sets headed
by a leader (“Gefolgschaftsverband“) to the gentilician groups (“Gentilaufgebot“) took place
until the late fifth century BC. The sodales differed from the clients in our sources; initially
they most likely were not regarded as plebeians. Not having the patres in the Senate, they
were not patricians. They are possibly represented as non-patricians in the Fasti Consulares
of the first half of the fifth century BC. Social significance of the relationship with the sodales
had been reduced during the fifth and fourth centuries BC and in the new civil community, the
sodalitas preserved a certain importance only as a vestigial ritual form.
A discrepancy between the clients and the plebeians comes to light in the existence or
absence of quasi-kinship with the patres (Dionys. II, 10, 4). To all appearance, in the period
when the individual kinship was at the stage of development, the clients had been considered
relatives closer than cognates, perhaps even equal to gentiles.139 Thus, the group (gens)
around of a leader (princeps), who was their representative in the Senate (pater), consisted of
people of several categories. All they were unified by the relation to their common pater, and
the relationships were regarded as a kinship of them to each other.140 The kinship, real or
fictive, became apparent in the question of marriages between patres and their clients. Cicero
most likely is not quite accurate when he writes of the existence in the XII Tables a ban to

138
On an interpretation, see Facchetti G.M. L'appellativo etrusco 'etera', in Studi Etruschi, 65-68, 2002, p. 226-
227; Mastrocinque A. Servitus publica, p. 249-270.
139
The connection of clients with their patron (firstly pater, then pater familias) stated them in closer position
towards agnati in comparison with cognati (see Gell. V, 13, 2-6).
140
For the idea that the patricians and the plebeians were members of the same gentes, but on another basis, see
Franciosi G. Una ipotesi sull'origine della clientella, in Labeo 32, 1986, p. 263-281.
25
marry between the patres and the plebeians. 141 He could not write otherwise because of his
belief that the main antagonism in the early Republic was between the patricians and the
plebeians. However, his using of by the term patres instead patricii perhaps shows that in the
background of his information was a certain formula, in which namely this word existed. The
formula seems to state the ban of the marriages between patres, their relatives and clients, i.e.
exogamic prohibition inside of the gens. If it is correct, the ban concerning clients shows that
they regarded as insiders of the kin circle with own patres. The abolition of the ban by the law
of Canuleus 445 BC means the exclusion of the clients from the circle of relatives. From this
time, the clientele ceased to be a status condition and began to develop on the basis of
personal relationships between a patron and his client.142 The clients became a part of the
plebeians; so that, looking from the future, Cicero was by no means mistaken when he wrote
of the ban of marriages between patres and the plebeians.

4. Conclusion

The notions sodalitas, clientela and amicitia were entirely separated from each others
and defined quite different relations in historical, than in archaic Rome. Prima facie, the
ancient sodalis had no right and opportunity to choose “social brothers” whom he was obliged
to like. His personal feelings to them were programmed by the social necessity of reciprocal
support; the archaic sodalitas seems to be a form of social relationships. Perhaps similarly
under the Empire, the amicitia was institutionalized as a social category being in some
respects under the regulation of law.143 Interests of business, career, family etc. often
determined the chose of amici in a greater extent than disposition of mind.144 Therefore, it can

141
Cic. de rep. II, 63: qui duabus tabulis iniquarum legum additis, quibus etiam quae diiunctis populis tribui
solent conubia, haec illi ut ne plebei cum patribus essent, inhumanissima lege sanxerunt, quae postea plebiscito
Canuleio abrogata est. Cf. Liv. IV, 4, 5.
142
For instance, see Terent. Eunuchus 1039: Thais patri se commendavit, in clientelam et fidem nobis dedit se.
The relations had been regulated with the help of fides, which had, on the early stage, a religious or sacred
colour. See Heinze R. Fides, in Hermes 64, 1924, S. 153-157; Freyburger G. Fides. Étude sémantique et
religieuse depuuis les origines jusqu'à l'époque augustéenne, Paris 1986, 154-157; idem, La fides et les mores
dans les conceptions religiuses anciennes de Rome, in Hommages à Carl Deroux, ed. P. Defosse, vol. IV,
Collection Latomus 277, Bruxelles 2003, p. 378-386; Hökelskamp K.-J. «Fides - deiditio in fidem - dextra data
et accepta» : Recht, Religion und Ritual in Rom, in Roman Middle Republic. Politics, Religion, and
Historiography c. 400-133 BC, ed. by Chr. Bruun, Rome 2000, p. 223-249.
143
See Dig. III, 1, 1, 2; 5, 30 pr., 2; 5, 35; 5, 37; 5, 43; IV, 6, 22 pr.; IX, 3, 5, 1; Cf. XVII, 1, 1, 4; XXVI, 6, 2;
XLVIII, 5, 10 (9) pr.; XLIX, 15, 5, 2; L, 14, 3. Cf. Albanese B. δa struttura della “manumissio inter amicos”έ
ωontributo alla storia dell’ “amicitia” romana, in Annali del Seminario Giuridico della Universita di Palermo
29, 1962, p. 5-103; Albanese B. δ’amicitia nel diritto privato romano, in Ius n.s. 14, 1963, p. 130-147; Nörr D.
Mandatum, fides, amicitia, in Mandatum und Verwandtes. Beiträge zum römischen und modernen Recht, hrgg.
von D. Nörr und Sh. Nishimura, Berlin 1993, S. 13-37; Rundel T. Mandatum zwischen utilitas und amicitia.
Perspektiven zur Mandatarhaftung im klassischen römischen Recht, Münster 2005.
144
See Spielvogel J. Amicitia und res publica, S. 5-19; Verboven K. The Economy of Friends. Economic Aspects
of Amicitia and Patronage in the Late Republic, Brüssel 2002.
26
be said that amicitia in ωicero’s description was an initial stage in the development of this
institution, the stage of coming into being, when the idea of friendship had not yet gained in
generally useful importance. 145
In historical development, the connection of amicitia, sodalitas and clientela to each
other seems to have been closer than it has been usually understood. M.A. Levy argues the
evolution from the archaic clientele to individualistic amicitia on the basis of the fidelity
(fides) to both moral and virtual obligations.146 On the basis of our consideration, we can add
that the clientele had a more ancient predecessor, sodalitas, and its historical position in the
series, sodalitas - clientela - amicitia, was a kind of bridge, the connecting-link between two
types of different societies, archaic and civil.

145
Under the late Republic, the relationships, which were marked by the notion amicitia, still were quite free
from pure advantage. See Brunt P.A. Amicitia in the late Roman Republic, p. 351-381.
146
Levi M.A. Da clientela ad amicitia, in Epigrafia e territorio. Politica e societa. Temi di antichità romana. III.
Bari 1994, p. 375-381.
27