A quick little query: were the Roman gentes universally patrilineal, and universally named after a male progenitor? Thanks.
Well, sort of ... the Romans didn't care much about blood lines. It didn't matter much whether you were somebody's real son or whether you were just adopted.Now, to give me total victory, will you please verify that the Romans reckoned descent patrilineally?
That's super cool! I'd go for it. As for me, I'm having trouble getting my woman to support my claim to deity. She keeps saying things under her breath in Spanish that I can't get the gist of. What is it that "coño" means in Spanish???If I ever have a daughter, I'd love to call her Olivia, because I have olive in my paternal surname...
I am having a hard time believing this.Well, sort of ... the Romans didn't care much about blood lines. It didn't matter much whether you were somebody's real son or whether you were just adopted.
Actually, I believe that to be more or less true, having read that adoption by a high ranking member of a gens was, by the "mos maiorum" (ancestral custom - no small consideration for a roman citizen) universally accepted by all members of the gens, and that such adoptions, even of adult individuals, were neither frowned upon or uncommon. Remember the adoption of Judah Ben Hur in the movie....that was apparently not very far-fetched. Roman gentes and Greek gene seem to not to have had the same obsession about bloodlines as later feudal societies did, for what would seem to be obvious reasons (titles and castles to inherit). Perhaps, as well, the Roman attitude about this could only obtain in a time without DNA tests and Jerry Springer to give the news: "Gaius....you ARE the father of little Claudius." Just sayln'...I am having a hard time believing this.
Death rate was really high. Adoptions (of adults) assured perpetuation of the name.I am having a hard time believing this.
As for that I tend to agree with you (though I have no facts to present you).I understand adoption in the upper class when there was no male succession, but I'm having a hard time accepting that this was a common practice among the plebs.
Among plebeians, ..possibly not. Too vague data for me to go as far as probably. So, speculation.So we agree then. Though not frowned upon, adoption was not a common thing.
Can you show me where it is attested? Apart from a small number known cases (Octavian etc..)Among patricians, extremely common, attested by data.
I've been reading biografies of random people in the 2nd century aD as research for my stories. If you go one by one, you'll see that there are many cases of adoption, really many cases.Can you show me where it is attested? Apart from a small number known cases (Octavian etc..)