The Inheritance of the Consulate in the Antonine Period

SOME YEARS AGO two contrasting analyses (the first by Professor Keith Hopkins and myself, the second by Professor Geza Alf6ldy) of the social composition of the imperial senate and of the inheritability of the consulate were promulgated. In a recent article in this journal Johannes Hahn and Paul M. M. Leunissen returned to the fray.1 Their interesting and thoughtful critique has prompted me to reconsider the question of the inheritance of the consulate in the period A.D. 138-180. In this article I will try again to show that the hypothesis that the consulate was hereditary in the Antonine period is unwarranted. The argument of this article proceeds in four stages. First, Background, I rehearse the two contrasting hypotheses. Secondly, A Critique of a Critique, I examine the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis put forward by Hahn and Leunissen. Thirdly, Sons and Fathers, I re-examine the problem of gaps in our surviving data, especially the problem of suffect consuls whose names do not survive (the ignoti). Here I hope to provide a method of treating this problem which is logically and statistically superior to the rather cursory analysis in Death and Renewal. Fourthly, Brothers, I re-emphasize the significance of the relative paucity of brothers attested as consuls who were, in turn, the sons of consuls

Aesthetics · Biology · Genealogy · Inheritance (genetic algorithm · Period (music · Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology and History · Classical Antiquity Studies · Classical Studies and Legal History · Genetics · History · Philosophy

• The Heredity of Senatorial Status in the Principate

  Open Access•John Weisweiler•The Journal of Roman Studies•2020

  Add to list

• Emperors, aristocrats, and the grim reaper

  Open Access•Walter Scheidel•The Classical Quarterly•1999

  Add to list