Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T11:13:28.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The gens and Intestate Inheritance in the Early Republic*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2017

Charles Bartlett
Charles Bartlett*
Affiliation:
Harvard Universitycbartlett@fas.harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper attempts to gauge the ability of the gens to influence the affairs of its members by tracing the development of the rules governing intestate inheritance. It will argue that, although the power of the gens in this area of the law did eventually give way to a more centralised and stronger state, a development which has been documented in other areas of Roman society as well, the gens was nonetheless able to continue to exert an influence on its members for some considerable time. The present study will analyse several cases to argue this point and examine both the means by which this centuries-long change took place, as well as highlight a period that witnessed a potential acceleration of the trend away from gentilicial importance. Finally, it will return to the circumstances of early Rome, the focal point for this volume, and offer some cautionary notes for thinking about the period that was in many ways the starting point for these developments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 51: Thematic Issue: Politics and Power in Early Rome 509-264 BC , 2017 , pp. 172 - 185
Copyright
© The Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2017 

Access options

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

Footnotes

*

I wish to thank Jeremy Armstrong, Jean-Jacques Aubert, Emma Dench, Charles Donahue, James Richardson, Christopher Smith, Richard Tuck, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Adrados, F. R. (1948), El sistema gentilicio decimal de los indoeuropeos occidentales y los orígenes de Roma. Madrid.Google Scholar
Berger, A. (1953), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bietti Sestieri, A. M. (1992), The Iron Age Community of Osteria dell’Osa: A Study of Socio-Political Development in Central Tyrrhenian Italy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Brancato, N. G. (1999), Nuclei familiari e variazioni gentilizie nell’antica Roma: Problematiche connesse (a proposito di una epigrafe inedita). Rome.Google Scholar
Brennan, T. C. (2000), The Praetorship in the Roman Republic, 2 vols. Oxford.Google Scholar
Capogrossi Colognesi, L. (2014), Storia di Roma tra diritto e potere. Bologna.Google Scholar
Carandini, A. (2007), Roma: Il primo giorno. Rome.Google Scholar
Carlsen, J. (2006), The Rise and Fall of a Roman Noble Family: the Domitii Ahenobarbi 196 BC – AD 68. Odense.Google Scholar
Cherry, D. (1996), ‘Intestacy and the Roman Poor’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 64.2, 155-172.Google Scholar
Cornell, T. J. (1995), The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC). London.Google Scholar
Crawford, M. H. (1996), Roman Statutes, 2 vols. London.Google Scholar
Daube, D. (1965), ‘The Preponderance of Intestacy at Rome’, Tulane Law Review 39, 253-262.Google Scholar
Dondin-Payre, M. (1993), Exercice du pouvoir et continuité gentilice: les Acilii Glabriones. Paris.Google Scholar
Forsythe, G. (2005), A Critical History of Early Rome: from Prehistory to the First Punic War. Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franchini, L. (2005), La desuetudine delle XII tavole nell’età arcaica. Milan.Google Scholar
Franciosi, G. (1995), ‘Totum gentilicium ius in desuetudinem abiisse’, in G. Franciosi (ed.), Ricerche sulla organizzazione gentilizia romana III. 85-97. Naples.Google Scholar
Gordon, W. M. and Robinson, O. F. (1988), The Institutes of Gaius . London.Google Scholar
Hofmann-Löbl, I. (1996), Die Calpurnii. Politisches Wirken und familiäre Kontinuität. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Hugo, G. (1832), Lehrbuch der Geschichte des römischen Rechts bis auf Justinian. Berlin.Google Scholar
Kaser, M. (1955-1959), Das römische Privatrecht. Munich.Google Scholar
Kunkel, W. (1971), Römische Rechtsgeschichte. Cologne.Google Scholar
La Pira, G. (1930), La successione ereditaria intestata e contro il testamento. Florence.Google Scholar
Maine, H. S. (1946 [1861]), Ancient Law. Oxford.Google Scholar
Manzo, A. (1995), ‘L’organizzazione gentilizia nelle dodici tavole’, in G. Franciosi (ed.), Ricerche sulla organizzazione gentilizia romana III. 99-119. Naples.Google Scholar
Nicholas, J. K. B. M. (1962), An Introduction to Roman Law. Oxford.Google Scholar
Niebuhr, B. G. (1847-1851), The History of Rome, translation by J. C. Hare, C. Thirlwall, W. Smith, and L. Schmitz of Römische Geschichte (2nd edn. Berlin, 1827-1832). London.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, R. M. (1965), A Commentary on Livy, Books 1-5. Oxford.Google Scholar
Osgood, J. (2014), Turia: A Roman Woman’s Civil War. Oxford.Google Scholar
Schiavone, A. (2005), Ius: L’invenzione del diritto in Occidente. Turin.Google Scholar
Schulz, F. (1946), History of Roman Legal Science. Oxford.Google Scholar
Smith, C. J. (2006), The Roman Clan: The Gens from Ancient Ideology to Modern Anthropology . Cambridge.Google Scholar
Watson, A. (1971), The Law of Succession in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford.Google Scholar
Watson, A. (1975), Rome of the XII Tables: Persons and Property . Princeton.Google Scholar
Westbrook, R. (2015), Ex Oriente Lex: Near Eastern Influences on Ancient Greek and Roman Law. Baltimore.Google Scholar
Zulueta, F. de (1946), The Institutes of Gaius. Oxford.Google Scholar