Mos maiorum

discrete unit underlying society, these interlocking networks countered that autonomy and created the bonds
that made a complex society possible.[5] Although one
of the major spheres of activity within patron-client relations was the law courts, patronage was not itself a legal
contract; the pressures to uphold ones obligations were
moral, founded on the quality of des, trust (see Values
below), and the mos.[6] Patronage served as a model[7]
when conquerors or governors abroad established personal ties as patron to whole communities, ties which then
The Roman family was one of the ways that the mos maiorum might be perpetuated as a family obligation. In this sense,
was passed along through the generations
mos becomes less a matter of unchanging tradition than
precedent.[8]
The mos maiorum (ancestral custom[1] or way of the
elders, plural mores, with maiorum a genitive plural; cf.
English "mores") is the unwritten code from which the 2 Tradition and evolution
ancient Romans derived their social norms. It is the core
concept of Roman traditionalism,[2] distinguished from
Roman conservatism nds succinct expression in an edict
but in dynamic complement to written law. The mos
of the censors from 92 BCE, as preserved by the 2ndmaiorum was collectively the time-honoured principles,
century historian Suetonius: All new that is done conbehavioural models, and social practices that aected pritrary to the usage and the customs of our ancestors, seems
[3]
vate, political, and military life in ancient Rome.
not to be right.[9] But because the mos maiorum was a
matter of custom, not written law, the complex norms it
embodied evolved over time. The ability to preserve a
strongly centralized sense of identity while adapting to
1 Family and society
changing circumstances permitted the expansionism that
[10]
The Roman family was hierarchical, as was Roman soci- took Rome from city-state to world power. The preserety. It is perhaps a matter of perspective as to whether vation of the mos maiorum depended on consensus and
moderation among the ruling elite, whose competition for
society replicated the power structure of its basic build[11]
ing block, the familia (better translated as household power and status threatened it.
than family), or whether the male prerogative in a militarized society imposed itself domestically. At any rate,
these hierarchies were traditional and self-perpetuating,
that is, they supported and were supported by the mos
maiorum. The paterfamilias, or head of household, held
absolute authority over his familia, which was both an autonomous unit within society and a model for the social
order,[4] but he was expected to exercise this power with
moderation and to act responsibly on behalf of his family.
The risk and pressure of social censure if he failed to live
up to expectations was also a form of mos.

Democratic politics driven by the charismatic appeal of

individuals (populares) to the Roman people (populus)
potentially undermined the conservative principle of the
mos.[12] Because the higher magistracies and priesthoods
were originally the prerogative of the patricians, the efforts of plebeians (the plebs) for access could be cast as
a threat to tradition (see Conict of the Orders). Reform was accomplished through legislation, and written
law replaced consensus.[13] When plebeians gained admission to nearly all the highest oces except for a few
arcane priesthoods, the interests of plebeian families who
ascended to the elite began to align with those of the patricians, creating Romes nobiles, an elite social status of
nebulous denition during the Republic.[14] The plebs and
their support of popular politicians continued as a threat
to the mos and elite consensus into the late Republic, as
evidenced in the rhetoric of Cicero.[15]

The distinctive social relationship of ancient Rome was

that between patron (patronus) and client (cliens). Although the obligations of this relationship were mutual,
they were also hierarchical. The relationship was not a
unit, but a network (clientela), as a patronus might himself
be obligated to someone of higher status or greater power,
and a cliens might have more than one patron, whose in- The auctoritas maiorum (ancestral authority) could be
terests might come into conict. If the familia was the evoked to validate social developments in the name of
1

5 NOTES

tradition. Following the collapse of the Republic after

the death of Julius Caesar, Augustus disguised his radical
program under a piety toward the mos maiorum.[16]
During the transition to the Christian Empire,
Symmachus argued that Romes continued prosperity
and stability depended on preserving the mos maiorum,
while the early Christian poet Prudentius dismissed the
blind adherence to tradition as the superstition of old
grandpas (superstitio veterum avorum) and inferior to
the new revealed truth of Christianity.[17]

Values

Main article: Roman virtues

Traditional Roman values were essential to the mos maiorum. These include:
Fides. The Latin word des encompasses several
English value-words such as trust/trustworthiness,
good faith/faithfulness, condence, reliability, and
credibility.[18] It was an important concept in
Roman law, as oral contracts were common.[19] The
concept of des was personied by the goddess
Fides, whose role in the mos maiorum is indicated
by the antiquity of her cult.[20] Her temple is dated
from around 254 BCE[21] and was located on the
Capitoline Hill in Rome, near the Temple of Jupiter.
Pietas. The Roman attitude of dutiful respect towards the gods, homeland, parents and family was
expressed by the word pietas, which required the
maintenance of relationships in a moral and dutiful
manner.[22] Cicero dened pietas as justice towards
the gods.[23] It went beyond sacrice and correct
ritual performance to inner devotion and righteousness of the individual, and was the cardinal virtue of
the Roman hero Aeneas in Vergil's Aeneid. The use
of the adjectival form Pius as a cognomen reects its
importance as an identifying trait. Like Fides, Pietas
was cultivated as a goddess, with a temple vowed to
her in 191 BCE[24] and dedicated ten years later.
Religio and Cultus. Related to the Latin verb religare, to bind, religio is the bond between gods
and mortals, as carried out in traditional religious
practices[25] for preserving the pax deorum (peace
of the gods). Cultus was the active observance and
correct performance of rituals.[26] Religious practice
in this sense is to be distinguished from pietas and
its inherent morality. See Religion in ancient Rome
and Imperial cult (ancient Rome).
Disciplina. The military character of Roman society suggests the importance of disciplina as related
to education, training, discipline and self-control.

Gravitas and Constantia. Gravitas was dignied self-control.[27] Constantia was steadiness or
perseverance.[28] In the face of adversity, a good
Roman was to display an unperturbed faade. Roman myth and history reinforced this value by recounting tales of gures such as Gaius Mucius
Scaevola,[29] who in a founding legend of the Republic demonstrated his seriousness and determination to the Etruscan king Lars Porsenna by holding
his right hand in a re.
Virtus. Derived from the Latin word vir (man),
virtus constituted the ideal of the true Roman
male.[30] Lucilius discusses virtus in some of his
work, saying that it is virtus for a man to know what
is good, evil, useless, shameful, or dishonorable.[31]
Dignitas and auctoritas. Dignitas and auctoritas
were the end result of displaying the values of the
ideal Roman and the service of the state in the forms
of priesthoods, military positions, and magistracies.
Dignitas was reputation for worth, honour and esteem. Thus, a Roman who displayed their gravitas,
constantia, des, pietas and other values becoming a
Roman would possess dignitas among their peers.
Similarly, through this path, a Roman could earn
auctoritas (prestige and respect).[32]

4 See also
O tempora o mores!
Roman polytheistic reconstructionism

5 Notes
[1] Karl-J. Hlkeskamp, Reconstructing the Roman Republic: An Ancient Political Culture and Modern Research
(Princeton University Press, 2010), p. 17 online.
[2] Mos Maiorum, Brill Online.
[3] Hlkeskamp, Reconstructing the Roman Republic, pp. 17
18.
[4] Hlkeskamp, Reconstructing the Roman Republic, p. 33.
[5] Carlin A. Barton, The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The
Gladiator and the Monster (Princeton University Press,
1993), pp. 176177.
[6] Hlkeskamp, Reconstructing the Roman Republic, pp. 33
35.
[7] Cicero, De ociis 1.35.
[8] Erich S. Gruen, "Patrocinium and clientela, in The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (University of California Press, 1986), vol. 1, pp. 162163.

[9] Suetonius, De Claris Rhetoribus, i.

[10] See, for instance, Hlkeskamps reference to the Republics capacity for self-regulation, Reconstructing the Roman Republic, p. 18. Erich S. Gruen, The Last Generation
of the Roman Republic (University of California Press,
1974), p. 535.
[11] Hlkeskamp, Reconstructing the Roman Republic, pp. 29,
4142 et passim.
[12] Hlkeskamp, Reconstructing the Roman Republic, p. 42.
[13] Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, pp.
258, 498, 507508.
[14] The Second Samnite War was a crucial period in the formation of this new elite; see E.T. Salmon, Samnium and
the Samnites (Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 217,
and Erich S. Gruen, "Patrocinium and Clientela, in The
Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (University of
California Press, 1984), p. 163 online.
[15] T.P. Wiseman, Clios Cosmetics (Leicester University
Press, 1979), pp. 6769, 85, et passim.
[16] For this pervasive theme in studies of Augustuss political strategies, see for instance M.K. Thornton and R.L.
Thornton, Julio-Claudian Building Programs: A Quantitative Study in Political Management (Bolchazy-Carducci,
1989), p. 106 online; E.J. Kenney, The Age of Augustus
(Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 42; The World of
Rome (Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 132 online.
[17] Cliord Ando, The Palladium and the Pentateuch: Towards a Sacred Topography of the Later Roman Empire,
Phoenix 55 (2001), p. 388.
[18] Hlkeskamp, Reconstructing the Roman Republic, p. 34.
[19] Bona des, Berger. pg 374
[20] Adkins. pg 78
[21] Ziolkowski, Temples
[22] Adkins. p. 180
[23] De Natura Deorum. 1.116
[24] According to Livy, Ab urbe condita. xxxx. 34
[25] Adkins. pg 190
[26] Adkins. pg 55
[27] Ward. p. 58
[28] Ab urbe condita. xxii. 58. See also Ogilvies Commentary
on Livy 1-5.
[29] Ab urbe condita. ii. 12
[30] Ward. p. 57
[31] Ward. p. 57
[32] Ward. p. 58

6 References
Adkins, L. and Adkins, R. Dictionary of Roman Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Berger, Adolph. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman
Law. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical
Society, 1991.
Brills New Pauly. Antiquity volumes edited by: Huber Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. Brill, 2008
Brill Online.
Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd Revised Ed. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Stambaugh, John E. The Ancient Roman City. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.
Ward, A., Heichelheim, F., Yeo, C. A History of the
Roman People. 4th Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
2003.

7 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

7.1

Text

Mos maiorum Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mos%20maiorum?oldid=637991633 Contributors: Jengod, AWhiteC, Tpbradbury,

Texture, GreatWhiteNortherner, TedMiles, Alensha, Finn-Zoltan, J3, Flex, Discospinster, Kbh3rd, Mairi, Giraedata, Binabik80,
Allen3, FlaBot, Brandmeister (old), Welsh, SmackBot, Kintetsubualo, Hmains, Emufarmers, Cplakidas, Rrburke, Gobonobo, Neddyseagoon, Jac16888, Cydebot, Skittleys, Thijs!bot, Mtalexan, Seaphoto, Pichote, Cynwolfe, R'n'B, Yonidebot, A Nobody, Mrmuk, SieBot,
WereSpielChequers, SuzanneIAM, France3470, Mild Bill Hiccup, Muhandes, Ragnii, DumZiBoT, Addbot, Knight of Truth, TaBOTzerem, AnomieBOT, MTCicero106, Aeneas1229, LilHelpa, J04n, Haploidavey, FrescoBot, Aldrasto, WikitanvirBot, Aldrasto11, Kasirbot, Salofmilwaukee, Yankeeroman, Yankeeroman56 and Anonymous: 35

7.2

Images

File:Ehepaar_mit_Kind.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Ehepaar_mit_Kind.JPG License: CC BY

3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Agnete

7.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0