Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T12:28:02.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EMERGENCE OF A NOVEL ONOMASTIC PATTERN: COGNOMEN + NOMEN IN SENECA THE ELDER1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2013

Arturo Echavarren
Arturo Echavarren*
Affiliation:
Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)
*
arturo.echavarren@cchs.csic.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , May 2013 , pp. 353 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2013

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.Footnote 2 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.Footnote 3 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),Footnote 4 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.Footnote 5 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.Footnote 6

Having acquired the functions of the praenomen, the migration of the cognomen to the position formerly occupied by the praenomen must be regarded as fairly logical. As a consequence, the pattern Ahala Seruilius in reference to P. Servilius Ahala, for example, bore some resemblance to the style P. Seruilius, which followed the antique, deep-seated pattern praenomen + nomen. Although being thus more fashionable for Roman aristocracy than the non-inverted formula, scholars as a rule consider the inversion more informal than the sequence nomen + cognomen. It has also been pointed out that the style cognomen + nomen is sometimes charged with affective values ranging from warm eulogy or amicable consideration to bitter contempt.Footnote 7

When examining the occurrences of the sequence cognomen + nomen in authors belonging to the end of the Republic and the early years of the first century a.d., we can notice the slowness with which the new formula gained acceptance in literary language, till its fertile reception in Seneca the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus or Pliny the Younger.Footnote 8 Seneca the Elder, who was born in the fifties of the first century b.c. and probably composed his Controuersiae and Suasoriae in the thirties of the following century, offers a highly valuable testimony for the emergence of this new onomastic pattern.Footnote 9 Whereas the pattern is very rare in Republican authors, in Seneca's anthology cognomen + nomen is the second most frequent double-name formula (201 instances) after nomen + cognomen (403 instances).

It is noticeable that Seneca's usage is not generally confined to references to members of the highest social order, as in Velleius Paterculus or Valerius Maximus, but covers the whole spectrum of Roman society. Thus, Seneca applies this formula to men from the ordo senatorius such as the patrician Quintilius Varus (Controv. 1.3.10) (PIR 2 VII 1 Q 29), son of the homonymous general, C. Asinius Pollio (Controv. 2.3.13; 2.5.10, 13; 3 praef. 14; 4 praef. 2, 6, 11; 7 praef. 2; 7.1.22; 7.4.3, 7; 7.6.12; 9.2.25; Suas. 2.10; 6.24) (PIR 2 I A 1241), Bruttedius Niger (Controv. 2.1.35, 36), aedile in a.d. 22 (PIR 2 I B 158), the historian A. Cremutius Cordus (Suas. 6.23) (PIR 2 II C 1564), whose daughter is the Marcia to whom Seneca the Younger addresses a Consolatio, the Ligurian senator C. Stertinius Maximus (Controv. 2.1.36), suffect consul in a.d. 23 (PIR 2 III S 660), the old-fashioned declaimer and nouus homo Vibius Rufus (Controv. 2.1.2, 28; 2.3.18; 2.6.10; 9.2.18, 25; 9.6.13; 10.1.12; 10.6.2) (PIR III V 396), suffect consul in a.d. 16, equites such as the ill-fated declaimer Vallius Syriacus (Controv. 1.1.11; 7.6.11) (PIR 2 III V 171), plebeians like Cassius Severus (Controv. 2.4.11; 3 praef. 1; 10.5.20) (PIR 2 II C 522),Footnote 10 or the professional delator Romanius Hispo (Controv. 1.2.16; 1.6.9; 1.7.12; 2.2.2, 7; 2.3.18, 21; 2.4.9; 2.5.5, 20; 2.6.13; 4.6; 7.2.13; 7.4.4; 7.5.9; 7.6.21; 7.7.12, 14; 7.8.11; 9.1.11, 15; 9.3.11; 10.1.13; 10.5.19, 23) (PIR 2 VIII 1 R 81). Unlike Republican writers, in naming contemporary men Seneca makes relatively infrequent use of the formulae praenomen + nomen and praenomen + cognomen, always restricting their use to reference to members of the upper class.Footnote 11

If, as shown, social demarcations do not exhibit an immediate effect on the use of cognomen + nomen, context, however, is utterly decisive in this matter. With regard to onomastic formulae, we may perceive two different sections in each controuersia and suasoria.

In the first section (the sententiae), Seneca gathers together epigrams from the declamations of a variable number of speakers, first on one side of the case, then, sometimes, on the other. In this context, the names of the declaimers occur wholly in the genitive case. This is the core of his work, where Seneca's aim is to rescue some remarkable sayings of fine declaimers of his time from oblivion, preventing them from being stolen by counterfeiters too idle and ignorant to produce solid orations of their own (Controv. 1 praef. 11).

In his obdurate restoring of ‘literary property’ to these declaimers, it appears obvious that Seneca's act of naming is a matter of great import. In this section, formality thereby demands the use of double rather than single names (388 occurrences versus 108, respectively). Here cognomen + nomen is massively outnumbered by the more formal style nomen + cognomen, the latter being employed 353 times, the former only fifteen.

Close examination reveals that occurrences of cognomen + nomen in this first section tend to gather in groups; the most numerous one is to be found in the first controuersia of Book 2, which provides seven cases of cognomen + nomen but only four of nomen + cognomen. The list of names is as follows: Porci Latronis, Rufi Vibii, Cesti Pii, Arellii Fusci patris, Blandi, Galli Vibii, Fabiani Papirii, Hispani Cornelii, Triarii, Romanii Hisponis, Silonis Pompeii, Latronis Porcii, Fusci Arelli patris. On examining these names, it must be noted that the Greek rhetor L. Cestius Pius, the mellifluous declaimer Triarius (PIR 2 III T 249) and the Marsian rhetorician Blandus never receive the style cognomen + nomen in Seneca's work. Cestius Pius is always mentioned with nomen + cognomen, whereas Triarius, named forty-three times, is always referred to simply as ‘Triarius’.Footnote 12 As for Blandus, qui eques Romanus Romae docuit (Controv. 2 praef. 5), identified with Rubellius BlandusFootnote 13 (PIR 2 III R 80), he is always addressed by cognomen alone. In Controv. 2.2.1–2 we run into two new instances of this onomastic gathering (Fusci Arellii patris and Hisponis Romani), separated only by a brief sententia pronounced by Marullus, who is always referred to by cognomen alone.Footnote 14 Lastly, in Controv. 2.5.5, Hisponis Romanii and Hispani Corneli have been placed together; the similarity between both cognomina appears, in this instance, to be behind the double use of the formula.Footnote 15 The consensus codicum actually reads Hisponis as cognomen for Corneli, a reading which was properly emended in the editio Frobeniana (1515).

The other four cases of cognomen + nomen in this first section are presented separately: Bassi Sepullii (Controv. 7.2.1),Footnote 16Pollionis Asinii (Controv. 7.6.12), Silonis Pompeii (Controv. 9.2.5),Footnote 17 and Fusci Arelli patris (Controv. 2.4.5). In the lines preceding this last passage Seneca records some words by the same rhetor, whom he names by nomen + cognomen. Arellius Fuscus' quotations are separated by brief declamatory fragments of Albucius Silus, Iulius Bassus and Porcius Latro, all of whom are referred to by nomen + cognomen.

The second section of each declamation is devoted to the division and, in the Controuersiae, to the colores, generally summarized in short epigrams. It is often followed by a brief segment assigned to Greek sayings. In this second part Seneca often recounts extravagances of the declaimers, whose bitter rivalries and sparkling wit offer ample scope for a wealth of anecdote (see e.g. Controv. 2.1.25; 2.4.11; 7.4.7; 9.3.12–14; 9.4.17–18; 10.5.20; Suas. 1.5–8; 2.12; 3.4–7; 4.5; 6.27; 7.13, etc). With respect to double-name references, whereas in the opening section (sententiae) of the Controuersiae and Suasoriae the style nomen + cognomen is the most common, the second section is the realm of cognomen + nomen, as befits a context more appropriate for the use of informal formulae.Footnote 18 Seneca thus employs here cognomen + nomen 172 times and nomen + cognomen only sixty-six. Closely allied to this phenomenon is the proliferation of single names, mainly unaccompanied cognomina, which are more frequent here than in the opening section.

A similar situation may be found in the prefaces, which, interspersed with colourful anecdotes, share the generally informal tone of this second section. The demands of informality produce here single rather than double names, the latter representing only 23 per cent of the total formulae. Seneca uses cognomen + nomen twelve times in the praefationes, in reference to M. Porcius Latro (Controv. 1 praef. 13; 9 praef. 3), Arellius Fuscus (Controv. 2 praef. 1, 5), Cassius Severus (Controv. 3 praef. 1), Pompeius Silo (Controv. 3 praef. 11), C. Asinius Pollio (Controv. 4 praef. 2, 6, 11; 7 praef. 2), Votienus Montanus (Controv. 9 praef. 1) and Porcius Rusticus (Controv. 9 praef. 3). However, nomen + cognomen is only employed three times, in naming Arellius Fuscus (Controv. 2 praef. 1), who is referred to by cognomen + nomen in the following sentence, Clodius Turrinus (Controv. 10 praef. 14) and Cassius Severus (Controv. 4 praef. 11). In this last passage, Seneca elegantly displays the chiastic sequence nomen + cognomen plus cognomen + nomen: Memini et illam contradictionem sic ab illo positam magnam materiam Pollionis Asinii et tunc Cassi Seueri iocis praebuisse. Relying on a pun on the meaning of Cassius' cognomen, the wording produces a callida iunctura, introducing a brilliant effect of antithesis in Seueri/iocis.Footnote 19

We can note that almost all of the declaimers of consequence in Seneca's work receive the onomastic formula cognomen + nomen at least once. There exist, however, three notable exceptions, L. Iunius Gallio, C. Albucius Silus and L. Cestius Pius. In examining their naming patterns, we may glimpse at the affective values of the conjunction cognomen + nomen.

The eloquent senator Iunius Gallio (PIR 2 IV I 756), probably a Spaniard, and author of a treatise on rhetoric, was one of Seneca's dearest friends by the time of the writing of the Controuersiae and Suasoriae, later adopting his elder son Novatus.Footnote 20 He is named sixty-one times, forty-three by nomen + cognomen and eighteen by cognomen alone. The first formula is only employed in the opening section of the declamationes, where, as we have seen, context encourages the usage of double names (see e.g. Controv. 1.1.4; 1.2.11; 1.5.2; 2.2.3; 2.3.6; 2.5.6; 2.6.4; 7.1.12; 7.7.3; 7.8.4; 9.1.8). The senator is elsewhere referred to as Gallio, a style denoting warmer affection and intimacy, as cognomina alone possess something of the character of personal praenomina.Footnote 21 It is important to underline the fact that, in reference to Gallio, the formula nomen + cognomen, devoid of all affectionate value, is entirely confined within the limits of the highly formal opening section.

Likewise, the Gaulish rhetorician C. Albucius Silus (PIR 2 I A 489) (fl. 6 b.c.), although mentioned sixty-six times in Seneca's work, is never given the formula cognomen + nomen.Footnote 22 When a single name is required, he is referred to by nomen alone (see e.g. Controv. 1.1.17; 1.2.16, 18; 1.3.8, 11; 1.4.8, 12; 1.5.9; 1.7.17, 18; 2.1.29, 31; 2.4.8; 2.5.17; 7.1.20, 21; 7.2.10, 14; 7.3.7). Significantly, the rhetor is only given the style nomen + cognomen in the first section of the declamationes (see e.g. Controv. 1.1.10; 1.3.4; 1.8.4; 2.4.4, 6; 7.1.1; 7.2.2; 7.3.1, 3; 7.4.1; 7.5.4). In short, Seneca commits himself to employ the most formal and least affective formulae within both single- and double-name paradigms, that is, nomen alone and nomen + cognomen. The naming patterns thereby reveal that the author was not on familiar terms with Albucius, as we may also conclude from his portrait in Book 7. This rhetorician was, indeed, rarely met by Seneca, who brands him as pathologically insecure, gloomy and divested of all mirth (Controv. 7 praef. 1, 5, 7). His words do not convey the slightest hint of friendship.

Similarly, the Greek rhetorician L. Cestius PiusFootnote 23 (PIR 2 I C 694) is always addressed by nomen + cognomen in the opening section (see e.g. Controv. 1.1.7; 1.2.7, 1.3.2, 7; 1.4.2; 1.5.1; 1.6.1, 7; 1.7.3) and by nomen alone elsewhere (see e.g. Controv. 1.1.14, 15, 19, 22, 24; 1.2.15; 1.3.8, 9, 11; 1.4.9, 11; 1.5.3; 3 praef. 15; 4.8; 7 praef. 8). We may describe his relationship with Seneca as a long, relentless incompatibility; this fiery, malicious, aggressive rhetor, misled by his infinite vanity, ventured to deem himself better than Cicero, whose memory he was always eager to outrage (see e.g. Controv. 1.3.10, 11; 3 praef. 16–17; 7 praef. 8 [mordacissimi hominis]; 7.7.19; 9.3.12; Suas. 7.12–13).Footnote 24 To Seneca there could be no greater affront. Cestius is accordingly never addressed by either cognomen alone or cognomen + nomen.Footnote 25

Careful examination of the addressees who receive the style cognomen + nomen may reveal another decisive factor involved in naming conventions in Seneca's Controversiae and Suasoriae: chronology. Whereas references to contemporary men reflect the onomastic changes that developed in Augustus' reign, the mention of historical figures of the past, mostly referred to as exempla, depicts the usus appellandi which was characteristic of the Republic. Thus, the patterns praenomen + nomen and praenomen + cognomen, which abound in the pages of Cicero or Caesar, are the most frequent double-name styles used for these renowned men.Footnote 26 Double names without praenomen, however, are avoided. Only one of these Roman voices drawn from the misty past to the magnificent halls of declamation is named by cognomen + nomen, C. Mucius Scaevola, a bold exemplum of uirtus: Non aliud Scaeuolae Mucio cognomen dedit et capto contra Porsennan regem libertatem reliquit quam uilitas sui (Controv. 8.4). In this case, the migration of the cognomen to the first place is perceptibly due to a thematization phenomenon, shifting the topical element to an advanced position, as the purpose of the passage is to shed light on the origin of the name Scaeuola. Similarly, the sequence nomen + cognomen is employed only once in referring to exemplary figures (Controv. 2.1.8).

To sum up, the novel style cognomen + nomen, whose rarity is plainly visible in the preceding literary tradition, gained acceptance within Seneca's work, being one of his most frequent onomastic formulae. Surpassing its original aristocratic associations, Seneca employs the pattern in reference to citizens from all social strata, as long as they possess a cognomen, leaving the traditional styles praenomen + nomen and praenomen + cognomen for use only with reference to aristocrats. The relative novelty of the onomastic conjunction is revealed in the remarkable fact that it is almost exclusively used in naming contemporary people, whereas figures from the Roman Republican past tend to be given double names with praenomen, which were in vogue in their own time. In the Controuersiae and Suasoriae we also perceive informality (plus some affective values) as a distinguishing trait of the inverted form (contrasting with the formal style nomen + cognomen), whose use is generally – and logically – constrained within the limits of the sections characterized by an informal tone.

Footnotes

1

The research for this paper was completed with the support of the ‘Junta para la Ampliación de Estudios’ (CSIC), JAE-Doc Program, co-financed by the FSE. I am very grateful to Bruce Gibson and the anonymous referee for detailed criticism and helpful suggestions.

References

2 On the development and evolution of the Roman naming system, see Bailey, D.R. Shackleton, Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature (Atlanta, 1991 2)Google Scholar; Salway, B., ‘What's in a name? A survey of Roman onomastic practice from c. 700 b.c. to a.d. 700’, JRS 84 (1994), 124–45Google Scholar; Solin, H., ‘Namensgebung und Politik. Zum Namenswechsel und zu besonderen Vornamen römischer Senatoren’, Tyche 10 (1995), 185–210Google Scholar; Rix, H., ‘Römische Personennamen’, in Eichler, E. et al. (edd.), Namenforschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik 1 (Berlin/New York, 1995), 724–32Google Scholar; Jones, F., Nominum ratio. Aspects of the Use of Personal Names in Greek and Latin (Liverpool, 1996)Google Scholar; Castritius, H., ‘Das römische Namensystem – Von der Dreinamigkeit zur Einnamigkeit?’, in Geuenich, D., Haubrichs, W. and Jarnut, J. (edd.), Nomen et gens. Zur historischen Aussagekraft frühmittelalterlicher Personennamen (Berlin/New York, 1997), 30–40Google Scholar; Solin, H., ‘Zur Entwicklung des römischen Namensystems’, in Geuenich, D., Haubrichs, W. and Jarnut, J. (edd.), Person und Name. Methodische Probleme bei der Erstellung eines Personennamenbuches des Frühmittelalters (Berlin/New York, 2002), 1–17.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Solin (n. 2 [2002]), 6–9; Salomies, O., Die römischen Vornamen: Studien zur römischen Namengebung (Helsinki, 1987), 280–2.Google Scholar

4 Cf. Dickey, E., Latin Forms of Address. From Plautus to Apuleius (Oxford, 2002), 50–1.Google Scholar

5 See Lahmeyer, G., ‘Über die Reihenfolge der Eigennamen bei den Römern’, Philologus 22 (1865), 469–94Google Scholar, at 492–3; Schulze, W., Zur Geschichte der lateinischer Eigennamen (Berlin, 1904)Google Scholar, 491; Adams, J.N., ‘Conventions of naming’, CQ 28 (1978), 145–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 165–6; Dickey (n. 4), 67–8. On the naturalization of cognomina amongst all ordines in Late Republic and Early Empire, see Solin, H., ‘Sul consolidarsi del cognome nell'età repubblicana al di fuori della classe senatoria e dei liberti’, in Epigrafia. Actes du colloque international d'épigraphie latine en mémoire de Attilio Degrassi pour le centenaire de sa naissance (Rome, 1991), 153–87Google Scholar, and Gallivan, P., ‘The nomenclature patterns of the Roman upper class in the Early Empire’, Antichthon 26 (1992), 51–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Cf. Bailey, D.R. Shackleton, Cicero's Letters to Atticus, Vol. 1 (Books I–II) (Cambridge, 1965), 402–3.Google Scholar

7 See Curschmann, J., Zur Inversion der römischen Eigennamen. I. Cicero bis Livius (Büdingen, 1900)Google Scholar, 38; Axtell, H.L., ‘Men's names in the writings of Cicero’, CPh 10 (1915), 386–404Google Scholar, at 396; Salway (n. 2), 130; Jones (n. 2), 40.

8 It seems quite probable that in Catullus' line ‘Marrucine Asini’ (12.1), the first word is not a cognomen but a geographical epithet. See Nisbet, R.G.M. and Hubbard, M., A Commentary on Horace Odes, Book II (Oxford, 1978)Google Scholar, 167. The formula is only found once in the Rhetorica ad Herennium (3.21.34), Julius Caesar (B Civ. 2.33.3) and Cornelius Nepos (Att. 18.3–4), and three times in Varro (Rust. 1.2.7, 2 praef. 6, 2.11.12). Cicero also appears to dislike cognomen + nomen, whose original informal flavour determines its usage in his letters rather than in his speeches (see e.g. Att. 6.1.25, 8.15.3, 13.52.1, Q Fr. 2.4.1, 13.2, Fam. 6.12.2, 13.64.1). See also Curschmann (n. 7), 1–41. Horace's works, where cognomen + nomen is moderately frequent, seem crucial to the consecration of the style in Latin literature, as they explore the stylistic applications of the placement of the cognomen to first position, upon which communicative emphasis is automatically laid, thus favouring the modelling of puns on proper names (Carm. 2.2.3, 9.19, 11.2; Ep. 1.2.1, 8.1, Sat. 1.7.1, 5, 35, 9.61, 10.80, etc.). See Rudd, N., ‘The names in Horace's Satires’, CQ 10 (1960), 161–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Absent in Sallust, the formula is quite common in Livy, although he tends to use it for naming sources rather than historical figures (see e.g. 3.5.12, 4.20.8, 4.23.1, 7.9.4, 9.38.16, 9.46.3, 10.9.10, 33.30.10, 39.41.6, 39.56.7), as noted by Ogilvie, R.M., A Commentary on Livy, Books 1–5 (Oxford, 1984)Google Scholar, 570. Valerius Maximus, who prefers traditional formulae with praenomen, makes slight use of cognomen + nomen (see e.g. 3.2.6a, 4.1.13, 6.1.13, 8.7.5, 8.11.2, 8.15.8). Velleius Paterculus, however, takes keen delight in this formula, using it forty-two times (see e.g. 1.14.4, 1.14.6, 2.1.4, 2.12.2, 2.16.4, 2.33.4, 2.38.2, 2.39.2, 2.78.3). If Cicero showed a preference for the use of cognomen + nomen in reference to lesser men, Valerius Maximus and Velleius, both writing during Tiberius' reign, tend to use this formula in addressing men of senatorial rank.

9 On 55 b.c. as date of Seneca's birth, see Bornecque, H., Les déclamations et les déclamateurs d'après Sénèque le Père (Lille, 1967)Google Scholar, 10, and Sussman, L.A., The Elder Seneca (Leiden, 1978)Google Scholar, 20. Griffin, M., ‘The Elder Seneca and Spain’, JRS 62 (1972), 1–19Google Scholar, at 5, places Seneca's birth some years later, around 50 b.c., and is followed by Fairweather, J., ‘The Elder Seneca and declamation’, ANRW 2.32.1 (1984), 514–56Google Scholar, at 517. Regarding the date of the composition of the Controuersiae and Suasoriae, it appears quite clear that Seneca wrote his anthology in the winter of his life. As revealed by Artigas, E., ‘La datación de las Controversias de Séneca el Viejo: la cuestión de los prólogos’, in Ezquerra, A. Alvar (ed.), XI Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos (Madrid, 2005), 749–56Google Scholar, the prefaces convey significant data which show that most of Seneca's work was written by a.d. 31. On oldness as a trait of Seneca's style, see Artigas, E., ‘Les Controvèrsies de Sèneca pare, obra de vellesa’, in Usobiaga, B. and Quetglas, P.J. (edd.), Ciència, didàctica i funció social dels estudis clàssics (Barcelona, 2004), 135–43Google Scholar.

10 According to Tacitus, Cassius Severus was sordidae originis, maleficae uitae, sed orandi ualidus (Ann. 4.21.3). We shall hear more about him later.

11 See Adams (n. 5), 165; on Seneca's use of formulae with praenomen, see Echavarren, A., Nombres y personas en Séneca el Viejo (Pamplona, 2007)Google Scholar, 284. See e.g. L. Arruntius (Controv. 7 praef. 7), L. Asprenas (Controv. 10 praef. 2), P. Asprenas (Controv. 1.1.5; 1.2.9; 1.4.2, 12; 1.8.4; 2.2.4; 2.3.8; 2.6.3; 7.8.6; 9.2.3; 10.4.19, 25; Suas. 7.4), Q. Haterius (Controv. 1.6.12; 4 praef. 6; 7.1.4; 7.2.5; 7.8.3; 9.6.8; Suas. 6.1; 7.1), M. Lepidus (Controv. 10 praef. 3), etc. On distinguishing the illustrious senator M. Lepidus from his relative M'. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. a.d. 11), praeceptor of Germanicus' son Nero (Controv. 2.3.23), see Syme, R., ‘Marcus Lepidus, capax imperii’, JRS 45 (1955), 22–34.Google Scholar

12 See Echavarren (n. 11), 293, 297. Triarius occurs both as nomen and, much less frequently, as cognomen; see Kajanto, I., The Latin cognomina (Rome, 1982 2)Google Scholar, 320. Although we cannot establish the declaimer's nomenclature with any certainty, if Triarius is here a nomen, then this man did not possess a cognomen, like all of the declaimers named by unaccompanied nomen in the first section (M. Argentarius, T. Labienus and Passienus). See Echavarren (n. 11), 316.

13 This Rubellius Blandus, whose praenomen, according to Syme, R., ‘The marriage of Rubellius Blandus’, AJPh 103 (1982), 62–85Google Scholar, at 65, might be Lucius, was the grandfather of C. Rubellius Blandus, suffect consul in a.d. 18. In a.d. 33 this senator married Julia, Drusus' daughter and Tiberius' granddaughter (Tac. Ann. 6.27.1).

14 Marullus (PIR 2 V M 350), possibly himself a Spaniard, was the teacher of rhetoric of Seneca and Porcius Latro (Controv. 1 praef. 22), probably in Rome, as argued by Sussman (n. 8), 20–1, and Migliario, E., ‘Orientamenti ideologici e relazioni interpersonali fra gli oratori e retori di Seneca il Vecchio’, in Gualandri, I. and Mazzoli, G. (edd.), Gli Annaei. Una famiglia nella storia e nella cultura di Roma imperiale (Como, 2003), 101–15Google Scholar, at 103. The invariable usage of cognomen alone in reference to this rhetor appears to be a gesture of intimacy. His cognomen, which is rather uncommon, may be derived from Maro, as suggested by Solin, H., Beiträge zur Kenntnis der griechischen Personennamen in Rom (Helsinki, 1971), 77–8.Google Scholar

15 Cornelius Hispanus (PIR 2 II C 1371) was a minor declaimer, perhaps from Hispania. Thus, Weinrib, E.J., The Spaniards in Rome: From Marius to Domitian (Cambridge, MA, 1990), 106–7Google Scholar; contra, Griffin (n. 9), 12 n. 143.

16 Sepullius Bassus (PIR 2 III S 360), perhaps related to P. Sepullius Macer, moneyer in 44 b.c., is a mediocre declaimer mentioned only in Book 7 of the Controuersiae. He exhibits a rare nomen from Transpadane Italy. See Syme, R., ‘Eight consuls from Patavium’, PBSR 51 (1983), 102–24, at 123 n. 129.Google Scholar

17 Pompeius Silo (PIR 2 VI P 653), regarded as a man of intelligence (Controv. 9.2.22), perhaps a Spaniard, as Weinrib (n. 15), 107 suggests, was a poor declaimer but a competent advocate (Controv. 3 praef. 11). Among his possible descendants we might mention M. Larcius Magnus Pompeius Silo, suffect consul in a.d. 83. This declaimer is named twenty times by nomen + cognomen, thirty-nine times by cognomen + nomen, five times by cognomen and, remarkably, once by nomen (Controv. 1.4.10).

18 Echavarren (n. 11), 287–8.

19 For a similar antithesis, cf. Cic. Fam. 7.10: Una mehercule nostra uel seuera uel iocosa congressio pluris erit quam non modo hostes, sed etiam fratres nostri Aedui. The caustic wit of Cassius Severus, himself a delator, was proverbial: in magna parte librorum suorum plus bilis habeat quam sanguinis (Tac. Dial. 26.4). On account of his many slanders of the Roman aristocracy, Cassius was deprived of his property and exiled to the inhospitable island of Seriphos, where he died (Tac. Ann. 4.21.3). On his activities against the regime, see D. Lassandro, ‘La condanna di Cassio Severo’, in Sordi, M. (ed.), Processi e politica nel mondo antico (Milan, 1996), 213–28Google Scholar, and Deroux, C., ‘Auguste, Cassius Severus et le procès de Nonius Asprenas (Suetone, Aug. LVI, 6 et Dion Cassius LV, 4, 3)’, Latomus 63 (2004), 178–81Google Scholar. He has been doubtfully identified with the anonymous addressee of Ovid's Ibis. See Herrmann, L., ‘La faute secrète d'Ovide’, RBPh 17 (1938), 695–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 709–12.

20 Bornecque (n. 9), 173–6; Fairweather, J., Seneca the Elder (Cambridge, 1981), 277–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Balbo, A., I frammenti degli oratori romani dell'età augustea e tiberiana, 3 vols. (Alessandria, 2007)Google Scholar, 2.247–53; Echavarren (n. 11), 167–9. According to Seneca, Gallio was one of the four most eloquent men of his time (Controv. 10 praef. 13). Bolton, J.D.P., ‘A curiosity in Seneca’, CQ 6 (1956), 238–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 240–1 suggests that Novatus' adoption, dated circa a.d. 52, occurred per testamentum rather than by adrogatio. This senator has been identified with the Gallio to whom Ovid addresses the briefest letter in the Epistulae ex Ponto (4.11).

21 Adams (n. 5), 165–6; Salway (n. 2), 130. See e.g. Controv. 1.1.14, 25; 1.6.8, 10; 1.7.12; 1.8.9; 2.1.33; 2.3.14. Similarly, in naming his closest childhood friend, the Spanish rhetorician M. Porcius Latro (PIR 2 VI P 859), who died in 4 b.c., Seneca displays a preference for unaccompanied cognomen rather than for cognomen + nomen. The Spaniard is referred to by cognomen alone in 105 cases, whereas he is only addressed by cognomen + nomen in five passages (Controv. 1 praef. 13; 2.1.17; 7.4.10; 9 praef. 3; 10.4.21). It must be noted that Latro is given the conjunction cognomen + nomen in his first appearance (Controv. 1 praef. 13); the use of this onomastic formula, as opposed to nomen + cognomen, is here to be regarded as a proper gesture of intimacy, in keeping with what Seneca says about his long friendship with Latro. On Latro's life and declamatory skills see Fairweather (n. 20), 251–70, and Duret, L., ‘Dans l'ombre des plus grands I. Deuxième partie: orateurs et déclamateurs’, ANRW 2.30.3 (1983), 1503–60, at 1518–25.Google Scholar

22 On this declaimer, whom Seneca regards as one of the best of his time (Controv. 10 praef. 13), see Bornecque (n. 9), 145–8; Assereto, A., Gaio Albucio Silo (Genoa, 1967)Google Scholar; Echavarren (n. 11), 50–4; Balbo (n. 20), 1.48–70.

23 See a prosopographical commentary on this conceited declaimer in Bornecque (n. 9), 160–2, and Echavarren (n. 11), 101–4. Although Greek, Cestius Pius had the habit of declaiming always in Latin (Controv. 9.3.13), in spite of his sometimes poor competence in this language, as Seneca notes in Controv. 7.1.27.

24 On Suas. 7.12–13, depicting a enjoyable joust between Cassius Severus, a passionate admirer of Cicero, and Cestius Pius, see Rayment, C.S., ‘Presumption rebuked’, CJ 42 (1947), 259–60Google Scholar.

25 There exists, however, a greater affective distance involving the delator Romanius Hispo, whose harsh bitterness and malevolence is often exposed by Seneca (Controv. 1.2.16; 2.5.20; 7.2.13, where he attacks Cicero; 9.3.11; 10.1.13). He is named thirty-four times, eight times by nomen + cognomen and twenty-six by cognomen + nomen. In spite of the distinctiveness of both his nomen and his cognomen (see R. Syme, ‘Personal names in Annals I–VI’, JRS 39 [1949], 6–18, at 14–15), which would ensure the fulfilment of the diacritic function in using either unaccompanied name, Seneca visibly eschews the use of single-name formulae in referring to him. The only passage where a single name appears to be employed is immediately followed by a lacuna: Romanius tamen … (Controv. 7.4.10). It may be hazarded without discomfort that after tamen we probably would have run into the cognomen Hispo. One of the three codices antiquiores, the Bruxellensis 9581–95, however, does not read Romanius here but romanis, so we cannot be sure of this personal reference at all. On the nomen of this declaimer, either Romanius or Romanus, see Badian, E., ‘More on Romanius Hispo’, RSA 3 (1973), 77–85Google Scholar.

26 See e.g. M. Brutus (Controv. 10.1.8; Suas. 6.11), P. Scipio (Suas. 7.8), P. Clodius (Controv. 7.2.13), C. Caesar (Suas. 6.13), Q. Catulus (Suas. 7.3), Cn. Pompeius (Controv. 5.1; 7.2.6; 10.1.8; 10.3.5; 10.6.3; 10.7.2–4), Sex. Pompeius (Suas. 6.11), M. Cato (Controv. 1 praef. 9; 7.6.17).