Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T14:33:59.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Irregular Nomina of Imperial Freedman

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

P. R. C. Weaver
P. R. C. Weaver
Affiliation:
University of Western Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In conjunction with the Imperial status-indication, the Imperial nomina gentilicia provide the basic dating criterion for the Augusti liberti. Especially useful is the terminus ad quem, which is, in general, approximately 40 years after the death of the last possible manumitting emperor. Thus, the inscription of a Ti. Claudius Aug. lib. is not likely to be later than A.D. 100 and certainly (except under exceptional circumstances) not later than A.D. IIO.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , December 1965 , pp. 323 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1965

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 C.Q. N.S. xiii (1963), 272Google Scholar and n. 7. References are to C.I.L. unless otherwise indicated.

2 Venvaltungsbeamten 2, p. 329 n. 6, following Cuq and Gatti.

3 Diz. Epig. iv. 912.Google Scholar

4 See J.R.S. liv (1964), 123 ff.Google Scholar

5 Cf. Mommsen, , C.I.L. viii, p. 1335 n. 10.Google Scholar In the case of M. Pomponius Dionysius (Cic, . ad Att. iv. 15.Google Scholar 1) it is the praenomen that differs from that of the patron, T. Pomponius Atticus, not the gentilicium. Similar are the cases of C. Iulius Augustae 1. Prosopas (vi. 20237), and C. Iulius Eutyches, Fausti Iuliae Augustae a manu filius (vi. 4448). Cf. Vitucci, , op. cit. 910.Google Scholar

1 See further, Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc. (1964), 90 ff.Google Scholar

2 I hope to discuss fully the question of the status of wives in the Familia Caesaris elsewhere.

3 Gaius, i. 80, 82; Ulpian, , Reg. v. 9.Google Scholar

4 Gaius, i. 84, 91, 160; Ulpian, , Reg. xi. 11;Google ScholarPauli Sent. ii. 21.Google Scholar 1, iv. 10. 2; Tacitus, , Ann. xii. 53.Google Scholar 1; Suetonius, , Vesp. 11.Google Scholar Cf. C.R. N.S. xiv (1964), 137 f.Google Scholar

1 See C.Q. N.s. xiv (1964), 137 ff.Google Scholar

2 The fiscus seems to have taken a special interest in the rights of inheritance accruing from the women in the Familia Caesaris. The Fragmentum de lure Fisci, 12, lays it down that if a liberta Caesaris dies intestate everything goes to the fiscus (‘totum fisco vindicatur’), but that if she makes a will only half her estate is claimed. This appears to be exacting the full amount which the patron could claim under the law of testamentary succes- sion, and makes no allowance for the normal exceptions which diminished the patron's share, e.g. if there were more than three children or direct descendants. (De Iur. Fisci, 13, ‘ancilla Caesaris quae quinque liberos habuerit…’ probably refers to manumission.) It is noteworthy that when the law was changed in A.D. 320 (Cod. Theod. iv. 12.Google Scholar 3) the mother retained her status as ingenua but the children became Latini, which meant that the whole of their estate went to the fiscus in practically all circumstances. Cf. also the phrase in De Iur. Fisci, 6, ‘nisi cum in fraudem portionis Caesaris fiat’.

3 Cf. Mommsen, , C.I.L. viii, p. 1335 n. 10;Google ScholarHirschfeld, , op. cit. 458 n. 1;Google ScholarVitucci, , op. cit. 912.Google Scholar

1 ix. 313 (Rubi, Apulia): ‘Caius Pompilius Caesaris l.’ may be ignored because of the absence of cognomen; the reading cannot be right as the first two words must conceal a personal cognomen.