THE EMERGENCE OF A NOVEL ONOMASTIC PATTERN:COGNOMEN + NOMENIN SENECA THE ELDER

Abstract

The formula cognomen + nomen, as portrayed in Latronis enim Porcii (Sen. Controv. 1 praef. 13), the first double-name reference without praenomen in Seneca the Elder's work (henceforth referred to simply as Seneca), emerged as a result of the radical changes which the Roman onomastic system began to experience at the end of the Republic. On account of a wide variety of factors, both social and linguistic, the cognomen seized the role of diacritic name and individual signifier, having ousted praenomen from its ancient throne; the relatively limited number of praenomina in common use contributed substantially to their waning. The formulae of two constituents visibly reflected the progressive decline of praenomina; during the Early Principate double names still represented the usual formal means of reference (tria nomina being highly formal, mostly occurring in official contexts), but it mostly consisted of nomen + cognomen rather than praenomen + nomen or praenomen + cognomen. The formula nomen + cognomen, which developed once personal cognomina began to spread among the lesser classes, was primarily crafted for addressing men of ambiguous status, peregrini and freedmen. Thus, Cicero tends to avoid its use in naming members of the nobility, whom he refers to with a clear preference for the older, lustrous conjunction praenomen + cognomen.

An Institutional Analysis of the Economics of Identity

“…For instance, the Roman consul and orator Cicero was also known as 'Marcus Tullius Cicero'. Made up of a praenomen, nomen gentilicium, and cognomen, the tria nomina was by no means the only naming convention used in western Europe in the Roman period (see Echavarren 2013), however it has been the most documented and studied of the period (Salway 1994). These naming conventions were often used as information transmission devices, providing details as to familial origins, birth precedence, and other important information about the bearer.…”

“…Salway (1994) lists just seventeen praenomina during the Regnal and Republican periods, 47 although other sources differ in their estimates of praenomina in common usage (see for instance Chase 1897, Petersen 1962. Echavarren (2013) attributes the diminishment of these names around the 1 st century due to their relatively limited stock; their usefulness in distinguishing between two individuals appears to have been limited. This problem was exacerbated by some families of the nobility, which tended to use only a small sample of the already limited number of praenomina in common usage; the patrician family 'Postumii Albini' almost entirely restricted themselves to using 'Aulus', 'Lucius' and 'Spurius' (Bailey 1976).…”