^{page 134 note 1} On the nomenclature of the Imperial freedmen see C.Q. N.s. xiii (1963), 272–8.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 2} Bang, M., Hermes liv (1919), 174–86.Google Scholar On slave nomenclature in general see Oxé, A., Rhein. Mus. lix (1904), 108–40,Google Scholar for the Republican nomenclature, with a summary (p. 140) of the normal forms under the Empire.

^{page 134 note 3} The only exception is the use of ‘Divi Aug.’ by slaves of Augustus. Examples are few: vi. 8764, 9005, 26608, 33754, and are to be explained by the prestige of Augustus and the as yet undeveloped nomenclature of the Familia Caesaris. After Augustus the use of ‘Divi’ in the slave-indication ceases. (References are to C.I.L. unless otherwise stated.)

^{page 134 note 4} vi. 9050 (A.D. 13), 9005 (A.D. 22), I.G.R.R. iv. 1738 (A.D. 110/111).Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 1} The figures for this group are: Augustus–Nero: 290; Vespasian-Antoninus: 56; M. Aurelius-Severus Alexander: 110.

^{page 135 note 2} 56 of these are distributed as follows: Augustus-Nero: 18; Galba-Antoninus: 37; M. Aurelius or later: 1.

^{page 135 note 3} 79 in this group are not included in the other lists.

^{page 135 note 4} Tiberius: ‘Ti. Caesaris’, ‘Ti. Caesaris Aug.’, ‘Ti. Iulii Caesaris’. ‘Ti. Aug.’ is rare (vi. 12697, 5746). Gaius: ‘C. Caesaris Aug.’, ‘C. Caesaris’. Claudius: ‘Ti. Claudi Caesaris Aug. (Germanici)’. ‘Ti. Claudi Caesaris’ is rare. Nero: ‘Neronis (Claudi) Caesaris Aug.’

^{page 135 note 5} Vespasian: ‘Imp. (T.) Vespasiani Caesaris Aug.’, ‘Imp. Caesaris Vespasiani’. Domitian: ‘Imp. Domitiani Aug.’, ‘Imp. Domitiani Caesaris Aug. Germanici’. xiv. 50: ‘Agathemerus Imp. T. Caesaris Aug. ser. paterni’, is to be referred to Vespasian or Titus rather than to Tiberius, as apart from the unusual ‘T.’ for ‘Ti.’, the praenomen ‘Imp.’ does not occur for slaves of the Julio-Claudian emperors.

^{page 135 note 6} vi. 619: ‘Speratus Imp. Caesaris Hadriani Aug. ser.’, restored under Caracalla; '9365: ‘Chelys Severi Imp. Aug.’; iii. 8243: ‘Achilleus Antonini Pii Aug. et Iuliae Aug. ser.’

^{page 135 note 7} vi. 15492,20564,33737 (Agrippinianus); v. 96, 8386; viii. 12652 (Imp. n. ser.); cf. P. Ryl. iv. 608.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 8} See Bang, , op. cit., p. 178 n. 1, for examples.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 9} e.g. vi. 3975, 4032 (Maecenatianus), 4086, 4213, 9050.

^{page 135 note 10} vi. 8835, 10267 (cf 10266); iii. 333: ‘Caesaris Aug. servos verna’, where the Greek has See Bang, , op. cit. pp. 180–1;Google Scholar add to his examples: vi. 8633, 8753, 8781a, 8995, 11631 (Caianus), 13850, 16787,30556. 95, 33125c, 37768; A.E.(1912), 183;Google Scholar (1958), 278; iii. 256, 2082; v. 1801; xiii. 5092; xiv. 5308. 12.

^{page 135 note 11} Except perhaps in two cases, both unusual: vi. 26732: ‘Stachys Aug. Caesaris n.’ (the order ‘Aug. Caes.’ occurs only once elsewhere, vi. 4884); xi. 6712. 9: ‘Zotici C. / Augusti n.’, a signaculum, where ‘C(aesaris)’ would be unique in the form ‘Caesaris Augusti (ser.)’.

^{page 136 note 1} See Bang, , op. cit., p. 175, n. 4, for examples.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 2} But cf. vi. 11242–3: ‘Agathopus Actes n. ser.’; and iii. 7380 (Thracian Chersonese): ‘... populo et familiai Caesaris n ...’ (A.D. 55).

^{page 136 note 3} vi. 32429.

^{page 136 note 4} viii. 14560 (A.D. 107), where the reading ‘Aug n.s.’ is uncertain.

^{page 136 note 5} vi. 5304, 99042, 045.

^{page 136 note 6} iii 7435; cf. 349 (Phrygia): ‘Craterus Caes. n. ser. ver.’ (Commodus).

^{page 136 note 7} A.E. (1954), 64.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 8} xi. 534: ‘... Caess. nn. verna’, is probably Aurelian in date. The others may well be earlier: viii. 12758: ‘Hospes Caes. nnn. ser.’ is referred by Mommsen (viii, p. 1336, n. 4) to Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian; also from Carthage is 22924: ‘Tertia Caesarum nnn. serva’ (not certainly Severan, as Bang, , op. cit. 177,Google Scholar n. 1, 180, n. 3); cf. 24756; v. 1159; vi. 8494; x. 7653. The Greek inscriptions and the papyri tend to preserve the earlier nomenclature: S.E.G. vi. 380:Google ScholarB.G.U. i. 156: (A.D. 201); P. Oxy. 735. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 9} Mommsen, , Staatsr. ii. 1139 f.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 10} Cf. iii. 8243 (A.D. 216)—a joint-slave of Caracalla and Iulia Domna; vi. 776: ‘Constantius Augg. et Caes. tabul(arius) s(ummi) c(horagii)’—a joint-slave of Severus, Caracalla, and Geta Caesar. The question of joint-ownership and joint-manumission of Imperial slaves is discussed in an article ‘Augustorum libertus’ in Historia xiii (1964).Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 11} See C.Q. N.S. xiii (1963), 273 n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 12} e.g. vi. 5181, 5215, 24079.

^{page 136 note 13} vi. 34005 (A.D. 23/24); 8409a (Gaius); also early are vi. 5355 (Aemilianus), 5872 (Arc(h)elianus), 22970 (Maecenatianus). Claudius or later: vi. 8829, 8957, 9046, 15350; iii. 12289; xi. 3173 (Vestinianus); A.E. (1953), 24Google Scholar (Iulianus—A.D. 45?); other Iuliani, vi. 5837, 22679. Flavian or later: vi. 8408 (Atticianus); viii. 12656.

^{page 137 note 1} vi. 5822 (Gaius), 8823–4 (Gaius–Claudius), 20042 (Augustus–Gaius), 34005 (Tiberius).

^{page 137 note 2} vi. 8870 (twice); xi. 4462; vi. 35308.

^{page 137 note 3} Roman Imperial Navy, pp. 44, 69 f.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 4} Op. cit., p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 5} Op. cit., p. 176.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 6} The figures are as follows (those for inscriptions with title or occupation are given in brackets): from the dated inscriptions only: Julio-Claudian: 16 (5); all periods: 101 (76); from the undated inscriptions: with slave-indication ‘Caesaris’: 91 (59); ‘Augusti’: 74 (68); ‘Caesaris n’: 29 (12); 'Augusti n.: 14 (32). Total: 309 (247).

^{page 137 note 7} Noteworthy are: vi. 8592:' Pedia Epictesis Placido Caesaris ex statione xxxx Galliarum'; cf. 8493: ‘Placido Caesar. Pedia Epictesis contubernali’. vi. 9058: ‘Threpte Aug., Communis Aug. tabul.’ in the same inscription, iii. 4712: ‘Aquilinus Caes. n.’; cf. v. 706: ‘Aquilinus vilicus Augg.’— apparently the same person.

^{page 137 note 8} Cf. vi. 8575, 8723.

^{page 137 note 9} Cf. viii. 12640; x. 1751; and one might add vi. 8928: ‘Caspius trierarchus’. Starr's argument would apply with equal force to the corporis custodes who do not use ‘ser.’ or ‘vern.’ in their status-indication but who are of servile status.

^{page 138 note 1} The one exception I can find is from the period of Antoninus Pius–vi. 22789: ‘Myrine C./T. A. Alexandre Aug. 1.’, which has more than one unusual abbreviation.

^{page 138 note 2} ‘C.n. (ser./vern.)’: vi.8524, 16868, 17413, 18428, 22960, 30901, 37748; v. 237; viii. 12819, 13131; xi. 5807;xiv. 1636.

^{page 138 note 3} xi. 6712. 7, 8; A.E. (1908), 194. Cf. viii. 9362: ‘Alexander A. n. lib.’Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 4} A.E. (1913), 76—perhaps the only firstcentury example; ‘Caes. n.s.’: vi. 8495 (twice), 8523. ‘Aug. s.’: iii. 12301; viii. 12810, 13084. viii. 14560 is doubtful (see p. 136 n. 4 above).Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 5} Unique would be vi. 19015: ‘Genesius C. N. V(erna)’, where ‘U(lpia)’ is also possible.

^{page 139 note 1} Op. cit. pp. 175 f.Google Scholar