Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-04T01:47:20.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nomenclature Patterns of the Roman Upper Class in the Early Empire: a Statistical Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

Paul Gallivan
Paul Gallivan*
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From Republican times Romans, unlike any other people known to them, had three names, praenomen, nomen (gentilicium) and cognomen. In the first and second centuries A.D. Roman writers assumed that the possession of tria nomina distinguished the civis Romanus from the peregrinus.

Roman practice in the late Republican period was not always in accordance with the above. Cognomina were not adopted in official inscriptions by the Roman state as a constituent of the nomenclature of a senator or an eques until the end of the second century B.C. even though the use of cognomina by patrician families dates from the second half of the fourth century B.C. Despite this official recognition some families such as those of Marius and the Antonii never used cognomina. There were also many individuals who used an additional cognomen (or agnomen) which resulted from a military honour, adoption or the need to mark separate identity from other branches of a family. The practice of employing tria nomina, therefore, was never universal among the upper classes during the late Republic. The aim of this paper is to present a statistical analysis of the nomenclature patterns by which all individuals who can confidently be considered of senatorial or equestrian status are known to us. In the case of women, the study is restricted to those from the senatorial class.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 26 , November 1992 , pp. 51 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1992

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.)

References

1 See, for example, Mommsen, Th., Staatsrecht3 (Leipzig 1887) 3.2.200 ff.Google Scholar; Thylander, H., Étude sur l'Épigraphie latine (Lund 1952) 54 ffGoogle Scholar. On the origins of the system, useful summaries are now available by Heurgon, , Lejeune, , Nicolet, and Kajanto, in Pflaum, H.-G. and Duval, N. (edd.), L'Onomastique latine (Paris 1977), Sect. I and IIGoogle Scholar.

2 E.g. Seneca, , Ben. 4.8.3 Google Scholar; Juvenal, , Sat. 5.127 Google Scholar. On the validity of this assumption, see now Weaver, P.R.C., ‘Where have all the Junian Latins gone? Nomenclature and status in the early empire’, Chiron 20 (1990) 275 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 Balsdon, J.P.V.D., Romans and Aliens (London 1979) 149 f.Google Scholar; Kajanto, I., ‘On the Chronology of the Cognomen in the Republican Period’ in L'Onom. lat. 64 ffGoogle Scholar. fixing the chronology to the period 123-82 B.C.

4 Balsdon 149; Morris, J., ‘Changing Fashions in Roman Nomenclature in the Early Empire’, LF 86 (1963) 35 Google Scholar.

5 Balsdon, ibid.; Bailey, D.R. Shackleton, Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature (Univ. Park 1976) 81 ffGoogle Scholar.

6 This point was made forcefully by J. Morris (n.4) 34 in a much neglected paper; cf. the comment by Mócsy, at L'Onom. lat. 429 fGoogle Scholar. (referring to the first century A.D.): ‘Les tria nomina sont une construction moderne!’

7 The list of works consulted is far too detailed to cite in full. I give here only a sample. Major corpora: CIL; AE; prosopographical collections: PIR, PIR2, PLRE, RE; specialised studies: Eck, W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (München 1970)Google Scholar, Alföldy, G., Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen (Bonn 1977)Google Scholar, Leunissen, P., Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (Amsterdam 1989)Google Scholar, Barbieri, G., L'albo senatorio da Settimo Severo a Carino (Roma 1952)Google Scholar; Epigraphia e ordine senatorio (Roma 1982)Google Scholar; the many works of Sir Ronald Syme and H.-G. Pflaum.

8 For the purposes of this study I have defined polyonomy as the possession of two or more nomina or gentilicia. See Syme, R., ‘The Paternity of Polyonymous Consuls’, ZPE 61 (1985) 191 Google Scholar; see also Morris (n.4) 41 ff.

9 No attempt has been made to examine patterns among the polyonymous in this paper. I intend to deal with this topic elsewhere.

10 The slight irregularities found of the proportions in this table, e.g. a total adding up to 100.3%, are due to the practice of citing all figures as being correct to one decimal point only.

11 I hope by this procedure to convey a general impression of the overall proportions between the various nomenclature patterns and their chronological divisions. Of course no absolute certainty can be claimed for the new figures produced. No account has been taken of those instances listed in the ‘Undated’ column. My method has been to reallocate the Category (b) examples for each chronological division on the basis of the ratio between the proportional figures given at Categories (c), (d) and (e) for that particular chronological division. The ‘century only’ examples have been reallocated to the fixed chronological divisions on the basis of the ratio between the total instances of each division of that century. Thus in Table I Category (a), for example, the figures for the first century read 98, 51, 12, 5; in Table IB the ‘century only’ figure of 5 has been distributed to the three divisions in the ratio of 421:504:504 and produces the 'adjusted’ result of 99, 53, 14. This procedure has been repeated for all Categories. To avoid confusion where possible, references to adjusted figures (i.e. Tables IB-IIIB) have been placed in square brackets.

12 Even a cursory survey of the sources cited for entries listed in PLRE 1 will confirm this explanation. More detailed investigation confirming the truth of the above is found in MacMullen, R., ‘The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire’, AJPh 103 (1982) 233 ff., esp. 243 ffGoogle Scholar.

13 Professor Eck rightly draws attention to the distorting effect of such long lists of abbreviated nomenclature as given at HA Severus 13 and in the Acts of the Secular Games (AE [1932] 70).

14 Syme, R., ‘Clues to Testamentary Adoption’ in Epigrafia e Ordine Senatorio (Roma 1982) 400 Google Scholar; J. Morris (n.4) 42; Barbieri, G., ‘Sull'onomastica delle familie senatorie dei primi secoli’ in L'Onom. lat. 183 Google Scholar. Professor Eck raises the possibility that the large number of surviving literary sources for the Julio-Claudian period may be hiding the true mix of nomenclature patterns for this period.

15 E.g. Morris (n.4) 42; Balsdon (n.3); Alföldy, G., The Social History of Rome (Eng. trans. London 1985) 117 Google Scholar; R. Syme (n.14) 401 calls his nomenclature a ‘monstrosity’. For a detailed analysis of his nomenclature, see Doer, B., Die römische Namengebung (Stuttgart 1937) 128 ffGoogle Scholar.

16 For a figure of 20,000 equites under Augustus, see Alföldy (n. 15) 115, 122. That there were perhaps 2000 men, women and children in the senatorial order is an estimate loosely based on the detailed calculations given by Hopkins, M.K. (and Burton, G.) in Death and Renewal (Cambridge 1983) 69 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 95 and chap. 3 passim.

17 Eck, W., ‘Sozialstruktur des römischen Senatorenstandes in der hohen Kaiserzeit und statistische Methode’, Chiron 3 (1973) 383 ffGoogle Scholar. has calculated that the total number of senators during the first three centuries of the Empire was about 8000. Table I shows that we know c.4700 individual senators or just under 60% of the total. This figure however includes sons of senators who never lived to enter the senate as quaestor and so Eck's estimate of c.4500 or 56% is a more reliable guide. The total number of firmly attested equestrians is 4823 (Table II).

18 For the low frequency of Latin inscriptions in the early Empire see the table given by MacMullen (n.12) 243.

19 In general see Crook, J., Law and Life of Rome (London 1967), esp. chs. 2, 4 Google Scholar; Pomeroy, S.B., Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves (New York 1975) 149 ffGoogle Scholar. and, most recently, Gardner, J.F., Women in Roman Law and Society (London 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 A sample (126 examples) of the epigraphic evidence for women of senatorial status indicates that women's names occur on five major types of inscription: (i) epitaphs, (ii) honorific inscriptions, (iii) records of benefactions, (iv) domestic instruments, (v) inscriptions of liberti/ae or servi/ae of whom the woman appears as patrona. Names occur in the ratio 2:1:1:1:1.

21 For further detail, B. Doer (n.15) 202 ff.; H. Thylander (n.l) 73 ff., 84 ff.; Balsdon (n.3) 150; Kajanto, I., ‘On the Pecularities of Women's Nomenclature’ in L'Onom. lat. 147 ff.Google Scholar; Hallett, J.P., Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society (Princeton 1984) 77 ffGoogle Scholar.

22 See Kajanto, I., ‘Women's Praenomina Reconsidered’, Arctos 1 (1972) 13 fGoogle Scholar.

23 For more detailed discussion of this problem see Kajanto, I., Onomastic Studies in the Early Christian Inscriptions of Rome and Carthage (Helsinki 1963) 18 ff.Google Scholar; note also his additional comments in L'Onom. lat. 155 ff.

24 Among the relatives of senators included in this category are: grandparents, parents, uncles and aunts, cousins, fathers/mothers-in-law and probable relatives. The same relatives of known equestrians are also included except for grandparents; but in addition I have included wives, siblings, children, grandchildren, nephews, nieces and brothers/sisters-in-law. Individuals from the following groups are also included: (i) magistrates of uncertain office (owing to textual lacuna or an imprecision in a literary source); (ii) auctores iuris; (iii) recipients of imperial rescripts; (iv) correspondents and amici of authors such as Pliny, Plutarch and Fronto; (v) names on building materials from Rome (viz. fistulae plumbeae, tegulae); (vi) viri honesti and feminae honestae; (vii) mobiles vel certe divites. This phrase is frequently applied by the editors of PIR to include individuals of the upper strata of Roman society for whom further precision is not possible. They tend to fall chiefly into the following categories: (a) persons mentioned in literary sources in a context suggesting wealth and influence, e.g. persons within the social circles of the senatorial elite such as amici of senators, victims of imperial purges or members of conspiracies; (b) persons whose nomenclature suggests membership of the upper orders e.g. homonyms of known senators or equestrians or those possessing extended polyonymous names; (c) persons mentioned in inscriptions who were of obvious wealth but indeterminate status such as large landholders, owners of villas, masters of numerous slaves, recipients of honours or laudations from councils or corporations that suggest exalted rank. The subjectivity with which individuals from this last category have been included is freely admitted.

25 This study, part of a larger project on Roman cognomina, was undertaken with the assistance of the Australian Research Grants Scheme. Earlier versions have been read and improved by Professor P.R.C. Weaver, Professor W. Eck and Dr. P.I. Wilkins to whom I am very grateful. They are, of course, in no way responsible for any of the views expressed.