In contemporary onomastics the usage of the full name – given name and surname – lends a certain formality or seriousness to an utterance.Footnote 1 It is often assumed that such pragmatics in the employment of names may be easily transferred to the ancient world, but we should none the less confirm our assumptions with textual evidence. This paper will present evidence from the letters between Marcus Aurelius and Marcus Cornelius Fronto which demonstrates not only that the fuller Roman name was used for formal occasions, but also that it could, as in the contemporary world, be employed in an ironic, mock-formal manner to intimate rather the opposite of formality, friendship.
Letters are a natural point of entry for investigation into the use of names in interpersonal relations: while some practices are idiosyncratic to the genre, in general letters tend to duplicate the use of linguistic phenomena in the negotiation of relationships. Letters, particularly those not originally intended for publication, might be considered to reflect social practices more accurately inasmuch as their authors wrote for immediate ends rather than the broader and eternal readership aimed at by authors of other genres. Some letter-collections, naturally, pose more problems than others in this respect: Seneca's Epistulae morales, Horace's Epistulae and Ovid's Heroides and Epistulae ex Ponto, crafted for publication and wider readership, may reflect conventions of non-literary letters, but do so consciously. Cicero's and Pliny's letter-collections, in contrast, while edited for publication, likely reflect social conventions better. A good deal of headway has been made into the sociolinguistics of name-usage in Cicero and Pliny, but there has been less interest in Fronto. It is hoped that this study will contribute not only to discussions on interpersonal dynamics in Fronto, but also to similar discussions in epistles at large.
Scholarship in both the form and usage of names tends to confirm in general our assumptions associating length with formality.Footnote 2 J.N. Adams's study of men's names in Cicero's letters finds that, excepting contextual exigencies such as needing to identify precisely an individual upon first mention, the number of nomina increases with the formality of the situation.Footnote 3 Cicero uses tria nomina in highly formal letters, such as those addressed to the Senate; on the other end of the spectrum, he uses the cognomen alone of friends, and the praenomen alone for family. Dickey's study of Latin forms of address, while including only ‘free’ (i.e. grammatically independent, such as vocative) forms, none the less affirms Adams's conclusions for Cicero's letters.Footnote 4 Studies of Pliny's letters by Sherwin-White, Vidman and Jones also confirm the tendency to use more names for more formal occasions, and duo or tria nomina upon first mention, with cognomen or gentilicium alone thereafter.Footnote 5 Throughout Cicero's letters, as Jones notes, the tendency is towards informality as an epistolary relationship progresses.Footnote 6
Pliny's letters also permit us to observe the epistolary exchange between an emperor and a citizen; the forms of address for Trajan and Pliny in Book 10, therefore, provide us with useful comparanda for Marcus Aurelius and Fronto's exchange. Jones notes the persistence of hierarchy throughout Book 10.Footnote 7 While Pliny always addresses Trajan as domine or by a title, Trajan warmly calls Pliny Secunde, often modified with an affectionate adjective. Moreover, Pliny always defers to Trajan to make the transition from duo or tria nomina to simplex when referring to others in the third person. These dynamics, then, are also at play in the letters between Marcus Aurelius and Fronto.
Jones also identifies a tendency which he calls the ‘introductory paradigm’.Footnote 8 When an individual is first introduced, that person is both fully identified, and often given a short biography in the form of a relative clause. Jones theorizes that new individuals must be introduced into an existing relationship with care so as to avoid an effect of alienation or exclusivity. A common usage of this sort of introduction is in the letter of recommendation, wherein a third person is introduced into the existing relationship between the correspondents. Fronto's use of the tria nomina, while dissimilar from letters of recommendation in that the tria nomina are used of the addressee rather than a third person, none the less uses the same mechanisms of alienation and intimacy. We will see below in Fronto a retriangulation of the relationships through which intimacy is forged with the addressee by positing a third party. The result is a closeness between the correspondents that emerges, humorously and paradoxically, out of a pseudo-performance before an imaginary audience.
The letters in question here, Ad M. Caesarem 1.7, 2.5, 2.13 and 3.18, all date, as can be gleaned from their titles, from the period c.e 139–61: after Marcus Aurelius was adopted by Antoninus Pius, but before his accession to emperor. The use of names in these four letters are of particular interest in that they deviate from conventions observable throughout the remainder of the letters in two respects: (1) the addressee is in the third, rather than the second, person; (2) the addressee is called by duo or tria nomina, that is to say, is addressed formally.
The corpus of Fronto's correspondence with Marcus Aurelius exhibits several specific onomastic tendencies in addition to those observed in Cicero's and Pliny's letter-collections. As Marcus Aurelius and Fronto are, respectively, future emperor and tutor, the titles dominus and magister persist throughout, even as the friendship grows closer.Footnote 9 During this period Marcus Aurelius' full name was Marcus Aelius Aurelius Verus Caesar. Very frequently (fourteen times) Fronto addresses Marcus Aurelius by his title Caesar (also one of his cognomina); the usage is not always formal, but can also be friendly, mirroring the use of one's cognomen alone among friends. However, twice Fronto addresses Marcus Aurelius by his praenomen, a practice typically restricted to family and very close friends.Footnote 10 In response, Marcus Cornelius Fronto is always addressed by his cognomen.Footnote 11 In addition to their names, the two men frequently address each other with terms of endearment. These friendly forms of address complement the content of the letters themselves, which attest to a deep and intense affection between the two.Footnote 12
Given such an informal baseline for relations, the use of formality is marked. The naming practices in these four letters are doubly formal, and thus arguably doubly distancing: (1) a name is used in the place of a personal pronoun in a ‘bound’ form of address (for example, ‘I love Fronto’ rather than ‘I love you’ when speaking to Fronto);Footnote 13 (2) the fuller, formal version of the name is used. These four instances, then, appear not to belong to the same register as the bulk of the exchange between the two men. The usage, I posit, is that of irony or mock-formality: a witticism that indeed heightens the intimacy and friendship of the interlocutors.Footnote 14 Let us examine each of these instances in turn.
1. AD M. CAESAREM 2.5 (VDH 25)Footnote 15
In this letter from Marcus Aurelius to Fronto, Marcus concedes that Fronto loves Marcus more than Marcus loves Fronto. The overall tone of the letter is playful and flirtatious. Marcus Aurelius not only gushes about their relationship, he also coquettishly imagines the jealousy of Fronto's wife Cratia and Marcus' mother Domitia, should they find out about their love. The tone of this opening sequence, then, is intentionally grandiose and melodramatic as Marcus concedes defeat (manus do: vicisti) in the face of the overwhelming force of Fronto's affection:
cape coronam atque etiam praeco pronuntiet palam pro tuo tribunali victoriam istam tuam: Μ. Κορνήλιος Φρόντων ὕπατος νικᾷ, στεφανοῦται τὸν ἀγῶνα τῶν μεγάλων φιλοτησίων. (§1)
Take your wreath and then let the herald on the tribunal announce that victory of yours to all: ‘Marcus Cornelius Fronto is the supreme winner. He wins the crown in the Games of Grand Friendship.’Footnote 16
Marcus continues the melodramatic tone by envisioning a formal ceremony in Fronto's honour: Fronto has won an athletic contest of sorts. But rather than the Olympic Games, Fronto has won the fictitious ‘Friendship Games’. Marcus imagines that a tribunal recognizes Fronto's victory by announcing his name and award. As van den Hout notes, this is the only occurrence in the letters of Fronto's full name.Footnote 17 Indeed, the use of the full tria nomina is exceedingly rare: it never occurs in Pliny, and in Cicero only occurs for the purpose of identification or official recognition. The individual honoured needs to be fully and precisely identified.Footnote 18 Similarly, Marcus Aurelius' usage here is in the form of an imagined official recognition. Among the Ciceronian uses of the tria nomina Axtell identifies a few used for sarcasm, wherein the humour lies in the juxtaposition of the highly formal name with a crude or mundane action.Footnote 19 Like Cicero, Marcus uses exaggerated rhetoric for a basic human phenomenon (but one which Marcus seeks to elevate through the mock-formal spectacle). The formality of the tria nomina, moreover, is heightened by the use of Greek, which adds to the ceremonial tone of the sentence. The use of formality and a different register of language in this sentence, then, is not distancing but rather a joke which conversely decreases the formality of the exchange, and strengthens the friendship between writer and addressee.
2. AD M. CAESAREM 1.7 (VDH 13)
As in Ad M. Caesarem 2.5, here too the letter is about the intense affection between Marcus Aurelius and Fronto: the letter opens with Fronto recounting Marcus' boundless love for him. The bulk of the letter concerns a speech which Fronto has written, and Marcus delivered before Antoninus Pius. Accordingly Fronto discusses other authors, and compares himself favourably to them: unlike the venerable authors of old, Fronto's speeches are delivered by his superior, the emperor-to-be himself. Within this context Fronto thrice refers to Marcus Aurelius as ‘Marcus Caesar’ (praenomen–cognomen):Footnote 20
meae vero orationi M. Caesar actor contigit et pronuntiator, ... (§2)
In truth, Marcus Caesar has touched my speech as a proclaimer and a speaker, ...
nec ulla umquam scena tantum habuit dignitatis: M. Caesar actor, Titus imperator auditor. (§3)
Never has a scene held such distinction: Marcus Caesar as an actor, Titus the emperor as audience.
mea oratio extabit M. Caesaris manu scripta. (§4)
My speech will be distinguished since it is written in the hand of Marcus Caesar.
The register of the letter is informal: although addressed with the standard domine for an emperor, Fronto addresses Marcus as ‘Caesar’ twice, and refers to Antoninus Pius, then emperor, by his praenomen Titus. Given the informal language and content (friendship and affection) of the letter, the formal uses of the full name are notable. As the official language of the mock-Olympic games determines the formality of the address in Ad M. Caesarem 2.5, so too here the context of performance and editorship lends formality to Fronto's address of Marcus. In the first two quotations, Fronto imagines Marcus as an actor, performing his speech. The use of the term scena is particularly effective: like a playbill, Fronto announces the actor, Marcus Aurelius. The use of the name and title are thus similar to the usage of Fronto's tria nomina in the mock-Olympic games: in both situations, the fuller name is typical of the context, which requires clear identification of the individual.
The use of the term actor is also likely ironic and humorous. Emperors (and future emperors) ought not to be actors, and Nero is the famous exception that proves the rule. To imagine Marcus as an actor performing before Antoninus Pius, particularly when exaggerated with the apparatus of a scena and the puffed-up language of an official playbill, is akin to bringing Broadway or the West End into one's living room. Like Marcus' Olympic Games of Friendship, the exaggeration makes it humorous.
The third use of the duo nomina in the letter refers not to the stage, but the page: Fronto inserts Marcus into a list of famed editor-copyists.Footnote 21 They are referenced in either duo nomina or cognomen form: Lampadionis aut Staberii, Plautii aut D. Aurelii, Autriconis aut Aelii manu scripta ... aut a Tirone emendata aut a Domitio Balbo descripta aut ab Attico aut Nepote (§4).Footnote 22 When placing Marcus Aurelius among them, Fronto uses the duo nomina form. Fronto in turn compares himself, the author of the speech, to M. Porcius, Quintus Ennius, C. Gracchus, M. Tullius, Titius, Scipio and Numidicus.
The use of formality here is, I believe, a combination of both flattery and humour. Fronto flatters Marcus by ranking him with the best copyists of Latin literature. Myles McDonnell notes, further, that Fronto selects authors to reflect Marcus' tastes: Ennius, Cato, Gaius Gracchus, Metellus Numidicus and Cicero, followed by an equally venerable list of editors and copyists.Footnote 23 And yet there is also a touch of ironic humour. Marcus Aurelius, despite being the second-most-powerful man in the Roman Empire, is still 22 years old, and is still Fronto's performer and copyist.Footnote 24 In that incongruity lies the wit and irony of the passage.
3. AD M. CAESAREM 2.13 (VDH 32)
As in the previous passages, Ad M. Caesarem 2.13 (from Fronto to Marcus) also juxtaposes the intimacy of affection between the interlocutors with a doubly distancing third-person formal address. Fronto writes to Marcus, complaining of his consular duties: because he must remain in Rome as consul, he cannot accompany his wife Cratia to Naples to celebrate Marcus' mother's birthday. The women, he protests, have each other, but what is there for poor Fronto? He casts about, but cannot find a single kiss (osculum) in all Rome. He closes by stating that he would rather embrace Marcus than be consul:
ego vero etiam illud iuravero, me olim consulatu abire cupere, ut M. Aurelium conplectar. (§2)
But I myself will swear even this, that I want straightaway to leave my consulship so I can embrace Marcus Aurelius.
As Amy Richlin has noted, this is a highly unusual statement for a consul to make: that he would abandon his political duties on account of affection for an individual, who, needless to say, is not his wife.Footnote 25 The statement is very intimate, and yet Fronto addresses Marcus Aurelius not only with the duo nomina, but also in the third person. The formality of the address is likely drawn from the consular context, where senators are typically identified by praenomen and gentilicium. The use of senatorial formality and identification, as well as the verb iuro, lends to the statement a sense of proclamation. The sentence, then, while written to Marcus and addressing him, is directed towards an imagined third-person audience: to them Fronto proclaims his love for Marcus.Footnote 26 Here again what might initially be construed as a distancing use of formal address is rather employed with mock-formality to build intimacy.
4. AD M. CAESAREM 3.18 (VDH 50)
In the last of what I have termed here ‘doubly distancing’ uses of the formal address, Marcus Aurelius writes to Fronto about Fronto's criticism of Marcus' recent speech. Marcus believes that Fronto criticized his speech as a feint, for praise would have been attributed to Fronto's love for Marcus. The letter is full of superlatives, and both the salutation and the valediction address Fronto in the superlative: Have mi Fronto merito carissime; Vale mihi Fronto, quid dicam nisi amice optime. Once again the general register of the letter is highly informal, and Marcus labels himself and Fronto τὸ φιλούμενον and τὸ φιλοῦν.Footnote 27 Within this context Marcus Aurelius addresses Fronto with the duo nomina:
sed o me beatum, qui a Marco Cornelio meo, oratore maximo, homine optimo, et laudari et reprehendi dignus esse videor! (§1)
But lucky me, who is seen as being worthy of both praise and criticism from my Marcus Cornelius, the greatest orator and best human being!
The formal address is somewhat softened by the possessive meo, which is used in informal contexts.Footnote 28 Unlike the previous three letters, there appears here to be no clearly identifiable context (e.g. the Olympic Games, lists of authors and copyists, the Senate) which may serve as an analogy for the formal use of the name: Marcus is neither parodying nor borrowing from another scene. The usage appears most similar to that of Ad M. Caesarem 2.13, wherein Fronto makes a proclamation of love for Marcus Aurelius. Marcus' use of Fronto's name here takes on the tone of a proclamation by which he declares both himself blessed, and Fronto a most excellent man. As previously, the use of the formal name and gesture towards a third-person audience does not distance the addressee, but conversely brings him closer. I have thus termed these uses ‘mock-formal’ or ‘ironic’ as they do not distance the addressee, but are meant in jest, and thereby function, as jokes do, to strengthen the bond among those who ‘get’ the joke.Footnote 29
These third-person mock-formal addresses, moreover, may be explained using the same set of principles one uses to explain standard employment of the tria or duo nomina. Despite the many different specific contexts for use of the formal name-form (winning an athletic contest, recognition in the Senate, etc.), at the heart of all of these uses lies the need for identification: the victor, senator, etc. must be identified not only to strangers in the immediate setting, but also for posterity. The same principle lies behind the somewhat amorphous ‘proclamatory’ uses in the final two letters discussed above. What makes the usage of the formal name ironic, or mock-formal, is that the writer proclaims something about the addressee to an invisible third-person audience. The proclamation, like an official recognition before the Senate, is made to all people at all times, and thus the addressee must be fully identified.Footnote 30
We may also observe the prevalence of a performative aspect to Marcus and Fronto's uses. They imagine a third party observing the scene: Fronto being presented with an Olympic crown, Marcus performing Fronto's speech as an actor, Fronto making a proclamation in the Senate, Marcus declaring his love for Fronto to the world. And yet the positing of the third party paradoxically serves to intensify the intimacy between Marcus and Fronto. Jones' description of correspondents existing on opposite ends of a straight line is helpful in exploring the social mechanism at work.Footnote 31 Imagine, then, writer and addressee at opposite ends of a sliding scale, and a third party introduced onto the scale (as in a letter of recommendation). There is a danger that the mention of the third party, already better acquainted with the writer than with the addressee, will alienate the addressee by highlighting the existing relationship between the writer and the third party. In short, the addressee may feel the odd one out. The aim in a letter of recommendation, then, is to forge a relationship between the recommendee and the addressee by moving the third person closer to the addressee along the sliding scale. The tria nomina usage in Marcus and Fronto's letters functions on the same principles, but the positions of the interlocutors are shifted. When, for example, Marcus in 3.18 writes sed o me beatum, qui a Marco Cornelio meo ... laudari et reprehendi dignus esse videor!, a third party is imagined, but the third party functions as the addressee; the positions of the third party and the addressee are switched from Jones' paradigm above. By shifting to an imagined scenario, Fronto becomes the ‘recommendee’ that Marcus discusses with an imagined interlocutor. The same tendencies towards the alienation of the addressee persist, but Marcus capitalizes upon them to intensify the intimacy between him and Fronto, whereas a recommender would attempt to suppress them. In short, the turn from second to third person calls into existence a third party, whose presence intensifies the bond between Marcus and Fronto. Finally, that this entire scenario is presented in overly-formal language and melodramatic rhetoric wraps it in the guise of a joke – another tactic used to build camaraderie.
These four letters exchanged between Marcus Aurelius and Fronto display some of the same sociolinguistic properties as those used in contemporary speech. While the vast majority of work done thus far in the use of names in the Roman world has sought to determine the established conventions, this study hopes to have added to this work by demonstrating that writers also played with the conventions for ironic purposes. The formal contexts for usage of the tria or duo nomina could be parodied, and thus harnessed for non-formal purposes – for building friendships, for example.
