SLAVES, FREEDMAN AND FREE
SOCIAL DIFFERENCES IN NAMES
Social differences were already expressed by the formula onomastic, that is, by the way in which each one was named. Slaves were entitled to a unique name, which at most could be completed with the indication of the master as we see for the slave of n. 41, Helene, L (uci) Aponi Crispini (servant), i.e. Elena, slave of Lucio Aponio Crispino ‘.
For free men from birth (naive) the complete formula could include up to five elements:
- the personal praenomen (Caius, Lucius, Marcus etc.).
- the nomen or gentilizio, that is the name of the family.
- filiation, expressed with reference to the praenomen of the father (“son of …”);
- often also the tribe or registry area;
- at last the cognonem.
For freedmen there was a formula of the same type, but instead of the father’s praenomen they had to indicate that of the former master:
Thus, for example, in n. 8 we find M (arcus) Marcius M (arci) f (ilius) Fab (ia tribu) Iustus, that is “Marco Marcio, son of Marco, enrolled in the Fabia tribe, Giusto ”, where Marco is the praenomen, Marcio the noble and Giusto the surname.
For freedmen there was a formula of the same type, but instead of the father’s praenomen they had to indicate that of the former master: not “son of …”, but “freedman from…”; and if the mistress was a woman, since the women had no praenomen, the symbol was used conventional of an inverted “C”, that is, with the hump to the right, and the formula came to simply say “Freedman of a woman”.
Precisely to avoid having to make this origin explicit servile, which was felt as a stain, many freedmen omitted this part of the formula.
Furthermore, the freedman, at the moment of his release, was obliged to take on the gentry of the former owner (from 4 AD also its praenomen), transforming the own original unique name in cognomen.
Thus the freedman who in n. 38 figure as P(ublius) Vettius P (ubli) l (ibertus) Optatus, before his liberation was a slave named Optatus, property of a P(ublius) Vettius.
SLAVES, FREEDMAN AND FREE
SOCIAL DIFFERENCES IN NAMES
Social differences were already expressed by the formula onomastic, that is, by the way in which each one was named. Slaves were entitled to a unique name, which at most could be completed with the indication of the master as we see for the slave of n. 41, Helene, L (uci) Aponi Crispini (servant), i.e. Elena, slave of Lucio Aponio Crispino ‘.
For free men from birth (naive) the complete formula could include up to five elements:
- the personal praenomen (Caius, Lucius, Marcus etc.).
- the nomen or gentilizio, that is the name of the family.
- filiation, expressed with reference to the praenomen of the father (“son of …”);
- often also the tribe or registry area;
- at last the cognonem.
For freedmen there was a formula of the same type, but instead of the father’s praenomen they had to indicate that of the former master:
Thus, for example, in n. 8 we find M (arcus) Marcius M (arci) f (ilius) Fab (ia tribu) Iustus, that is “Marco Marcio, son of Marco, enrolled in the Fabia tribe, Giusto ”, where Marco is the praenomen, Marcio the noble and Giusto the surname.
For freedmen there was a formula of the same type, but instead of the father’s praenomen they had to indicate that of the former master: not “son of …”, but “freedman from…”; and if the mistress was a woman, since the women had no praenomen, the symbol was used conventional of an inverted “C”, that is, with the hump to the right, and the formula came to simply say “Freedman of a woman”.
Precisely to avoid having to make this origin explicit servile, which was felt as a stain, many freedmen omitted this part of the formula.
Furthermore, the freedman, at the moment of his release, was obliged to take on the gentry of the former owner (from 4 AD also its praenomen), transforming the own original unique name in cognomen.
Thus the freedman who in n. 38 figure as P(ublius) Vettius P (ubli) l (ibertus) Optatus, before his liberation was a slave named Optatus, property of a P(ublius) Vettius.