Roman Civilization

CMS 206 /History 206

What's in a name?

• 
  
• The Roman familia was part of a larger unit of social organization that developed very early in Roman history. This unit, which we would call a "clan" the Romans called a gens. Every male citizen's name included his family "clan" name (nomen or nomen gentilicium) which usually fell second in the appellation (and always ended in "ius"): e.g.
  
  
  • Marcus Tullius Cicero / Gaius Julius Caesar / Gaius Marius
    
    
  • Cicero, accordingly, was from the Tullian clan, Caesar was from the Julian clan and Marius was from the Marian clan.
    
• As Rome developed, clans often came to include large numbers of familiae. While technically related, over time these familiae grew quite distinct in their social idenity. It became important for familiae within a gens to be able both to distinguish themselves and to indicate their clan identity. Thus, Romans developed the cognomen, which is the third word in an appellation.
  
  
  • Marcus Tullius Cicero, belonged to the family of the Cicerones who were of the Tullian clan.
    
    
  • Gaius Julius Caesar belonged to the Caesares who were of the Julian clan.
    
    
  • Gaius Marius and Gaius Pompeius, on the other hand, belonged to clans that were sufficiently small and/or undistinguished enough that it didn't need cognomines to distinguish different families within the clan.
    
• A Roman might also aquire a cognomen when other Romans wanted to honor his accomplishments. Publius Cornelius Scipio, for example, was called Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus after he defeated Hannibal at Zama in 202. Gaius Pompeius, after enjoying a string of military victories in the east, took to calling himself Gaius Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great). Lucius Cornelius Sulla (note, same gens as Scipio Africanus) called himself Felix (Lucky) after he defeated Cinna on his return from the Mithradatic wars. Nobody objected. After Octavian became princeps, the Senate voted him the honorific name of Augustus (hallowed one). Cognomines that quickly became party of a familia's name and lost these connotations themselves betray earlier informal uses. "Cicero" in Latin, means "chickpea" but we don't know how that branch of the Tullian clan became known as the cicerones. Scaevola, means "lefty." That cognomen was awarded when a member of the Mucian clan offered to burn his right hand off and then fight Roman enemies with his left. Hence forth, sons of that family were known as Mucius Scaevola. The cognomen "Rufus" means "red head and "Brutus" meant "dummy." Like "chickpea" they were cognomines that clearly had strongly evocative associations when first used, but lost this aspect over the centuries.
  
  
• The first name in the appellation was the praenomen. This was the name, like our first name, that identified members within a family. It was only used by those on close terms with each other. A rival or even supporter or even a friend, would never call Cicero, "Marcus." There were only 20 praenomines in use during most of the Republic (which seems a bit limited to us). The tria nomina (three part name) was the hallmark of Roman citizenship and was hauled out by Romans on particularly formal occasions. The names of Roman male citizen's also included their "tribal" name (the tribe in which they were registered to vote), but was only used to register their birth, in the census and in inscriptions. Romans, like us, also had "nicknames," which they referred to as signa, and which they did not formally recorded.
  
  
• When a Roman citizen was adopted, he took the name of his adopted father. Gaius Julius Caesar, for example, adopted his nephew, Gaius Octavius, in his will. The adoptee had the option (often chosen) of turning his birth father's nomen into an adjective and adding it to his name as an extra cognomen. Thus, Octavius became Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. This practice creates a gutwrenching nightmare when studying certain families. Lucius Aemilius Paullus, for example, permitted Publius Cornelius Scipio to adopt his son. That son, became Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, and was himself honored with the additional cognomen "Numantianus," after defeating the city of Numantia and completing Roman control of Spain. In theory, this well-handled Roman could have called himself Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Aemilianus Numantianus. Fortunately for us, he had no children.
  
  
• Slaves, when freed, also adopted their master's names. As slaves they typically only had one name, a praenomen (e.g., Tiro). When freed, they would usually take their former master's praenomen and nomen and turn their own praenomen into a cognomen. Thus, Cicero's slave, secretary and editor, became Marcus Tullius Tiro when Cicero finally freed him. Because the praenomines of slaves did not overlap with those of citizens, it was alway easy to tell from the servile origins of a familia.
  
  
• The naming system for women was far simpler than that for men. While originally Roman women did have praenomines these fell into disuse by the second century BCE. A woman's name was the simple the female form of the family's nomen. Cicero's daughter was Tullia. Scipio's daughter was Cornelia. If a family had more than one daughter, they were referred to each with nouns or adjectives reflecting the order of birth: Cornelia maior, Cornelia minor (the older and younger); Tullia prima, Tullia secunda, Tullia tertia (the first, second and third). In public, people would refer to a woman by her name, and the possessive form of her father's name: Tullia Ciceronis - Tullia, the daughter of Cicero. Married women had the option, but not obligation, of adding the possessive form of their husband's name as a cognomen. Cicero's wife would have been called Terentia Ciceronis.
  

---

Father knows best

• The head of a Roman family was the paterfamilias (father of the family). The familia for which he was responsible and overwhich he excercised his authority included not merely what we would recognize as the nuclear family, but also, slaves and freedmen. Sometimes all of these (as well as close personal friends, clients, tame philosophers) would live within the domus (the family house). By the same token, married adult sons and daughters and friends, freedmen and clients might live in separate residences.
  
  
• To become a paterfamilias a Roman man had to a) be a citizen; and b) his father had to die. Until a father, died he exercised patriapotestas (paternal power) over his sons unless he formally chose to free them of his authority by an arcane legal ritual that resembled the ritual for manumission of slaves. On a father's death, his son's were said to be sui iuris (we'll talk about wive's and daughters in the next lecture). In legal theory patriapotestas was absolute. Sons, like slaves, for example, could own nothing in their own name (with the exception of a peculium - or allowance) and could incur no debts or enter into any contracts without their fathers' consent. Similarly, in theory, a father had a ius necandi "right of life and death," not merely over his slaves, but also over his children.
  
• While there are a few famous Roman stories about fathers who excercised this right to kill their sons, in fact, almost all appear to be more myth than history. From a practical point of view there are a number of reasons why father's didn't kill their sons. First, at least among the elite (for whom we have the best evidence), it seems that a significant number (30-40%) of sons had lost their fathers by the time they were teenagers. Second, even if your father was still alive by the time you were old enough to rebel, the odds were he was often away on military or diplomatic service for Rome. So dads simply weren't home often enough to give rise to wholesale slaughter of sons. More importantly, Romans valued greatly the idea of pietas - devoted duty, to the familia.
  
  
• Pietas meant that sons were unlikely to want to do the kinds of things that would inspire a father to kill them and fathers were unlikely to want to kill their sons. The familial sentiment of Roman family culture was not unlike ours - fathers and sons were praised and admired for their relationships of affection and devotion. Even though the law granted the father the right of killing his children, Romans would have looked aghast at the act (as the mytho-historical examples suggest). Cicero's relationship with his son is probably typical of the reality. Cicero was devoted to his son (and nephew), worried endlessly about his education and spoiled him quite a bit. Marcus junior appears to have been not a bad sort, if a bit of a party animal, who simply didn't have the stuff to rival his father's accomplishments (who did?). The letters between father and son (and Tiro, Cicero's secretary who intervened when Cicero grew exaspertaed with young Marcus) reflect sentiments, concerns and conflicts that probably would sound quite familiar to American families today.