TITVLI 10 EPIGRAFIA E ORDINE SENATORIO, 30 ANNI DOPO a cura di Maria Letizia Caldelli – Gian Luca Gregori ** ROMA 2014 EDIZIONI QUASAR  Comitato scientifico della collana Maria Letizia Caldelli, Gian Luca Gregori, Maria Letizia Lazzarini, Silvia Orlandi, Silvio Panciera Opera realizzata con il contributo di Sapienza Università di Roma, École Pratique des Hautes Études e British School at Rome I contributi sono stati sottoposti a peer review Tutti i diritti riservati © Roma 2014 - Edizioni Quasar di Severino Tognon s.r.l. via Ajaccio 43, 00198 Roma tel. 0685358444, fax 0685833591 email: qn@edizioniquasar.it per ordini o informazioni: www.edizioniquasar.it ISBN 978-88-7140-567-4  es tra tto Olli Salomies ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA The aim of this article is to present some new thoughts on a subject dealt with by me in a monograph of the above name published in 1992 (cited in the following as APN), and to furnish some addenda. In that monograph, I had something to say not only on adoptive (and polyony- mous) nomenclature mainly, but not exclusively, in the imperial period, but also on the phenome- non of adoption in general. In this article, I shall concentrate only on nomenclature, especially on polyonymous nomenclature, whether adoptive or not, and only on the imperial period, polyonymy as defined by me (cfr. below) not being attested before the time of Augustus. Moreover, as polyon- ymy (whether adoptive or not) is a phenomenon mainly characteristic of the upper social classes, it is mainly on these classes that my article is focussing1, and, to be more specific, on men belonging to these classes, as female adoptees can only very rarely be identified2. Some observations made in APN It may be of some use if I summarize some of the main observations made in APN. 1  However, adoptions are of course also attested among the “lower” classes, cfr. APN 16 (with 16 f. and nt. 3 with a few observations on adoptions mentioned in Greek inscriptions, a topic that would merit a lengthy exposition) and 43 f. For inscriptions mentioning adoptions of men (for women see next nt.) not adduced in APN, note CIL, VI 23673, apparently mentioning a filius adoptaticius; CIL, XII 122 = ILAlpes, I 35 (Axima, Claudio Montanio Cassiano Vireius Maximianus filius adoptatus). As in the cases cited by me in APN, the adoption has not influenced the adoptee’s nomenclature. But there is now also an inscription from Aquileia, AE 2005, 554, which mentions L. Naevius Felix sen(ior), a IIIIIIvir, as the pater adoptivus of L. Naevius Felix iunior; in this case, one could assume that the adoptive son has taken all the names of his adoptive father (but of course the son might have been, e.g., a nephew, and as such called L. Naevius Felix already before the adoption). In the inscription from Urbs Salvia, CIL, IX 5523 cfr. Paci 2007, 222-4 nr. 5, L. Papiri C. f. Lem. Adoptati f(ilii), Adoptatus has been interpreted as a cognomen (thus Paci and Kajanto 1965, 305; cfr. also Ado[pti]vus in RIT 284 = CIL, II² 14/2, 1145), but even if it were a name we would in my view have a reference to adoption. The interpretation of the cases in which there is no mention of adoption but in which fathers and sons have different nomina (APN 17 f.) remains normally uncertain (for a more recent instance note, e.g., SEG 52, 634 from Thessalonica, Νου(μερίῳ) Μεστρίῳ Πρείσκῳ … Τ. Φλ. Ἀρτεμίδωρος … πατρί). 2  APN 20 nt. 1. Arnaldi 2005, 230, assumes, in my view with some plausibility, that Corellia C. f. Galla Papi- ana, the wife of C. Corellius N. f. Fab. (CIL, XIV 2827 = ILS 6294), was a Papia adopted by a member of the Corellii, a gens to which her husband also belongs. When Tacitus says (ann. 6, 51) quamquam mater (of Tiberius, i.e. Livia) in Liviam et mox Iuliam familiam adoptionibus transierit, this refers in the case of the Livii not to an adoption of Livia but to that of her father i (cfr. Suet., Tib. 3,1), the adoption of course affecting also Claudianus’ daughter.  es tra tto 512 O. SALOMIES -At least during the empire, “testamentary adoptions” were not real adoptions, a “testa- mentary adoption”, although referred to by ancient authors sometimes by the use of terms such as adoptio, adoptare, etc. (APN 15; also in this article, I use the term “adoption” to refer also to tes- tamentary “adoptions”), simply meaning that someone had been instituted heir on condition that he take the decedent’s name (often just the praenomen and nomen); this means that adoptees by testament refer in their filiations to their natural, not their “adoptive” fathers and keep their original tribes (cfr., e.g., APN 115 on the tribe Sabatina of C. Laecanius Bassus Caecina Paetus cos. 70, indicating that Caecina Paetus from Volaterrae had not, by a “real” adoption, become a Laecanius Bassus from Pola, in which case he would have belonged to the tribe Velina). -This observation concerning filiations can be used to identify testamentary adoptees; as Ti. Claudius L. f. Helvius Secundus (AE 1925, 44; APN 17) has a nomenclature consisting of two nomina, often attested for adoptees, it seems more than likely that the filiation L(ucii) f(ilius) refers to a L. Helvius rather than to a L. Claudius and that this man, born as (L.?) Helvius, was at some point “adopted” by testament by a person called Ti. Claudius (whose names he adds to his original nomenclature but who is not referred to as the father in the filiation); -The names of the adoptive father, if added to the adoptee’s names, normally appear at the beginning of an adoptive nomenclature; the only certain exception from this rule I have been able to trace appears in the Athenian second-century inscription IG, II/III² 3979 (APN 42). -Adoptive nomenclatures of the Republican type, in which the original nomen is repre- sented by a cognomen derived from it with the suffix -ianus (P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, etc.) all but disappear during the early Empire; from this time onwards, cognomina ending in -ianus are often derived from the nomen of the mother (T. Flavius Vespasianus, etc.). The adoptive nomenclatures of the Republican type are substituted by nomenclatures which include both the adoptive and the original nomen, this resulting in polyonymous nomenclatures which include (at least) two nomina; two patterns seem especially popular: praenomen + nomen + nomen + cogno- men (C. Plinius Caecilius Secundus) and praenomen + nomen + cognomen + nomen + cognomen (L. Livius Ocella Sulpicius Galba; in the following, I shall used the abbreviations P(raenomen), N(omen), C(ognomen); C(ianus) = cognomen ending in -ianus. -All, or at least the main name types attested for adoptees are also attested for non-adop- tees; in these cases, the nomen or nomina not identical with that of the paternal family often come from the mother’s family (e.g., T. Fundanius Vitrasius Pollio was not a Vitrasius adopted by a Fundanius but the son of a Vitrasius and a Fundania: APN 68). The earliest examples of men with two nomina are the two Sertorii, decurions in Pisae in AD 4, Q. Sertorius Q. f. Atilius Tacitus and Q. Sertorius Q. f. Alpius Pica and the consul of AD 13, C. Silius (A.) Caecina Largus, on whom see below at nt. 44 (APN 57 f.; cfr. also 26 for the probably Augustan A. Hostilius L. f. Pompeius Macer in CIL, V 7566); names of the type P. Sulpicius Quirinius (the consul of 12 BC) or Q. Orfius Fulcinius (CIL, IX 4182 = ILS 3701, Augustan), in which the second nomen is not followed by a cognomen are attested even earlier, but in these cases I would be inclined to define the second nomen as a cognomen (APN 84; below at nt. 6). -Polyonymous nomenclatures which include two or more nomina may also be inherited; e.g. in the case of L. Caesennius Paetus, consul in 61, the fact that he is sometimes called L. Iunius Caesennius Paetus may be interpreted as pointing to an adoption by a L. Iunius, but in the case of this man’s son, consul in 79, who is also sometimes called L. Iunius Caesennius Paetus, the item L. Iunius has simply been inherited (APN 87; cfr. 87 ff. for further examples).  es tra tto ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA 513 -Polyonymous nomenclatures, especially those consisting of a large number of various names, were at least after the Julio-Claudians3 normally used only in special circumstances, espe- cially in honorific inscriptions, whereas in everyday life normally only the tria (or simply just the duo) nomina were used; this means that there normally existed an abbreviated form of polyony- mous names, for instance A. Didius Gallus Fabricius Veiento being normally referred to simply as (A.) Fabricius Veiento (APN 119); normally, the nomen appearing in the shortened name form is that of the paternal family (which observation may be useful for the interpretation of a polyon- ymous nomenclature), but we also know of some cases in which the adoptive (thus in the case of Pliny the Younger, C. Plinius Caecilius Secundus being shortened to C. Plinius Secundus: APN 59; cfr. below nt. 60 on Q. Planius Sardus Truttedius Pius) or the the maternal nomen (thus C. Vi- torius Hosidius Geta = C. Hosidius Geta: APN 64 nt. 11) is used in the abbreviated nomenclature. Furthermore, it should be observed that the abbreviated form of a polyonymous nomenclature does not normally change; A. Didius Gallus Fabricius Veiento (cfr. above) is not called sometimes Didius Gallus, sometimes Fabricius Veiento, but always, if the shortened version of his nomencla- ture is used, Fabricius Veiento. This having been said, I must add that there are some exceptions to this which will be adduced below (at nt. 9). -In the case of some very long nomenclatures one can observe the existence not only of a shortened version consisting of just the tria nomina but also of a shortened version (or even short- ened versions) consisting of some more names, but still representing an abbreviation of the whole. Thus, in the case of Q. Roscius Coelius Murena Silius Decianus Vibullius Pius Iulius Eurycles Her- culanus Pompeius Falco, consul in 108, we find, in addition to the complete nomenclature and the three-name abbreviation (Q.) Pompeius Falco, also versions consisting of five to six names (see below at nt. 41); abbreviations of varying length can also be observed in the case of Falco’s descen- dants, the consuls of 149 (APN 66 with nt. 16)4 and 169 (APN 70 with nt. 27); cfr. also APN 41 (on Salvius Iulianus), 92 f. (and below at nt. 40) on Ti. Catius Asconius Silius Italicus = Ti. Catius Silius Italicus = L. Silius Italicus, 94 nt. 11 (on Pompeius Longinus)5 and 118 (on Catellius Celer). Definition of polyonymy This may be the right moment for me to say a few words on the definition on the one hand of polyonymy and on the other of the names appearing within polyonymous nomenclatures. As 3  I am saying this because the habit of using abbreviated nomenclatures in inscriptions in which a polyony- mous person was mentioned only in passing (and not as the honorand in the dative) probably only developed with time. This seems to be indicated by cases such as that of C. Calpetanus Rantius Quirinalis Valerius Festus (cos. 71), who is called (C.) Valerius Festus only as consul and in literary sources, but by the full name in all other inscriptions referring to him as curator of the Tiber bed and as a governor of Pannonia and as that of Hispania Tarraconensis (APN 40). It is of course also possible that Festus himself insisted on being called by the full name in inscriptions in which he was mentio- ned; in a somewhat later period one could suspect something like this in the case of Pompeius Falco (APN 121 ff.; below at nt. 41) whose nomenclature appears in a polyonymous version also in inscriptions in which Falco is not the honorand. 4  But in the inscription from Rome, AE 1971, 33, the nomenclature consists not only of the names Q. Pom- peius Sosius Priscus but of one more nomen, to be inserted in the lacuna after Pompeio; this name will have been Falco- ne (less probably Senecione), cfr. Panciera 1970, 146 = Id. 2006, 166. 5  This man’s full nomenclature Cn. Pinarius Aemilius Cicatricula Pompeius Longinus appears abbreviated both as Cn. Pompeius Longinus and as Cn. Aemilius Cicatricula Pompeius Longinus, omitting Pinarius (a fairly recent attestation of this nomenclature, not cited in APN: AE 1998, 1616 = RMD, V 335).  es tra tto 514 O. SALOMIES for polyonymy, the term can of course be applied to all nomenclatures consisting of more than the normal number of names, which in imperial Rome is of course three (the tria nomina); thus one could say that Ap. Claudius Crassus Inregillensis Sabinus (cos. 451 BC), P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum (cos. 155 BC), Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (cos. 52 BC) and Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus (cos. AD 7) are polyonymous. But since the names of this type do con- tain only one family name, that of either the natural or the adoptive father, and as such conform to the ancient Roman custom, and since the use of two or even, as in the case of these persons, three cognomina was so common, applying the label “polyonymy” to names of this type does not seem to be of any use. On the other hand, the introduction, in the Augustan period, of a second nomen (and later even more nomina) into a Roman nomenclature represents a revolutionary innovation, and it is because of this that I would suggest to limit the application of the term “polyonymy” only to nomenclatures which include at least two different nomina. But this takes us to another question, namely that of how to define the names coming after the first nomen in a polyonymous nomenclature. I am touching upon this question not because I think that this is question in need of discussion but because scholars, e.g., editors of inscriptions, sometimes define all names coming after the first nomen as cognomina. Now there are nomen- clatures in which nomina following upon the first nomen should be classed as cognomina; this is the case especially with names of the type P+N+N (P. Sulpicius Quirinius, etc., cfr. above), in which the second nomen is not followed by a cognomen. I seems obvious to me that in these cases the second nomen cannot have been perceived as a nomen in its “classical” sense - the name which is common to all members of a gens - but simply as a cognomen6; this emerges not only from considerations of a more general nature but also, e.g., from the fact that nomina appear in this position in families which also used “normal” cognomina: note, e.g., A. Plautius Urgulanius (PIR², P 481), the son of M. Plautius Silvanus cos. 2 BC (himself the son of an Urgulania), and the brother of M. Plautius Silvanus and P. Plautius Pulcher7. Also in the case of names with the structure P+N+C+N (M. Vergilius Gallus Lusius, etc.; APN 24 f.; cfr. below at nt. 48), attested mainly in the first century AD, it seems possible to assume that the nomen following on the cog- nomen was perceived as a second cognomen. But things are quite different with nomina attached to cognomina appearing in polyonymous nomenclatures after the first nomen (i.e., Caecilius in C. Plinius Caecilius Secundus, Fabricius in A. Didius Gallus Fabricius Veiento, etc.). In these cases, we are without any doubt dealing not with nomina used as cognomina but with genuine nomina which were perceived as such. That this is the only possible interpretation is clear from nomen- clatures of the type A. Didius Gallus Fabricius Veiento in which the second nomen appears in the abbreviated version (A. Fabricius Veiento); it would be pointless to assume that what is clearly the nomen of A. Fabricius Veiento would become a cognomen within the full version of the nomencla- ture. Moreover, combinations of nomina and cognomina are often preceded by praenomina also within polyonymous nomenclatures (e.g., C. Silius A. Caecina Largus and C. Bruttius Praesens 6  Note the existence already in the Republican period of some cognomina ending in -ius (e.g., Triarius among the Valerii, etc.). 7  Cfr., e.g. (but from a much later period), brothers called Antonius and Antoninus (CIL, III 14850, two Septi- mii; ILJug, III 1706, two Aemilii). As for Plautius Urgulanius, during the early Empire the use of nomina as cognomina seem in fact to have been more common among women; cfr., e.g., Aedia Servilia (Raepsaet-Charlier 1987, 6), Albia Terentia (Raepsaet-Charlier 1987, 44), Milonia Caesonia (Raepsaet-Charlier 1987, 550), Plautia Quinctilia (Raep- saet-Charlier 1987, 617), etc.  es tra tto ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA 515 L. Fulvius Rus[ticus], APN 148 and 140; cfr. 31, 33 ntt. 30, 38, 40, 128, 142, etc.); or praenomina suppressed within the full nomenclature reemerge when a short version of the nomenclature is used, as in the case of L. Livius Ocella Sulpicius Galba = Ser. Sulpicius Galba or L. Iunius Vibius Crispus = Q. Vibius Crispus, APN 32 f. and 91 f.)8. All this clearly indicates that we are not only dealing with names that were originally nomina but with nomina perceived as such. Variation in the use of names of polyonymous persons A question touched upon several times in APN but to which no separate section was ded- icated in the book, is that of the variation, or postulated variation, in the use of names of polyo- nymous persons. What I mean here is this: we have seen above (and this is of course in any case well known) that abbreviated versions are in everyday life normally used of polyonymous nomen- clatures, a person called A. Didius Gallus Fabricius Veiento more often being simply called (A.) Fabricius Veiento or just Veiento. Normally, this shortened version is always the same. But could it be possible to assume that this person could also have sometimes been referred to as Didius Gallus or simply Gallus? There are scholars who think that some variation on these lines could be possi- ble. It has for instance been asserted that a person regularly known as Pompeius Falco, consul in 108, but whose full nomenclature did include the cognomen Murena (cfr. below at nt. 41), could be identified with a certain Murena, tribune of the plebs in AD 979; or that a consul of either 102 or 104, known as Tettienus Severus, but with the item M. Eppuleius Proculus included in his full nomenclature Galeo Tettienus Severus M. Eppuleius Proculus Ti. Caepio Hispo, could be identical with a person referred to as Proculus10. The list of scholars who have assumed that a consul of AD 119, known from many inscriptions in which he is invariably called (A.) Platorius Nepos, but also from one honorific inscription where he is given the additional names Aponius Italicus Manilianus C. Licinius Pollio, could be identical with a certain Pollio, tribune of the plebs in AD 119, is sur- prisingly long11. In my view, all these identifications must be abandoned, as it can easily be shown to have been a general rule that the abbreviated nomenclature of polyonymous persons was always the same. Q. Glitius Atilius Agricola = Q. Atilius Agricola, consul in 97 and 103, was never called 8  Further instances: Q. Iulius Cordinus Rutilius Gallicus = C. Rutilius Gallicus (APN 116 f.); M. Lollius Paullinus Valerius Asiaticus Saturninus = D. Valerius Asiaticus (ibid., 34 f.), Q. Planius Sardus Varius Ambibulus = L. Varius Ambibulus (ibid., 35 f.), L. Octavius Cornelius Salvius Iulianus Aemilianus = P. Salvius Iulianus (ibid., 41 f.). For new instances, observe Ti. Catius Asconius Silius Italicus = L. Silius Italicus (below at nt. 40); C. Sertorius Broc- chus Servaeus Innocens = Q. Servaeus Innocens (below at nt. 64). Note also C. Octavius Tidius Tossianus L. Iavolenus Priscus = L. Iavolenus Priscus (APN 120), from whose full nomenclature the praenomen L. may originally have been suppressed. Cfr. also Degrassi 1962, 547-52. 9  Syme 1958, 76 nt. 1; Id. 1988b, 567 nt. 20; Id. 1991, 616; PIR², M 746 and P 502; cfr. also Birley 2000, 80. 10  Syme 1991, 580 nt. 67 (cfr. Inscr. It., XIII, 1, 158). For the names of this man see APN 135-8, and below nt. 70 where I observe that the item M. Eppuleius Proculus could be omitted from the complete nomenclature, this making it even less likely that he could have been referred simply as Proculus. 11  See APN 140 f. nt. 148; cfr. PIR², P 543 (the identification is not thought of as likely by Birley 2005, 123.) For a further example, note Metilius Regulus, consul in 157, being identified by some with a certain Fronto who is not even a senator (APN 110). In the absurdest of ways, a consul of c. 138/139, C. Iulius Scapula, is erroneously (cfr. Syme 1984, 1110) furnished with the additional cognomen [Balbi]nus (!) (note that the list of other cognomina ending in -nus is almost endless), and then tentatively identified with the consul Balbinus mentioned in the brick stamp CIL, XV 1440 (PIR², I 553).  es tra tto 516 O. SALOMIES Q. Glitius Agricola, C. Quinctius Certus Poblicius Marcellus = C. Poblicius Marcellus, consul in 120, was never called Quinctius Certus, and C. Bruttius Praesens L. Fulvius Rusticus = C. Bruttius Praesens (consul in ?120, II ord. in 139) was never referred to as Fulvius Rusticus (APN 96 f., 125 f., 140). Accordingly, it would be a mistake to try to identify these persons with persons sim- ply known as Glitius Agricola, Quinctius Certus or Fulvius Rusticus. On the other hand, it must be admitted that there are persons in the case of whom it can be shown that there was some variation in the use of their names. As I do not think there exists a published list of these cases, it may be of some use if I collected here some examples, taking into account also nomenclatures consisting of more than three names, but which according to the definition presented above are not “polyonymous”; I am here thinking mainly of names which include two or more cognomina. I think that this phenomenon of variation in the use of names can be divided into the following categories. A. Variation in the use of consuls’ nomina or nomina and cognomina attested in consular lists or consular dates. This is an unproblematic category, as the explanation is in my view in each case that those who planned or edited the texts in question had a full version of the names of a particular consul at their disposal and in abbreviating this nomenclature chose a ‘wrong’ name. For instance, if M. Gavius Cornelius Cethegus, the consul of AD 170, is as consul called [M.] Gavius Ceth[egus] in an inscription from Tarquinii, but M. Cornelius Cethegus everywhere else (APN 101), the easiest explanation seems to be that the consular list available in Tarquinii included both nomina of the consul, and the person who wrote the text of the inscription by mistake assumed that Gavius, rather than Cornelius, was the consul’s main nomen. The following cases are in my view similar: -C. Silius (A.) Caecina Largus (cos. AD 13; cfr. below at nt. 44): called normally (C.) Sili- us, but C. Caec(ina) in AE 1966, 16 (APN 148; the praenomen belonging to the first nomen Silius is thus combined with the second nomen Caecina). -Q. Futius Lusius Saturninus (cos. 41): the tria nomina of this man seem to have been (Q.) Lusius Saturninus, but a wax tablet from Herculaneum calls him [Q.] Futius Sat[ur]ninus (APN 90)12. -C. Calpetanus Rantius Sedatus (cos. in 47)13: Calpetanus was apparently this man’s main nomen; accordingly, a wax tablet from Herculaneum (AE 1999, 450) has the date C. Calpetano (Sedato) three times - but also once C. Rantio Sedato (APN 105 f.). -Ti. Catius Asconius Silius Italicus (cos. 68): the consul’s tria nomina were L. Silius Itali- cus (cfr. below at nt. 40), but he is called Ti. Catius in some consular dates (APN 92 f.). -Cn. Arulenus Caelius Sabinus (cos. 69): although otherwise known as Caelius Sabinus, this man appears as Cn. Arulenus in a document of AD 94 (not 93, as in APN 93). -D. Iunius Novius Priscus (cos. 78), normally called (D.) Novius Priscus (also in the di- ploma in Eck - Pangerl 2010), is called Δέκμος Ἰούνιος Πρεῖσκος in an inscription from Messene, IG, V 1, 1431 (APN 94 f.). 12  This reading of the tablet was provided by Camodeca 1991, 48; however, the reading may be suspect, as Tortoriello 2003, 506 does not mention it. 13  Tortoriello 2003, 420 f.  es tra tto ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA 517 -Ti. Iulius Candidus Marius Celsus (cos. I 86, II 105): this man’s tria nomina were Ti. Iulius Candidus (APN 133), but the fasti of Potentia call him, when registering the consuls of AD 86, Marrius (or perhaps M. Arrius) Celsus (AE 1949, 23 = 2003, 588 cfr. 2005, 457 = Suppl. It. 23, Potentia 10). -M. Lollius Paullinus Valerius Asiaticus Saturninus (cos. I 94, II 125): the short name of this consul, attested many times, was (D.) Valerius Asiaticus (APN 34 f.)14, but it now seems that this consul may also have been referred to as (M. Lollius) Paullinus; E. Miranda (2010, 418) pub- lishes the fragment of an agonistic catalogue from Naples from the period of Domitian; in line 4 f. there is a consular date introduced at the end of l. 4 by ἐπὶ ὑπάτων which is followed in l. 5 by the text [.]ΛΟΛΛ[- - -]; it is surely correct to assume that we have here the nomen Lollius, and as no other consuls called Lollius are known from this period (a period from which most of the suffect consuls are known), the proposition of the editor that the reading in line 5 should be [Μ(άρκου)] Λολλ[ίου Παυλλίνου] seems reasonable, especially as there seems to be another instance of this consul being called Paullinus. The Latin papyrus PSI IX 1026 = CPL 117 contains a petition writ- ten in AD 150 by veterans of the legion X Fretensis who had been enlisted in AD 124 and 125. The year 124 is indicated as Glabrione et Torquato, whereas the indication of the year 125 has been read in A (l. 4-5) as Pa[- - -] et Aquilino cos. and in B (l. 2) as Aq[uilin]o `et P[- - -]´ c[o]s. (the name of the other consul having been added between the lines). Although one would prefer to see the the reading as Paullino, surely it cannot be argued that what was read as Pa[- - -] and P[- - -] could in fact represent the name Asiaticus, normally used of this consul, and so we must conclude that the consul was referred to as Paullinus in this document. All this makes one wonder whether it is not simply by mistake (thus APN 34 nt. 37) that Valerius Asiaticus is called, as cos. II, M. (not D.) Valerius Asiaticus in two papyri from the year 125 (Lewis 1989, nrr. 14 and 15)15. Could this be a combination of the praenomen belonging to Lollius with the nomen Valerius? Be that as it may; it seems in any case possible that both in 94 and 125 the nomenclature of this particular consul was for some reason at least in some cases distributed in its full, not just in its abbreviated, form (note that in 94, military diplomas use the full form of the name, cfr. nt. 14), this leading to various tentatives to abbreviate it. -L. Dasumius Tullius Tuscus (cos. 152), whose abbreviated nomenclature was L. Tullius Tuscus (see now also AE 2007, 1774-1775, cfr. Eck 2011, 267 ff.), is called [L.] Dasumius Tus[cus] in the Fasti Ostienses (APN 98); we are surely dealing with a mistake of the editor of these fasti. -M. Gavius Cornelius Cethegus (cos. 170) being once called M. Gavius Cethegus: cfr. above. -M. Nonius Arrius Mucianus (cos. 201): although this consul’s tria nomina were M. No- nius Mucianus, he is called M. Arrius Mucianus in the date in the African inscription AE 1922, 53 = ILAfr 26 (APN 66 with nt. 18). 14  The full name is now attested also in the diploma AE 2004, 1920 (note that this is a diploma for the troops in Cappadocia, whereas the other diploma with the full nomenclature, CIL, XVI 38, is for those of Dalmatia). It is most notable that in these diplomas of AD 94 the full nomenclature is used, whereas the only known diploma of AD 125 dated with the ordinary consuls uses the abbreviated nomenclature (see Eck - Pangerl 2013, 290-292 with the date [D. Valerio Asia]tico II, L. Titio A[quilino cos.). 15 The praenomen having been written out (Μάρκ[ου] in nr. 14, Μάρκου in nr. 15).  es tra tto 518 O. SALOMIES -M. Annius Flavius Libo (cos. 204): usually known as (M.) Annius Libo (thus also in RMD, IV 302), this consul is referred to as Flabius Libo in the fasti of an uncertain priestly college, CIL, VI 2003 = 32320 (APN 108). As mentioned above, I am sure that the most convenient explanation for the variation presented above is that those who wrote the respective inscriptions had consular lists before them which used the full nomenclature of the consuls and in abbreviating the names made the wrong choice. The fact that Dio (67,11,1) calls A. Bucius Lappius Maximus (cos. 86, II 95), a man nor- mally referred to as (A.) Lappius Maximus, Βούκιος (Λούκιος the mss.) Μάξιμος (APN 95 nt. 14) may surely be explained in a similar way16. And the fact that C. Laecanius Bassus Caecina Paetus, normally known as (C.) Caecina Paetus, is as a former proconsul of Asia called Γάιος Λαικάνιος Βάσσος in the honorific inscription I.Ephesos 695 (APN 114 f.), may be explained in the same way, namely that the author of the text (perhaps not L. Herennius Peregrinus who is said to have been responsible for the ἀνάστασις of the statue)17 had the full nomenclature of the proconsul be- fore him but thought that just the first part of the name would be enough. On the other hand, the reasons for Arulenus Rusticus being called Iunius Rusticus by Suetonius (Dom. 10, 3; APN 150 f.) remain unclear. B. Variation in the use of nomina and nomina and cognomina due to various reasons. Under this heading, I shall present the following cases which either result from adoption or which in my view cannot be explained in an adequate way. -[Claudius] Alpinus = Bellicius Sollers (see APN 45 ff.). After the earliest empire, it is only in this case that one can assume with confidence that two different combinations of nomen and cognomen which are both attested18 refer to the same person. In this case, a person called (Clau- dius) Alpinus, the son of a certain Ti. Claudius Augustanus known from CIL, V 3337, has been adopted by a Bellicius, and having become [L. Bellicius Sollers (Ti.) Claudius] Ti. f. Quir. Alpinus (this nomenclature being attested in CIL, V 3356 = ILS 2710)19, started to use the abbreviated nomenclature Bellicius Sollers which appears in CIL, V 3337 and 3338 = ILS 1031; as it does not seem credible that a man would change his name from (Claudius) Alpinus to Bellicius Sollers in 16  Dio had access to information on the full nomenclature of persons he is writing about; note that he is the only author who mentions (58, 9, 2) the second nomen Sutorius of the praetorian prefect Naevius (Cordus) Sutorius Macro (although by mistake writing Σερτώριος; cfr. PIR², N 12). 17 As Peregrinus was a prominent person in Ephesus, one would expect him to have been socializing with the proconsul, normally residing in Ephesus, and to have known that the proconsul was addressed as Caecina Paetus, not as Laecanius Bassus. 18  I say this because there are cases in which it must be assumed that a person had changed his main name after an adoption; e.g., Tettienus Severus must have originally had a different name (APN 137 f.). And note also those cases in which adoptees started to use the adoptive nomen as the main nomen but combined it with the original cognomen, as, e.g., in the case of Pliny the Younger, who at the age of seventeen changed from a Caecilius Secundus to a Plinius Secundus (for all this see APN 61 f.). 19  Note that the filiation and the tribe precede Alpinus, which means that a nomen, not a cognomen, must be supplied at the end of the lacuna. This man cannot thus also have had the cognomen Augustanus (this being cognomen of his father) which most scholars think he had (thus also Birley 2005, 306). As for the adoptive item L. Bellicius Sollers, it must of course be supplied at the beginning, not at the end of the complete nomenclature, and there is no problem in assuming that a line or two are missing at the beginning of CIL, V 3356 = ILS 2710.  es tra tto ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA 519 the middle of his career, it must be concluded that the adoption took place when this man was still a boy (and that the adoptive items must be added in the beginning of CIL, V 3356 = ILS 2710, in which inscription his wife is mentioned)20. In the next two cases one observes variation in the use of the nomen which I cannot ex- plain. -Ti. Catius Caesius Fronto (cos. 96; the full name now also in the diploma AE 2005, 1708). While arguing in APN 95 f. that this man’s tria nomina were Ti. Caesius Fronto21, I also presented evidence (mentions in Pliny, a passage of the Arval Acts, the inscription of a vilicus) pointing to the conclusion that he could also sometimes be referred to as (Ti.) Catius Fronto. R. Syme (1988a, 163; cfr. Id. 1988b, 642) explained this by assuming that Caesius was the consul’s official nomen, but Catius Fronto “the style the orator himself preferred”. -Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter (cos. 225; PIR², C 261; APN 59 nt. 10). Both nomina ap- pear in two inscriptions set up by this man himself and in a papyrus (see PIR). But in his funerary inscription, set up by his daughter, he is called just Se[r.] Cal[pu]r[nius] Dexter (CIL, VI 1368 = ILS 1175), and clearly Ti. Manilio [Fusco II,] Ser. Calpurnio [Dextro co(n)s(ulibus)] is the only possible restoration of the date in the fasti of the sodales Augustales, CIL, VI 1984 = ILS 5025. In view of this, it is most striking that the name used of this man as consul in military diplomas is not Ser. Calpurnius Dexter but Ser. Domitius Dexter22, and the nomenclature Domitius Dexter is used of this man in a consular date from Africa (AE 1906, 124). With this evidence at our disposal, I think that the question of this man’s tria nomina must remain open. C. Variation in the use of cognomina in consular dates23. Variation in the use of cognomina of consuls in consular dates can be observed in the fol- lowing two cases: 1) The nomenclature of a consul with (at least) two cognomina as published and dissemi- nated apparently includes both cognomina, of which only one is chosen to be used in a particular date indicated by consuls; in these cases, the choice is apparently normally that of those who plan the wording of an inscription. For an example, note L. Nonius Torquatus Asprenas cos. 128 being as consul sometimes called Torquatus, sometimes Asprenas. Similar cases24 are those of A. Licinius 20  Note that this inscription, set up by our man’ wife Claudia Marcellina, must be honorific, not funerary, although ending in marito optimo. In the inscription CIL, V 3337 ([Ti]b. Claudio Tib. f. Augustano patri Bellici Sollertis proc(uratoris) Aug(usti) prov(inciae) Britan(niae)) it is the son who is the procurator, not the father, although scholars have thought so (and although this erroneous interpretation is still offered, e.g., in the Datenbank of Heidelberg). I did not go into this in APN 46, as I thought that this interpretation (accepted by Birley 2005, 306) would be self-evident, but let me point out here that had Marcellina wished to say that it is the father Augustanus, not the son Sollers, who is the procurator, she would have written Claudio … Augustano proc. Aug. prov. Britan., patri Bellici Sollertis. From all this it follows that Claudia Marcellina is mentioned in three inscriptions as the wife of the same man who is described as (1) prefect of the cohort II Pr(aetoria?) (CIL, V 3356 = ILS 2710), as (2) procurator of Britain (CIL, V 3337) and finally, having been adlected in the senate, as (3) consul (CIL, V 3338 = ILS 1031). 21  Note now also Ti. Caesius Cupitus in AE 2005, 247 (Rome), no doubt somehow connected with the consul. 22  In addition to CIL, XVI 142 cited in APN, there are now many more diplomas mentioning this particular consul, RMD 194, 309 ff., etc. 23  In this section, I also refer to the use of the consul’s names in the manuscript fasti. 24  See Salomies 1992, 111-115 and Id. 2005, 118-128.  es tra tto 520 O. SALOMIES Nerva Silianus cos. ord. 65, M.25 Asinius Pollio Verrucosus cos. ord. 81, C. Bellicius (Flaccus?) Torquatus Tebanianus cos. ord 124 (Salomies 2005, 118), L. Tutilius Lupercus Pontianus cos. ord. 135, M. Peducaeus Stloga Priscinus cos. ord. 14126, Ti. Claudius Atticus Herodes and C. Bellicius Flaccus Torquatus consuls in 143, etc.27. 2) A consul has two cognomina, of which for some reason one is used in the dissemina- tion of the names of the consuls to some recipients, whereas the other cognomen is used in the information sent to others; e.g., Ti. Claudius Severus Proculus cos. ord. 200 was apparently intro- duced as (Ti. Claudius) Severus in Italy, Numidia and elsewhere, but as (Ti. Claudius) Proculus in the Germanies, in Moesia Superior and in Mauretania28. In the case of the consuls of 191, Pedo Apronianus and Bradua Mauricus, one finds the variants Apronianus & Mauricus, Apronianus & Bradua and Pedo & Bradua depending on the province from where a particular consular date comes from29. And there are also other instances of this phenomenon30. 25  For the praenomen see the fasti Septempedani (AE 1998, 419). 26 Both cognomina, Stloga and Priscinus, are used in CIL, VI 161 and 41260a (and cfr. the date Priscino et Stloga in CIL, VI 31149 = ILS 4833, where the two cognomina of this consul have by mistake been interpreted as those of the two consuls); otherwise the consul is normally called Stloga, but Priscinus in CIL, XIV 400 = ILS 6138, CIL, XI 5694 = ILS 2666a and in quarry inscriptions from Docimium in Asia (MAMA, IV 6; Christol - Drew Bear 1986, 67 nr. 18; AE 1994, 1674, etc.). 27  Variation of this type in the use of the cognomina of consuls with two or more cognomina is also attested, e.g., in the years 64, 115, 116, 127, 131, 136, 146, 147, 150, 155, 158, 169, 174, 185, 191, 200, 206, 221, 230, 231, 238, 253, 264. 28  Salomies 1993, 110 f. In this case, the choice of the cognomen affects also the order of the names of the consuls; Severus Proculus is called Proculus only in dates in which he appears at the second place (Victorino et Proculo cos.). 29  Salomies 1996, 279 f. 30 E.g., Pontius Proculus Pontianus cos. ord. 238 is called Pontianus in Rome, Italy, Noricum and the eastern provinces, but Proculus in the other western provinces including Baetica, Germania, Pannonia, Moesia and Thracia (Salomies 1992, 115 f.; Id. 1993, 112).  es tra tto ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA 521 Addenda to some persons dealt with in APN (in the order of their appearance)31. C. Sallustius Crispus Passienus, cos. suff. 27, II ord. 44 (APN 24-5; see now PIR², P 146) . The letters εκι following on Πασσιήνου in the inscription from Cos (now IG, XII 4, 2, 890, 32 A) and equi appearing in I.Ephesos 3025 which have been taken by some scholars and in the en- try in PIR (cfr. PIR², S 25) to represent a further cognomen have now been explained by M. Heil (2013, 184 f.); in IG, XII 4, 2, 890, A the correct reading is in fact γυναῖκα δὲ τοῦ ἀνθυπάτ[ο]υ … Πασσιήνου, ἐκ πρ[ογόνων] εὐεργέτιν, and in the inscription from Ephesus one must in fact read seviro] / equi[tum Roman(orum) etc. L. Livius Ocella Sulpicius Galba = Ser. Sulpicius Galba cos. ord. 33, emperor in 68-9 (APN 32 f.). After his “adoption” by his stepmother Livia Ocellina, Galba was normally known as L. Livius Ocella Sulpicius Galba, but as emperor he called himself Ser. (Sulpicius) Galba. However, as I observe in APN 32, traces of the adoptive nomenclature (without Ocella) appear in Egyptian documents in which we find Galba referred to as Λούκιος Λείβιος Σουλπίκιος Γάλβας (C. Pap. Gr. 1, 21; O. Bodl. 2, 1175) or Λούκιος Λείβιος Σεβαστὸς Σουλπίκιος Γάλβας or Λούκιος Λείβιος Γάλβας Καῖσαρ Σεβαστὸς Αὐτοκράτωρ (the last two versions in IGR, I 1263 = OGI 669 = Bernard 1992, 57)33. Surprisingly, the nomenclature with Livius, but with Ocella omitted, has now for the first time emerged outside Egypt, namely in Rhodiapolis in Lycia, where we find 31  I add some minor addenda in this note. T. Prifernius Paetus Memmius Apollinaris (APN 34): the fact that the praenomen was reported as missing in the CIL edition of the inscription from Reate regarding this man, CIL, IX 4753, has caused some trouble; but the new edition of this inscription in Suppl. It. 18, Reate 17 shows that the prae- nomen T. is perfectly legible. L. Fulvius [Rusticus?] Bruttius Praesens etc. (APN 36 f.): the item Aquilius Veiento at the end of the complete nomenclature receives some illustration by L. Aquilius Veiento, now attested as consul during the reign of Hadrian (RMD, III 160). M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex (APN 79 f.): Piso 2013, 277 f. prefers to see this man as a Catonius Vindex adopted by a M. Macrinius Avitus, possibly a brother of the praetorian prefect M. Macrinius Vindex; the appearance of the same cognomen Vindex both among the Catonii and among the Macrinii he explains (plau- sibly) by assuming that the Macrinii and the Catonii were somehow related. L. Dasumius P. f. Tullius Tuscus, cos. suff. 152 (APN 98 f.): Chausson 2009, 238-41 now argues that this man was not a Tullius P. f. adopted by a L. Dasumius, but (as suggested several times in the past by other scholars) the son of P. Tullius Varro cos. suff. 127 and a Dasumia, the sister of P. Dasumius Rusticus cos. ord. 119. In this case, the consul’s nomenclature would be comparable to the cases adduced in APN 67 ff. However, in these cases the maternal nomen seems to have been inserted between the paternal praenomen and the paternal nomen (e.g., T. Fundanius Vitrasius Pollio, the praenomen T. belonging to Vitrasius), and thus one would perhaps expect this man to have been rather called *P. Dasumius Tullius Tuscus. M. Gavius Cornelius Cethegus, cos. 170 (APN 101 f.): the problem of the interpretation of this man’s name (into which I cannot go in this context) is further complicated by the fact that it is now confirmed that M. Gavius Squilla Gallicanus cos. 150 (said to be the father of Cethegus in I.Ephesos 2068) had also a further, apparently natural, son, M. Gavius Gallicanus (Μ. Γάβιος Γαλλικανός), proconsul of Asia (Clinton 2005, nr. 625, an inscription from Eleusis mentioning also the father, cos. 150, and the grandfather, cos. 127, in lines 2-3). This Gallicanus is surely identical with the Gallicanus n(oster) of CIL, V 3223 = AE 1979, 295, said to have been consul and proconsul (thus or either Africa or Asia). Already Alföldy 1979, 538, 542 took him for a son of the consul of 150 and dated his consulate to c. 180/185 and him proconsulate to c. 195/200. The inscription from Eleusis confirms this hypothesis and adds, as we saw, the information that the province in question was Asia. C. Matius Sabinius Sullin(us) Vatinianus Anicius Maximus Caesulen(us) Martialis Pisibanus Lepidus, consul probably around AD 190 (APN 110): the item Pisibanus Lepidus can now be illustrated by M. Pisibanius Lepidus, consul in 159 (AE 1999, 408, a fragment of the fasti of Ostia; several diplomas, AE 1999, 1351ab = RMD, V 422-423, etc.). The item Caesulenus Martialis remains a mystery (Caesulen(i)us seems to be otherwise attested only in Africa. C. Seius Calpurnius Quadratus “Sittianus” (APN 112 f.): the second cognomen now appears to have been not Sittianus but Sillianus (see PIR², S 119). This renders the connection with Cirta suggested by me more tenuous. 32  For the wax tablet see now also Wolf 2010, 100. 33  Cfr. Bureth 1964, 36.  es tra tto 522 O. SALOMIES Galba as emperor being honoured with a statue, the inscription of which calls him [Λούκιος] Λίουιος Σουλπίκιος [Γάλβας] Αὐτοκράτωρ Σεβαστός (AE 2008, 1436). This unusual nomencla- ture appearing in Lycia may perhaps be illustrated by the fact that Lycian inscriptions also offer peculiarities in the case of Vespasian, namely by calling the emperor early in his reign (T.) Flavius Vespasianus (e.g., TAM, II 396; AE 2006, 1512; 2007, 1519; cfr. Eck 2008); as is well known, Vespasian did not use the nomen Flavius as emperor. Q. Planius Sardus Varius Ambibulus = L. Varius Ambibulus, consul in 132 or 133 (APN 35 f.). I observe on p. 36 that this man looks like a Varius Ambibulus adopted by a Q. Planius Sardus. Two men of this name, both equestrians, have in fact become known in the last years. First, there is Q. Planius Sardus C. f. Pup. Truttedius Pius, prefect of the ala I Flavia Gaetulorum in 97-99, for whom see below at nt. 60; but there is now also Q. Planius Sardus, clearly a distinct person, prefect of the ala I Ulpiae Contariorum (milliaria) in 126 (AE 1995, 1823 = RMD, IV 236). If, as I suspect, the adoption of Ambibulus was testamentary, this latter Sardus cannot come into question, as Ambibulus had the adoptive items Q. Planius Sardus already in 124 (Samothrace II 1, 53). As for the earlier Planius Sardus, prefect in 97-99, he might come into question both as the natural father of the prefect in 126 and as the adoptive father of the later consul, for although he leaves the impression of being a Truttedius Pius adopted by testament by a Q. Planius Sardus, his main names seem to have been not, as one would expect, Truttedius Pius but Planius Sardus (cfr. below nt. 60). On the other hand, although clearly suitable as the putative father of the prefect in 126, he may seem a bit young to be a plausible candidate for the role of the adoptive father by testament of the later consul (cfr. Eck - Pangerl 2006, 98 who speak of the consul of 132/133 and of the prefect in 97-99 as men belonging to about the same generation). But some men die in their younger years, and I would thus not categorically exclude him. In any case, in order to explain the names of the consul and of the prefect attested in 126, we need to postulate the existence of at least one person called Q. Planius Sardus active around AD 100, either identical with the prefect in 97-99 or otherwise unknown. The question is whether we could see this Planius Sardus both as the father of Q. Planius Sardus, prefect in 126, and as the adoptive father of Q. Planius Sardus Varius Ambibulus who, if adopted, had acquired the additional names by 124 (see above). W. Eck and M. Roxan34 dismissed this possibility in 1995 because “it would be surprising if the father of the prefect [in 126] … adopted the young senator and again gave him the same names as a son who still lived”; instead, they suggested that Q. Planius Sardus Varius Ambibulus might have been the son of a Plania and a cousin of the prefect in 126 (himself son of an unattested Q. Planius). However, in that case one would expect the later consul to have been called *L. Planius Sardus Varius Ambibulus, the maternal items having been inserted between the paternal praenomen and the paternal nomen (cfr. the cases cited in APN 78-80). Moreover, there does not seem to be a serious objection to seeing the same person, whose name would then have to have been Q. Pla- nius Sardus, both as the natural father of the prefect Q. Planius Sardus and the adoptive father of Q. Planius Sardus Varius Ambibulus: it is natural to assume that the son of a man of this name had the same name, and in the case that this father adopted by testament another “son”, it would have been normal to add the tria nomina of the adoptive father to the earlier names of the son. It would it fact be most striking if the nomenclature of an adoptive son of a man called Q. Planius Sardus 34  Eck - Roxan 1995, 72 f.  es tra tto ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA 523 would not consist of the introductory item Q. Planius Sardus. Furthermore, even after the adoption Q. Planius Sardus Varius Ambibulus would in any case continue his existence as Varius Ambibu- lus, appearing only in some solemn contexts with the full nomenclature, and so there would not in practice be the problem of the coexistence at the same time of two Q. Planii Sardi. Ummidius Quadratus (APN 47). The reading of the inscription from Ephesus, I.Ephesos 1539, has now shown to have been not κ[ατὰ φύσιν] Οὐμμιδίου etc., but [Κ]λαυδίου Οὐμμιδίου Κο[δράτου] πατέρα (AE 2000, 1403), and there is thus no reference to an adoption of the son of Cn. Claudius Severus cos. II 173 by M. Ummidius Quadratus cos. ord. 167. As it now appears that the son was called (Cn. ?) Claudius Ummidius Quadratus, the most likely explanation is that Claudius Severus was married to an Ummidia, perhaps the sister of Quadratus cos. 167 (Engel- mann 2000, 78 suggests that the son of Severus may have been adopted by Ummidius Quadratus, but the collocation of the item Ummidius Quadratus at the end of the nomenclature seems to rule out this possibility). Corellius Pansa cos. ord. 122 (APN 64 n. 11). The consul, normally taken to be the son of L. Neratius Marcellus and Corellia Hispulla, but until now known only as Corellius Pansa (thus in the consular date in CIL, VI 10048 = ILS 5287), now appears as [L. Corellius Ner]atius Pansa in the date of the diploma AE 2002, 1767 = RMD, V 359. If this is his full name, if the nomina are in the correct order (cfr. below), and if the above assumption that he was indeed a son of Marcellus and Hispulla is correct35, we will have to conclude that the consul of 122 had a nomenclature of the type in which the nomen of the mother was added between the praenomen and the nomen of the fa- ther (APN 67 ff.). However, some uncertainty is introduced by the existence of a certain Neratius Corellius in the inscription of 101 from Ligures Baebiani relating to the alimentary institution of Trajan, CIL, IX 1455 = ILS 6509. In any case, the consul seems to have used the maternal nomen in his abbreviated nomenclature (assuming that one can deduce this from the inscription cited above); cfr. the parallels in APN 70 f. T. Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Antoninus, the later emperor Pius, cos. ord. 120 (APN 75 f.). The full name, as rendered above, is now attested also in a bilingual inscription from near Daldis in Asia, AE 1994, 1645b (with Βοιώνιος in the Greek version and Boeonius in the Latin one). The shorter version T. Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus, with Boionius omitted, now appears also in two inscriptions from Hierapolis, AE 1999, 1578 and 2000, 1434. As for the nomen Arrius, normally assumed to have been a part of the full nomenclature, Pius is called Arrius Antoninus in the His- toria Augusta (Hadr. 24,1 and Pius 4, 2) and, more importantly, also (allegedly) in brick stamps of AD 134, CIL, XV 92 f. However, the name forms used in the Historia Augusta cannot prove anything, and F. Chausson now plausibly assigns the brick stamps not to the future emperor but to a relative36. So the conclusion must be that the full nomenclature of the future emperor was T. Au- relius Fulvus Boionius Antoninus which could be abbreviated to T. Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus37 35 Thus also Eck - Weiß 2002, 470. 36 Chausson 2005, 236 ff., with a stemma indicating the various possibilities on 238. 37  For this type of abbreviation, in which the second nomen is omitted while the second cognomen is kept and added to the first cognomen cfr. below at nt. 68 on C. Bellicus Natalis P. Gavidius Tebanianus = C. Bellicus Natalis Tebanianus.  es tra tto 524 O. SALOMIES or, if only the tria nomina were used, to T. Aurelius Fulvus38. As for the nomen Boionius, Boionia Procilla (known from CIL, VI 9355 = ILS 7383, qui … moratus est in dispensatione Boion[i]ae Procillae et Aureli Fulvi) is of course not Pius’ maternal (thus mistakenly in APN 75), but paternal grandmother, the wife of T. Aurelius Fulvus cos. II 85, Procilla and Fulvus being the parents of Pius’ father T. Aurelius Fulvus cos. ord. 8939. The names Boionius Antoninus are thus a combina- tion of the nomen of Pius’ paternal grandmother and of the cognomen of his maternal grandfather Cn. Arrius Antoninus (cos. 69, II 97). Ti. Catius Asconius Silius Italicus, cos. ord. 68 (APN 92 f.). In an inscription from Ac- moneia in Asia this year is designated as Ποπλίῳ Γαλερίῳ Τραχάλῳ, Λευκίῳ Σειλίῳ Ἰταλικῷ ὑπάτοις (AE 2006, 1426). This text not only confirms that the consul’s main nomina were Silius Italicus but adds the interesting detail that the praenomen to be combined with Silius was Lucius (Italicus was thus probably a L. Silius adopted by a Ti. Catius). Silius Italicus can thus be added to the group of polyonymi who used two praenomina, one belonging to the first nomen of the polyonymous nomenclature, and the other belonging to the main nomen and only appearing when the short nomenclature is used (cfr. Q. Iulius Cordinus Rutilius Gallicus = C. Rutilius Gallicus, L. Livius Ocella Sulpicius Galba = Ser. Sulpicius Galba; see nt. 8)40. That we are dealing with a L. Silius - not a Ti. Silius - Italicus explains the absence of plebeian Ti. Silii (APN 92 f.) and makes it seem even more probable that L. Silius Decianus cos. suff. 94 (PIR², S 720) was Italicus’ son (as suggested by several scholars). P. Vigellius Raius Plarius Saturninus Atilius Braduanus Caucidius Tertullus, legate of Lycia-Pamphylia in the 160’s, proconsul of Africa in 180/181 (APN 110). The inscription from Perge has now been published as I.Perge 158; although this is an inscription in honour of Saturn- inus, interestingly only the short name Π. Οὐιγέλλιος Σατουρνεῖνος (to be contrasted with the full nomenclature used in the honorific inscription from Side, now Nollé 1993, nr. 58) is used here (this legate is possibly also mentioned in I.Perge 142). We now know a certain [.] Vige[l]lius Sat- urni[nus], (apparently) an equestrian official attested in Egypt in the time of Domitian (AE 2001, 2044); it seems likely that this person is an ancestor of the senator; the nomina Raius and Plarius, added between the main nomen and the (main) cognomen, may come from the maternal family or from other relatives (note that Raius is not otherwise attested among senators). For the relevance of the items Atilius Braduanus and Caucidius Tertullus see PIR², A 263-265 and C 133. Q. Roscius Sex. f. Qui. Coelius Murena Silius Decianus Vibull(i)us Pius Iulius Eurycles Herc(u)lanus Pompeius Falco cos. suff. 108 (APN 121-5). This full nomenclature of the consul (whose abbreviated nomenclature was Q. Pompeius Falco)41 is used only in CIL, X 6321 = ILS 38  However, in a document in Aramaic, the consul seems to have been called Marcus (!) Aurelius Antoninus (Millar 1993, 416; Cotton 1995, 182 nt. 34). 39  Chausson 2005, 233 in the stemma and Id. 2009, 176-82. 40  This type is to be contrasted with those nomenclatures in which the praenomen belonging to the first nomen is in the short nomenclature combined with the main nomen (e.g., A. Didius Gallus Fabricius Veiento = A. Fabricius Veiento, Q. Roscius Coelius … Pompeius Falco = Q. Pompeius Falco, etc.). 41  This makes one wonder whether Falco might not have been the agonothete in Naples under Domitian of whose name only Πομ[- - --]ωνος has been preserved (Miranda 2010, 419); could this be Πομ[πηίου Φάλκ]ωνος? How- ever, the editor seems to imply that some more text is missing than what has been restored here.  es tra tto ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA 525 1035; a somewhat shortened nomenclature, with the items from Silius to Herc(u)lanus being omit- ted, is used in several inscriptions, some of them recently published. As these present interesting variation in the use of Falco’s names, let us have a look at the name forms attested in these texts (in order to facilitate the analysis I transcribe the Greek forms into Latin): A) Q. Roscius Coelius42 Murena Pompeius Falco: I.Kaunos 136 = AE 2003, 1706; cfr. Q. Roscius Coelius Murena … Pompeius Falco in the fullest version quoted above; B) Q. Roscius Murena Coelius Pompeius Falco: AE 2004, 1898 (military diploma); I.Ephesos 713, cfr. 713a; CIL, III 7537 [= ISM, II 43], 12470 (these two inscriptions referring to Falco as legate of Moesia Inferior); C) Q. Roscius Coelius Pompeius Falco: CIL, III 12117 = ILS 1036 (honorific inscription from Hierapolis Castabala). We thus observe that we have three versions of the combination of Coelius and Murena, one in which Coelius comes first, one in which Murena comes first, and finally one in which only Coelius is kept and Murena is omitted. Since this latter version C is attested only in an inscription from Cilicia, one might assume that we are only dealing with a mistake. As for the other versions, since version B, with Murena Coelius, is used in a military diploma, B could be taken to represent the “official” version, especially as the same order Murena Coelius also appears not only in the inscriptions from Ephesus and Moesia Inferior, but also in the nomenclature of Falco’s grandson, as reproduced in the inscription CIL, XIV 3609 = Inscr. It., IV 1, 126 = ILS 110443. Moreover, there are probably second-century senatorial Roscii Murenae (PIR², R 95-97). On the other hand, there is also M. Roscius Coelius cos. suff. 81 (PIR², R 94; AE 1998, 419), and the order Coelius Murena (i.e., version A) is used not only in the inscription from Kaunos but also in the inscription from Tarracina using the full nomenclature. It thus seems that the question of the correct order of the names Coelius and Murena cannot be settled yet. C. Silius (A.) Caecina Largus, cos. AD 13 (APN 148 f.). A. Pizzigatti (1997) studying the identity of the consul C. Caecina A. f. Largus mentioned along with A. Caecina A. f. Severus, consul in 1 BC, in the inscription of the theatre of Volaterrae (AE 1998, 440), concludes that this Caecina Largus is identical with the consul of AD 13 and that the nomenclature including the item C. Silius is based on an adoption of this Caecina by P. Silius Nerva, consul in 20 BC44. But the problem is of course on the one hand (a) that, as noted in APN 149, in the case of adoption one would expect the adoptee Caecina to have taken over the adoptive father’s praenomen P.; and on the other hand (b) that the filiation of the consul of AD 13 is given in the Fasti Capitolini as P. f. P. n., whereas that of the consul Largus mentioned in the Volaterrae inscription is A. f. As for prob- lem (a), that of the praenomen, the author (1997, 142 f.) does not seem to furnish any other ex- planation than that were exceptions to the rule (namely that the adoptive son took the praenomen 42  Ιn this inscription, Coelius has been expressed (in the dative) as Κοέλλῳ; taking into account that the tran- scription in I.Ephesos 713 (below) is Κουέλλον, one wonders whether this particular name might not by mistake have been published in an erroneous Greek form in Asia. 43  Cfr. also CIL, VI 37071 pertaining to the same man, where the reading of this part of this man’s polyony- mous nomenclature seems to be [Murenae Coe]l(io). 44  This explanation is accepted by Letta 2000, 528-32.  es tra tto 526 O. SALOMIES of the adoptive father), but does not provide a single instance of this45. As for problem (b), that of the filiation, Pizzigatti (1997, 144) says that the Volaterrae inscription reproduces the original “titolatura preadottiva” (the reason for this is said to be the fact that Volaterrae was the ancient family seat of the Caecinae)46, whereas the Capitoline fasti have the adoptive filiation. To me this solution seems extremely questionable, and I am sure that no parallel for the use of the original fi­ liation by adoptees who had already acquired a new filiation can be adduced47. Moreover, although Pizzigatti throughout (e.g., 138, 147) assumes that the adoption of Caecina Largus by P. Silius was testamentary, and thus not a “real” adoption, he does not seem to discuss the problem of the nature of the filiation P. f. P. n., in which the praenomina clearly refer to two P. (Silii) and which thus implies not a testamentary, but a “real” adoption. In view of all this, I still prefer the solution proposed, following R. Syme, in APN, namely that C. Silius Caecina Largus cos. 13 was a natural son of P. Silius Nerva cos. 20 BC and that the item Caecina Largus is maternal (thus now also K. Wachtel in PIR², S 718). As for C. Caecina A. f. Largus [c]os. in the Volaterrae inscription, the most unproblematic explanation seems to me to be to assume that we are dealing with the consul C. Caecina Largus of AD 42, A. Caecina Severus being his father. The chronological problems of this solution can surely be solved by assuming that the inscription is from the time of Claudius and records work done by two consular Caecinae, the father Severus and later, in the period of Claudius (cfr. the reference to “nuove fasi edilizie” in the middle of the first century in Pizzigatti (1997, 133), the son Largus. This solution is in fact mentioned, but dismissed, by Pizzigatti (1997, 132 f.). As for the brick stamps mentioning two contemporary Caecinae, A. Caecina Severus and C. Caecina Largus (Pizzigatti 1997, 130), which are perhaps better referred to two brothers, I cannot see why we could not have here the consul of 1 BC and an otherwise unknown brother. Addenda to some name types discussed in APN P+N+C(ianus)+C (cfr. APN 23 f.). As an adoptive name, this type is extremely rare, but there is also a first-century inscription from Patavium which I missed in 1992, namely Ghislanzoni 1926, 345; this is a funerary inscription set up by a certain Q. Varius Aeb(utius?) Naevius Sex. Vario L. f. Valenti avo, M. Aebutio Variano Valenti patri … Numeriae L. f. matri. Since both the dedicator and his grandfather are Varii, but the father is called M. Aebutius Varianus Valens, the obvious conclusion is that the father was a Varius Valens adopted at some point by someone called M. Aebutius. Note also L. Annius L. f. Mammianus Rufus, IIvir at Herculaneum (CIL, X 1443- 1445), who may have been a Mammius adopted by a L. Annius48. 45 And there are of course no instances apart from the case (adduced in APN 149) of T. Annius Milo who according to Asconius (53 C.) was adopted by a certain C. Annius (this is of course corrected to T. Annius by editors). The point of the reference on p. 142 to C. Silius Aviola, an equestrian from N. Italy in the time of Tiberius, escapes me. 46  At the same time, the author assumes (143, 145) that the praenomen C. is adoptive (i.e., belonging to Silius); however, even assuming that Caecina Largus in Volaterrae is identical with the consul of AD 13, I cannot see why C. Caecina could not be Largus’ original nomenclature, the praenomen C. going with Caecina. 47  Of course I am here speaking only of “official” filiations expressed by praenomina; it is another thing when cognomina are used (see the case of Scipio Aemilianus being called Paulli f. in CIL, I² 763 referred to in APN 10). 48  Thus Camodeca 2003, 650; Id. 2006, 9 nt. 6. For a name of this type in which the cognomen ending in -ianus is maternal, note CIL, III 649 = AE 2005, 1403 (Philippi) mentioning L. Ann[i]us [L.] f. Vol. Atilianus Agricola, the son of L. Annius C. f. Vol. Agricola and Flavia Atilia Augustina.  es tra tto ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA 527 P+N+C+C(ianus)+C. This adoptive name type does not figure in APN, but there is now the consul T. Prifernius Paetus C. fil. Settidianus Firmus in an inscription from Nesactium, AE 2005, 542 (probably early 2nd century). As the original editor I. Rodà (2005) observes, the filiation C. fil. must refer to a Settidius, and thus it seems obvious that this man is a Settidius Firmus (cfr. the Settidii Firmi from Pola, PIR², S 616-618, among whom there is also a Gaius, nr. 617) adopted by testament by one of the T. Prifernii Paeti (PIR², P 934 ff.), perhaps the consul of AD 96, from Reate. Unfortunately, the inscription does not add the honorand’s tribe. P+N+N+C (cfr. APN 26 ff., 61 ff., 90 ff.). Adoptions seem to be indicated in the following inscriptions not cited in APN: CIL, XIV 1134 (Ostia) D. M. L. Iuli Albini Quieti … L. Albinius Pupus fil(ius) patri (the father may well have been adopted by a L. Iulius); CIL, X 1441 cfr. Ca- modeca 2006, 10 (Herculaneum), mentioning a L. Annius M. f. Calatorius Postumus who must be a Calatorius M. f. adopted by a L. Annius (thus Camodeca). But there are of course also names of this type in which one of the nomina is maternal. For an instance in which the second nomen is maternal, note (in addition to those adduced in APN 63 ff.) CIL, IX 1659 (Beneventum), C. Umbrio Servilio Iusto … decurion(i) Ben(eventi) … Servi­ lia Varia mater49, and perhaps also T. Sextius Africanus, consul in 112, who is now called T. Sextius Cornelius Afric[anus] as consul in a military diploma, AE 2005, 173750. For an instance in which the first of the two nomina is maternal (cfr. APN 67 ff.), note AE 2006, 1332 (inscriptions on a sarcophagus from Philippi), where we find in a) the couple T. Fulcinius Proculus, dec(urio) Philip- p(is), an(norum) XXC, and Valeria Syntyche, and in b) two persons, [T]atinia P. f. Tertulla, an(no- rum) XXIIII, and T. Valerius T. f. Vol. Fulcinius Maior, orn(amentis) dec(urionalibus) hon(oratus), aed(ilis), dec(urio), q(uaestor) etc. This latter person is obviously the son of the couple in whose nomenclature the maternal nomen appears between the praenomen T. and the paternal nomen Ful- cinius. Tatinia Tertulla is of course his wife. As I was also interested in how polyonymous nomenclatures are abbreviated, I cited in APN 90 ff. names of the type P+N+N+C, in which the second nomen appears in the abbrevi- ated nomenclature (P+N1+N2+C = P+N2+C), and on 105 ff. cases in which the first nomen is used in the abbreviated nomenclature (P+N1+N2+C = P+N1+C). As an instance of the first type (second nomen appearing in abbreviated nomenclature) note that the consuls in 69 and 81 previ- ously known simply as Cn. Caecilius Simplex (PIR², C 84) and L. Vettius Paullus51 have recently acquired additional nomina, Simplex being called, as proconsul of Africa, Cn. Pinarius Caecilius Simplex in AE 2009, 1758, and Paullus appearing as L. Iulius Vett(ius) Paullus in the fasti of Septempeda (AE 1998, 419). The case of Simplex is interesting inasmuch as it shows that the 49  Cfr. also Claudius Ummidius Quadratus, above at nt. 35; and, e.g., Q. Avilius Q. f. Sennius Palatina Comi- nianus, the son of Q. Avilius Hyacinthus (AE 1982, 681 from Nemausus); according to Christol 1992, 249 (also in Id. 2010, 340), Avilius Hyacinthus had adopted a Sennius Cominianus, but to me it seems more probable that Cominianus was the (natural) son of Hyacinthus and of a Sennia. 50 As Sextius and Africanus clearly go together (cfr. the Sextii Africani PIR², S 658 f.), the easiest assumption is that Cornelius, a name nowhere else attested for the consul, is that of his mother (thus PIR², S 664, with “fortasse”); T. Sextius (Magius) Lateranus cos. 94, surely the father of the consul of 112, had thus probably married a Cornelia be- longing to the patrician Cornelii. For Mummia Tarruntenia Corneliana, the daughter of a Mummius and a Tarruntenia, see below at nt. 64. 51  Paullus’ consulate was previously attested in the Arval Acts (CIL, VI 2059) and in CIL, VI 328 = ILS 3434.  es tra tto 528 O. SALOMIES praenomen Gnaeus attaches to Pinarius rather than to Caecilius52. More striking is, however, the fact that once again we have to face the existence of the combination of Gnaeus with the nomen Pinarius. The item Cn. Pinarius was already attested in the following cases: -Cn. Pinarius Aemilius Cicatricula (PIR², P 407; consul perhaps in 7253, proconsul of Afri- ca in 79/80 (cfr. AE 2003, 2015); this man’s abbreviated nomenclature was probably Cn. Aemilius Cicatricula (APN 94 nt. 11); -Cn. Pinarius L. f. Pap. Cornelius Clemens (PIR², C 1341), consul perhaps in 7254, the abbreviated nomenclature being Cn. Cornelius Clemens (APN 87). Thus we now have altogether three consuls within a few years, all with a polyonymous two nomen nomenclature introduced by the item Cn. Pinarius and all of them using the second nomen as the main nomen. In the stemma in PIR², P 162 it is suggested that Cicatricula may have been the son of a Cn. Pinarius and of an Aemilia and Cornelius Clemens a Cornelius adopted by the same Cn. Pinarius, but in my view the most economical explanation for the existence of the three contemporary Cn. Pinarii would be to postulate an otherwise unknown Cn. Pinarius, prob- ably a man of means but perhaps without an offspring55, who could have adopted by testament three promising younger senators.
For another instance of the second nomen being used as the main nomen observe Ti. Allienus Sicinius Quintianus, tribune of the plebs in 98 or 99, known from CIL, VI 450 = 30768 = ILS 3618; as this inscription also mentions Ti. Sicinius Ti. l. Receptus who must have been a freedman of the senator, we may conclude that the senator’s short name was Ti. Sicinius Quintianus56. As an instance of the name type in which the first nomen is used in the abbreviated no- menclature one could adduce the consul of AD 112, T. Sextius Cornelius Africanus = T. Sextius Africanus (above at nt. 50) and, e.g., Q. Gavius Q. f. Q. n. Q. pron. Q. abn. Q. adn. Fal. Fulvius Proculus, trib(unus) coh(ortis) XV Vol(untariorum) etc., CIL, X 4579 = Solin 1993, 45 (Caiatia); fairly recently published military diplomas have showed that this man was tribune of this cohort in AD 152 and as such called Q. Gavius Proculus (AE 2002, 1724 = RMD, V 408; 2004, 1911). As for T. Vinicius Iulianus, attested under this name as consul in 80 in the Arval Acts (CIL, VI 2059), he now appears as M. Vinicius Iulius Rufus in the fasti of Septempeda (AE 1998, 419). The differ- ences in the names seem most striking, and I would be prepared to assume that the man’s names have not been rendered correctly in one of the two sources, the more likely candidate obviously being the fasti Septempedani. P+N+N+C+C (APN 30, 108 ff.). M. Servilius Q. f. Ani. Sulpicius Victo[r] Considianus (CIL, II 3438 = Abascal - Ramallo Asensio 1997, 51) may well be a Sulpicius Q. f. adopted by a 52 Plebeian Cn. Caecilii (e.g., CIL, VI 4678, 13704, 13753 etc.) probably derive from the consul. 53  Eck 2009, 251. 54  Ibid., 252. 55  But possibly with a sister, as a plausible explanation for the cognomina of C. Scoedius Natta Pinarianus, consul in 81 (PIR², S 251), could be that this man was the son of a Scoedius and a Pinaria. 56  As there do not seem to be other Ti. Sicinii, whereas it is possible to observe other Ti. Allieni or Ti. Allenii (CIL, VI 5342, Ti. Allienus Philippus; 36314, Ti. Allenius Veturianus Sicinius Quintilianus, clearly in some relation to the senator; Ti. Allenii in Vicetia: CIL, V 3162 and Pais 1884, 1247), one could perhaps deduce that the senator (or one of his ancestors) was a Sicinius adopted by a Ti. Allienus/Allenius, possibly from Vicetia. For another instance of this type of name, note P. Iulius Geminius Marcianus, legate of Arabia in the 160’s, whose short name was Geminius Marcianus (see PIR², I 340).  es tra tto ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA 529 M. Servilius (Le Roux 2008, 1011)57. From the inscription CIL, VIII 15576 = ILTun 1538 (Mus- tis, AD 161/169) it appears that a certain L. Iulius Titisenus Rogatus Kappianus, the son of (Iulia L. f.) Honorata, was the father of A. Titisenus Honoratus Kappianus. As this son does not have the names L. Iulius, one can conclude that Honorata had married a certain A. Titisenus with whom she had a son called A. Titisenus Rogatus Kappianus (who for his part had a son called A. Titisenus Honoratus Kappianus). At some point, but after the birth of his son, A. Titisenus Rogatus Kap- pianus, Honorata’s son, was adopted by a L. Iulius, this resulting in the name L. Iulius Titisenus Rogatus Kappianus; as Rogatus Kappianus is said to be the heres of L. Iulius L. f. Corn. Rogatus Kappianus, his maternal uncle (i.e., Honorata’s brother), this uncle is surely the adoptive father. P+N+P+N+C(+C) (APN 31 f.). This type, with a praenomen between the first and the second nomen, may seem familiar to those acquainted with the Pergamene senator C. Antius A. Iulius Quadratus, but it is in fact quite rare. For some instances (not necessarily to be explained by adoption) of this type not cited in APN note P. Clodius P. f. P. nepos Fal. L. Arlenus Bassus, pa- tron and cur(ator) of Sinuessa, AE 1926, 142; and L. Lucretius M. Servilius Gallus Sempronianus c(larissimus) v(ir) in a brick stamp from Dianium (Denia) in Hispania Tarraconensis (AE 1999, 962)58. There are also some instances in Greek inscriptions59. P+N+N+N+C (cfr. APN 108 ff.). For an instance of a sequence of three nomina of which the first one is used in the abbreviated nomenclature note now Λούκιος Σέργιος Οὐολόσσιος Ματίδιος Ἡρακλειδιανός, proconsul of Lycia-Pamphylia probably in the Severan period (AE 1999, 1635 = SEG, 49, 1931 from Patara; PIR², S 535), who is called Σέργιος Ἡρακλει[διανός] in a recently published honorific inscription from Perge (AE 2008, 1425). P+N+C+N+C (cfr. APN 31 ff., 74 ff., 114 ff.). This name type normally reflects either adoption (in which case the adoptive items appear at the beginning of the nomenclature) or the addition of maternal items into the nomenclature, usually at the end (APN 75 ff.), but sometimes at the beginning (ibid., 78 ff.). As for adoptive names of this type, let us note the following cases. Q. Planius Sardus C. f. Pup. Truttedius Pius is now attested in military diplomas as prefect of the ala I Flavia Gaetulorum in AD 97 (AE 2002, 1775 = 2005, 1705 = RMD, V 337) and 99 (AE 2006, 1862; Eck - Pangerl 2012b)60. This man could possibly be the son of a Truttedius and a Plania, daughter of Q. Planius 57  However, Le Roux attributes the tribe Ani(ensis) to the adopting father M. Servilius, whereas the fact, emerging from the filiation, that this must have been a testamentary adoption implies that it should the referred to the natural father Q. Sulpicius. 58  However, this man (PIR², S 584) is said to be called L. Lucretius Servilius Gallus Sempronianus in a similar stamp found in Villajoyosa about 50 km to the South of Dianium (AE 1977, 449 = HEp, IX 56 = Corell 1999, 113). However, the name is in the genitive and there is a letter between Lucreti and Servili; Alföldy (1997, 218 ff.) who read Lucreti{o}, thought it was an o, whereas Corell reads Lucreti<<i>>. But the photo shows that there is no problem in reading M., a reading obviously supported by the other stamp. Cfr. on this man also Le Roux 2008, 1009 f.; Le Roux plausibly thinks that we could have here a M. Servilius adopted by a L. Lucretius. 59  E.g., Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Ἀπολλωνίου υἱὸς Τιβέριος Κλαύδιος Μενεστθεύς, SEG 57, 1020 (Aphrodisias). For the type with two cognomina see Μ. Αὐρ(ήλιος) Τιβ. Κάσσιος Πανκρατιανὸς Οπλης, AE 2007, 1532 (Termessos); Π. Αἴλ(ιος) Κούιντος Κλ(αύδιος) Φιλιππιανὸς Οὐᾶρος, IGR, III 360 (Sagalassos). 60  In the diplomas of 99, the filiation and the tribe are placed (as above) after the first cognomen, whereas the name is preserved in the form Q. Planius C. f. [Pup. (?) Sardus] in the diploma of 97. Note that there is no room for the item Truttedius Pius (Eck - Pangerl 2006, 98); the nomenclature thus ended with Sardus.  es tra tto 530 O. SALOMIES Sardus (thus Eck - Pangerl 2006, 98 f.); on the other hand, he could perhaps also be the son of a Q. Planius and a Truttedia, especially if one considers that his short name seems to have been not Truttedius Pius but Planius Sardus (see nt. 60). However, the most probable explanation must surely be that we have here a Truttedius Pius adopted by a Q. Planius Sardus. Moreover, this is obviously a testamentary adoption, as the filiation refers to the natural, not to the adoptive, father, and as the tribe Pup(inia) is clearly that of the Truttedii, not that of the Planii, who were appar- ently from Capua or at least from Campania61. Truttedius sounds Umbrian (cfr. the nomen trutitis in an Umbrian inscription from Tuder: Rix 2002, 16)62, and since the tribe Pupinia is attested for Sassina, one could perhaps tentatively assign this branch of the Truttedii to this city. However, at least one of them must have had contacts with Minturnae on the border of Latium and Campania, for we find there a C. Truttedius Pius setting up a statue in honour of his mother Pompeia Q. f. Catulla (CIL, X 6018 = ILS 6293 = ILMN, I 588, dated to c. 50-150 by H. Solin)63. As the prefect discussed here is a Truttedius Pius and the son of a Gaius, he may well have been the son of either this C. Truttedius Pius or, if the inscription is to be dated to the late first century or later, of an ancestor of the same name. As for the adoptive father, we probably have to postulate the existence of an otherwise unknown Planius, as the tribune seems to be the earliest attested Planius Sardus (for the Planii see also above at nt. 34). Another case of adoption is clearly attested in an inscription from Ossigi in Baetica, AE 1997, 944 = CIL, II² / 7, 3a mentioning Aelia M. f. Senilla L. Carvili Recti (uxor) and her son Q. Cornelius Longus Carvilius L. f. Gal. Rusticus. The son, originally surely (L.?) Carvilius Rus- ticus, had obviously been adopted (by testament) by a certain Q. Cornelius Longus. Another rel- evant case is that of Servaeus Innocens, suffect consul in 101. As consul he is called Q. Servaeus Innocens in the Arval Acts (CIL, VI 2074) and the fasti Ostienses (Vidman 1982², 46: Q. Ser- vae[us Innocens]), and as proconsul of Asia he appears (in the genitive) as Σερβαίου Ἰννόκεντος in I Ephesos 429. But in two fairly recently published military diplomas Innocens is called as consul C. Sertorius Brocchus Servaeus Innocens (AE 1991, 1360 = RMD, III 143; 2008, 1732). In this full nomenclature, the praenomen C. belonging to Sertorius has thus replaced the praenomen Q. belonging to Servaeus (cfr. the cases cited in nt. 8), and this seems to imply that we are dealing here with a Q. Servaeus Innocens (surely a son of [Q. Servaeus In]noc(ens), attested as consul in 82 in the fasti of Ostia) adopted by a certain C. Sertorius Brocchus; this is the view advocated also by W. Eck (1991, 191; see ibid., 190 f. on the Sertorii Brocchi and other Sertorii attested during the principate). A certain C. Sertorius Brocchus is known to have been proconsul of (probably) Bithynia-Pontus under Claudius (PIR², S 552), but perhaps it is better to assume that the adoptive father was a son of this man. As for those cases in which the combination N+C comes from the maternal family, there is now an inscription from Thugga, AE 1998, 1569, in honour of L. Mummius Faustianus, ordi- nary consul in AD 262, mentioning also the members of his family, namely his wife [T]arruntenia Paulina and his children [L.] Mummius Faustianus Tarruntenius Paternus, Mummia Tarruntenia Corneliana and [L.] Mummius Faustianus Iunior. It is notable that the names of children represent 61 Eck - Roxan 1995, 72 f.; cfr. Camodeca 1982, 125. 62 And Truttidius (a variant of Truttedius) is attested in Attidium and Sentinum (CIL, XI 5684, 5792); for the moment, Truttedii seem to be attested not in, but only near Umbria (e.g., CIL, XI 690 in Claternae, 789 in Bononia). 63  Note also Truttedius Pius in a lost inscription seen in nearby Suessa, CIL, X 4774.  es tra tto ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA 531 different types64, and perhaps even more notable that the two sons both have the cognomen Faus- tianus, the name of the elder brother differing from that of his brother only by having the maternal items added to the whole65, but of especial interest in this context is the structure of the name of the elder brother, a combination of the paternal name L. Mummius Faustianus and the item Tar- runtenius Paternus which is not directly derived from his mother’s name but which reflects the maternal family, as Tarruntenia Paulina was no doubt a descendant of L. Taruttienus66 Paternus (PIR², T 35), praetorian prefect under Commodus (cfr. on this Christol 2006, 1851 f.). App. Claudius Martialis (PIR², C 931), legate of Thracia between 166 and 169 (Thomasson 2009², 65 nr. 22:029), is now attested as legate of the legion I Italica (in Moesia Inferior) in an inscription from Montana67; in this inscription, which also mentions Martialis’ wife Sextia Titi filia Torquata (PIR², S 689), he is called Appius Cl(audius) Martialis […]nius [S]ilvinus. The editors opt for the restoration [A?]nius, but C. Settipani, in an article in press, is surely correct in suggesting [Iu]nius; the combination of Appius and Iunius Silvinus (which item could be maternal) reminds one of a certain Appius Silvius Iunius Silvinus, known from a fistula described in the 16th century (CIL, XV 7539). Settipani suggests that we could be dealing with only one man called Appius Claudius Martialis Silvius Iunius Silvinus, but I cannot find it plausible that a man called App. Claudius Martialis Iunius Silvinus but normally known as App. Claudius Martialis would call himself Appius Silvius Iunius Silvinus in a fistula; moreover, I still think that the reading of the fistula, especially that of the nomen Silvius, is corrupt68. However, clearly there is a connection between the two men, especially as (as pointed out by Settipani) a fistula of Claudius Martialis (CIL, XV 7427) was found close to the spot on the Quirinal where the fistula CIL, XV 7539 is said to have been found. The proconsul of Asia in 238/9 or 239/40, otherwise known as (M.)69 Asinius Sabinianus, is referred to in a milestone from near Ephesus as Τρ[ιά]ριος Ῥουφεῖνος Ἀσίννιος Σαβειν[ι]ανός, the additional item Triarius Rufinus, obviously derived from A. Triarius Rufinus, ordinary consul in AD 210 (PIR², T 342), having been added to his nomenclature (AE 1992, 1574 = SEG 42, 1035; see PIR², A 1251 and T 343). Unfortunately the praenomen has been omitted here, but it seems a common view that it was Marcus and that the full name of the proconsul was M. Triarius Rufinus Asinius Sabinianus (thus Eck 1992, 238; PIR², T 343). If this were so, we would have to conclude that we are not dealing with an adoption (for in that case one would expect the nomenclature to start with the praenomen Aulus) but with the insertion of an onomastic item, surely one reflecting the maternal family, between the praenomen and the paternal nomen; parallels would then be 64  The name of the daughter represents the female version of the type discussed above at nt. 50. 65  One wonders how the brothers were called in everday life; could it be that the elder brother was known as Mummius Paternus, the younger as Mummius Faustianus? 66  Tarruntenius is clearly identical with, and a later development of, Taruttienus (the orthography of the nomen of the prefect used in inscriptions), although this does not seem to have been recognized in the entries in PIR², T 31 ff. Already in the case of the prefect, the nomen appears in literary sources in several variants close to Tarruntenius, namely as Tarrutenus, Tarrutenius and Tarruntenus (see PIR; and in general Christol 2006, 1851 with nt. 47). 67  Aleksandrov - Velkov 1994, 24 nr. 48. I thank C. Settipani for having drawn my attention to this publication, ignored by the Année épigraphique, and for a copy of his article still in press. 68  Cfr. Salomies 1987, 23 n. 15. 69  The praenomen is attested in CIL, VI 1067, the inscription of a statue of Caracalla set up by this man in AD 214. M. Asinius Sabinianus was probably the grandson of a certain M. Asinius Sex.f. Hor. Rufinus Valerius Verus Sabinianus and the son of Sex. Asinius M.f. Hor. Rufinus Fabianus (Eck 1992, 284).  es tra tto 532 O. SALOMIES T. Fundanius Vitrasius Pollio and (probably) T. Pomponius Proculus Vitrasius Pollio (APN 68, 79), and as a result we could conclude that Sabinianus was the son of an Asinius (cfr. nt. 67) and a Triaria (cfr. PIR², T 345), sister of A. Triarius Rufinus, consul in 210. But since the praenomen M. is attested only in 214 (nt. 67), not also in documents mentioning Sabinianus as proconsul of Asia more than 20 years later, there is the possibility that the praenomen to be supplied in the full nomenclature is not M(arcus) but A(ulus); in that case, we would have to conclude that Sabinianus was at some point later than 214 adopted, probably by testament, by the consul of 210, this result- ing in the disappearance of the original praenomen M. and the addition of the adoptive items A. Triarius Rufinus to the nomenclature. One can only hope that a new inscription from the time of the proconsulate and mentioning also the praenomen will solve this problem. For the case that a praenomen belonging to the second nomen is kept in the full nomencla- ture (thus P+N+C+P+N+C; e.g., C. Bruttius Praesens L. Fulvius Rusticus, T. Flavius Longinus Q. Marcius Turbo: APN 140, 142) note now Bellicus Natalis, consul in AD 87 (PIR², B 102). This consul is called C. Bellicius (!) Natal(is) in the fasti of Potentia (AE 2003, 588) and C. Bellicus Natalis Tebanianus in the Arval Acts (CIL, VI 2065) and in the inscription of his sarcophagus CIL, XI 1430 = Inscr. It. VII 1, 121 = ILS 1009. But two recently published military diplomas have shown that his full name was in fact C. Bellicus Natalis P. Gavidius Tebanianus (AE 2009, 1824; Eck - Pangerl 2012a 54 ff.). Eck and Pangerl suspect that this consul’s father C. Bellicus Natalis (PIR², B 101), himself consul in 68, may have married a daughter of the Neronian senator, known from CIL, IX 3602 = ILS 973, P. Tebanus P. f. Quir. Gavidius Latiaris (PIR², T 49), and of course there must be a connection. However, one wonders about the structure of the additional tria no- mina, with Gavidius as the nomen and Tebanus being represented by the cognomen Tebanianus; perhaps one could assume that Latiaris was a Gavidius adopted by a P. Tebanus (thus PIR², T 49), but that he kept Gavidius as his main nomen with the result that the postulated daughter became not a Tebana but a Gavidia, receiving as her cognomen one derived from her father’s adoptive nomen Tebanus70. Furthermore, if the full name of the consul was C. Bellicus Natalis P. Gavidius Tebanianus, it seems striking that this full name does not appear in the inscription of this man’s sarcopagus. And there is also the abbreviation of the full nomenclature; it is certainly not very common to find a name of this type (P+N+C(+P)+N+C) being shortened with the suppression just of the second nomen but not also of the second cognomen: a name of the type C. Bruttius Praesens L. Fulvius Rusticus is normally shortenend to C. Bruttius Praesens, not to C. Bruttius Praesens Rusticus. However, the nomenclature of the future emperor Pius, T. Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Antoninus = T. Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus (above at nt. 36) is a perfect parallel. P+N+C+(P+)N+C+(P+)N+C (cfr. APN 37 f. on Cn. Domitius Afer Titius Marcellus Curvius Lucanus, 135 ff. on Galeo Tettienus Severus M. Eppuleius Proculus Ti. Caepio Hispo). There is now a new interesting instance of this type with a sequence of three sets of the combina- tion of nomen + cognomen (but without the additional praenomina), namely the nomenclature of the legate of Pamphylia and Lycia in AD 70-72, Cn. Avidius Celer Rutilius Lupus Fiscilius Firmus, for whom see now Adak - Wilson 2012, 11 ff. The nomenclature of this legate, now known from several inscriptions (only one was cited in PIR², A 1403), appears in two polyonymous versions, 70  There were persons called Gavidius (or Gavidia) Latiaris also after the Neronian senator, for in the second century one finds this item included in two lengthy nomenclatures (see PIR², M 259 and 541). The cognomen Teba- nianus appears also among some descendants of the consul of 87 (see PIR², B 99 and T 47).  es tra tto ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA 533 in a longer and in a shorter one (see the overview in Adak - Wilson 2012, 11-14). Note that only TAM, II 132 is the inscription of a monument in honour of the legate. -Cn. Avidius Celer Rutilius Lupus Fiscilius Firmus: Latin inscription from the via Sebaste published by Adak - Wilson 2012, 6 ff.; Greek inscription from Kaunos, I.Kaunos 123; the inscrip- tion is fragmentary but the remaining text ([- - -] Ῥουτιλίου Λούππου Φισκιλίου [- - -]) shows that the fullest version of the nomenclature was used. -Cn. Avidius Celer Fiscilius Firmus: TAM, II 132 as corrected by Adak - Wilson 2012, 12 (Lydae); TAM, II 1188 (Phaselis); TAM, II 701 (Araxa); IGR, III 725 and a new fragment as restored by Adak - Wilson 2012, 12 f. (Myra). These are all Greek inscriptions71. We thus observe that the items Cn. Avidius Celer and Fiscilius Firmus appear in all in- scriptions, and either Avidius or Fiscilius must then be this man’s main nomen; the middle item Rutilius Lupus can, on the other hand, be omitted even in an inscription in honour of this man (see TAM, II 132)72, and is thus clearly of lesser importance, although as such interesting, as it surely refers to the Rutilii Lupi from Beneventum, attested as senatorial and equestrian from about the middle of the first century (PIR², R 251, cfr. 249 ff.). Unfortunately this is about all we can say, for the identity of the legate’s main nomen must, as far as I can see, remain uncertain. The problem could be solved by a study of the nomenclature of new citizens in the province, but the legates of Lycia (-Pamphylia) in the 70’s have, unlike their predecessors under Claudius and Nero (produc- ing local Veranii, Licinii, etc.) left few onomastic traces in the province, and there do not seem to be any traces of either (Cn.) Avidii73 or Fiscilii. Abstract This article will present some new thoughts on, and some addenda to, the subject dealt with by me in the monograph Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (Helsinki 1992). References Abascal - Ramallo Asensio 1997: J.M. Abascal - S.F. Ramallo Asensio, La ciudad de Carthago Nova: la documentacion epigrafica, Murcia 1997. Adak - Wilson 2012: M. Adak - M. Wilson, Das Vespasiansmonument von Döşeme und die Gründung der Doppelpro- vinz Lycia e Pamphylia, Gephyra 9, 2012, 1-40. Aleksandrov - Velkov 1994: G. Aleksandrov - V. Velkov, Epigrafski pametnici ot Montana i rajona, II, Montana 1994. Alföldy 1977: G. Alföldy, Ein Ziegelstempel mit dem Namen eines Senators aus Villajoyosa in der Hispania Citerior, ZPE 27, 1977, 217-221. Alföldy 1979: G. Alföldy, Gallicanus noster, Chiron 9, 1979, 507-544. 71  Adak - Wilson 2012, 16 ff. also consider the possibility that AE 2008, 1437 (Rhodiapolis) might be referred to Avidius Celer; but surely this inscription must be attributed to L. Luscius Ocrea (note that this honorific inscription uses the dative, so that the name of the legate cannot be restored as Κέλε]ρα, which again could be used to show that Avidius Celer’s main tria nomina were Cn. Avidius Celer). 72  In a similar way, the middle item M. Eppuleius Proculus is omitted from the complete nomenclature of the proconsul Galeo Tettienus Severus M. Eppuleius Proculus Ti. Caepio Hispo in I.Ephesos 4333. 73  The only Cn. Avidius I can find anywhere is a man attested in Rome, Cn. Avidius Tiridates: Panciera 1994, 269 nt. 91.  es tra tto 534 O. SALOMIES Arnaldi 2005: A. Arnaldi, Donne e vita cittadina nel Lazio meridionale, in: A. Buonopane - F. Cenerini (edd.), Donna e vita cittadina nella documentazione epigrafica (Atti del II Seminario sulla condizione femminile nella docu- mentazione epigrafica, Verona 25-27 marzo 2004), Faenza 2005, 217-232. Bernard 1992: A. Bernard, La prose sur pierre dans l’Egypte hellenistique et romaine, Paris 1992. Birley 2000: A.R. Birley, Onomasticon to the Younger Pliny: Letters and Panegirics, München-Leipzig 2000. Birley 2005: A.R. Birley, The Roman Government of Britain, Oxford 2005. Bureth 1964: P. Bureth, Les titulatures impériales dans les papyrus, les ostraca et les inscriptions d’Egypte: 30 a.C.-284 p. C., Bruxelles 1964. Camodeca 1982: G. Camodeca, Ascesa al Senato e rapporti con i territori d’origine. Italia: regio I (Campania) e le re- giones II e III, in: Epigrafia e ordine senatorio, II, Roma 1982, 101-163. Camodeca 1991: G. Camodeca, Novità sui fasti consolari dalle tavolette cerate della Campania, in: Epigrafia. Actes du Colloque en mémoire de Attilio Degrassi, Rome 1991, 45-74. Camodeca 2003: G. Camodeca, Due nuovi cavalieri ercolanesi di età augustea: i Mammii di CIL X 1449 e 1476, MEFRA 115, 2003, 639-654. Camodeca 2006: G. Camodeca, La società ercolanese alla luce della riedizione Tabulae Herculanenses. L’élite munici- pale fra Claudio e Vespasiano: un’oligarchia ritrovata, Ostraka 15, 2006, 9-29. Chausson 2005: F. Chausson, Des femmes, des hommes, des briques. Prosopographie sénatoriale et figlinae alimentant le marché urbain, ArchClass 56, 2005, 225-267. Chausson 2009: F. Chausson, Hommage des Lyonnais à deux patrons sénatoriaux sous le règne d’Antonin le Pieux, in: Id. (ed.), Occidents romains. Sénateurs, chevaliers, militaires, notables dans les provinces d’Occident (Es- pagnes, Gaules, Germanies, Bretagne), Paris 2009, 237-246. Christol 1992: M. Christol, Les ambitions d’un affranchi à Nîmes sous le Haut-Empire: l’argent et la famille, CCG 3, 1992, 241-258. Christol 2006: M. Christol, Remarques sur la carrier de L(ucius) Mummius Faustianus, consul ordinaire en 262, in: A. Akerraz - P. Ruggeri - A. Siraj - C. Vismara (edd.), L’Africa romana: mobilità delle persone e dei popoli, dinamiche migratorie, emigrazioni ed immigrazioni nelle provincie occidentali dell’impero romano (Atti del XVI Convegno di studio, Rabat 15-19 dicembre 2004), Roma 2006, 1839-1870. Christol 2010: M. Christol, S’approcher de l’ordo, entrer dans l’ordo. Le cas de Nîmes, in: C. Berrendonner - M. Cé- beillac-Gervasoni - L. Lamoine (edd.), La praxis municipale dans l’Occident romain, Chamalières 2010, 327-345. Christol - Drew Bear 1986: M. Christol - T. Drew Bear, Documents latins de Phrygie, Tyche 1, 1986, 41-87. Clinton 2005: K. Clinton, Eleusis. The Inscriptions on Stone: Documents of the Sanctuary of the two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme, I, Athens 2005. Corell 1999: J. Corell, Inscripcions romanes d’Ilici, Lucentum, Allon, Dianium i els seus respectius territoris, Valencia 1999. Cotton 1995: H.M. Cotton, The Archive of Salome Komaise Daughter of Levi: Another Archive from the ‘Cave of Letters’, ZPE 105, 1995, 171-208. Degrassi 1962: A. Degrassi, Scritti vari di antichità, I, Roma 1962. Eck 1991: W. Eck, Ein Diploma militare aus Moesia Superior, Chiron 21, 1991, 185-201. Eck 1992: W. Eck, P. Aelius Apollonides, ab epistulis Gaecis, und ein brief des Cornelius Fronto, ZPE 91, 1992, 236- 242. Eck 2008: W. Eck, Die Bauinschrift der neronischen Thermen in Patara. Zur methodologischen Auswertung einer par- tiell eradierten Inschrift, ZPE 166, 2008, 269-275. Eck 2009: W. Eck, Vespasian und die senatorische Führungsschicht des Reiches, in: L. Capogrossi Colognesi - E. Tassi Scandone (edd.), La lex de imperio Vespasiani e la Roma dei Flavi (Atti del convegno, Roma 20-22 novembre 2008), Roma 2009, 231-257. Eck 2011: W. Eck, Neue Zeugnisse zu zwei bekannten kaiserlichen Bürgerrechtskonstitutionen, ZPE 177, 2011, 263- 271. Eck - Pangerl 2006: W. Eck - A. Pangerl, Neue Diplome für Auxiliartruppen in den mösischen Provinzen von Vespasian bis Hadrian, Dacia 50, 2006, 93-104. Eck - Pangerl 2010: W. Eck - A. Pangerl, Ein weiteres Diplom der Konstitution Vespasians für die Truppen Mösiens vom 7. Februar 78 n.Chr., ZPE 173, 2010, 237-243.  es tra tto ADOPTIVE AND POLYONYMOUS NOMENCLATURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE - SOME ADDENDA 535 Eck - Pangerl 2012a: W. Eck - A. Pangerl, Ein Diplom für die Truppen aus dem Jahr 87 und die Frage nach der Gleichförmigkeit römischer Militäradministration, SCI 31, 2012, 53-64. Eck - Pangerl 2012b: W. Eck - A. Pangerl, Ein weiteres Diplom aus einer Konstitution für die Truppen von Moesia inferior vom 14. August 99 n.Chr, ZPE 180, 2012, 295-301. Eck - Pangerl 2013: W. Eck - A. Pangerl, Neue Diplome mit den Namen von Konsuln und Statthaltern, ZPE 187, 2013, 273-294. Eck - Roxan 1995: W. Eck - M.M. Roxan, Two new military diplomas, in: R. Frei-Stolba - M.A. Speidel (edd.), Rö- mische Inschriften. Neufunde, Neulesungen und Neuinterpretationen. Festschrift für Hans Lieb. Zum 65. Ge- burtstag dargebracht von seinen Freunden und Kollegen, Basel 1995, 55-99. Eck - Weiß 2002: W. Eck - P. Weiß, Hadrianische Konsuln. Neue Zeugnisse aus Militärdiplomen, Chiron 32, 2002, 449-489. Engelmann 2000: H. Engelmann, Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos - 13, JÖAI 69, 2000, 77-93. Ghislanzoni 1926: E. Ghislanzoni, Padova. Scavi nel centro della città davanti al palazzo del Municipio, NSA 1926, 341-357. Heil 2013: M. Heil, Agrippina und Kos. Eine Inschrift und ihre Geschichte, ZPE 184, 2013, 83-192. Kajanto 1965: I. Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki 1965. Le Roux 2008: P. Le Roux, Les sénateurs originaires d’Espagne citérieure (2): un bilan 1982-2006, in: M. L. Caldelli - G.L. Gregori - S. Orlandi (edd.), Epigrafia 2006. Atti della XIVe Rencontre sur l’épigraphie in onore di Silvio Panciera con altri contributi di colleghi, allievi e collaboratori, Roma 2008, 1003-1028. Letta 2000: C. Letta, Un nuovo frammento dei Fasti dei Salii Palatini, in: G. Paci (ed.), Ἐπιγραφαί. Miscellanea epigra- fica in onore di L. Gasperini, I, Tivoli 2000, 521-539. Lewis 1989: N. Lewis, The Documents of the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri, Jerusalem 1989. Millar 1993: F. Millar, The Roman near East: 31 B.C. - A.D. 337, Cambridge - London 1993. Miranda 2010: E. Miranda, Consoli e altri elementi di datazione nei cataloghi agonistici di Neapolis, in: M. Silvestrini (ed.), Le tribù romane. Atti della XVIe Rencontre sur l’épigraphie (Bari 8-10 ottobre 2009), Bari 2010, 417-422. Nollé 1993: J. Nollé, Side im Altertum: Geschichte und Zeugnisse, Bonn 1993. Paci 2007: G. Paci, Iscrizioni romane da Petriolo (Macerata), Picus 27, 2007, 211-225. Pais 1884: E. Pais, Supplementa Italica, Roma 1884. Panciera 1970: S. Panciera, Tra epigrafia e topografia, ArchClass 20, 1970, 138-151 = Id., Epigrafi, epigrafia, epigrafisti. Scritti vari editi e inediti (1956-2005), Roma 2006, 161-171. Panciera 1994: S. Panciera, Iscrizioni sepolcrali latine di Roma. Inediti e revisioni, Miscellanea greca e romana 18, 1994, 177-285. Piso 2013: I. Piso, Fasti Provinciae Daciae, II, 2013. Pizzigatti 1997: A. Pizzigatti, Il teatro romano di Volterra: nuovi elementi epigrafico-prosopografici dall’iscrizione sce- nica dei Caecinae, PP 52, 1997, 124-206. Raepsaet-Charlier 1987: M.-Th. Raepsaet-Charlier, Prosopographie des femmes de l’ordre senatorial (I-II siècles), Lo- vanii 1987. Rix 2002: H. Rix, Sabellische Texte: die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Südpikenischen, Heidelberg 2002. Rodà 2005: I. Rodà, Un Nuevo cόnsul suffectus en un pedestal del foro de Nesactium (Istria, Croacia), Epigraphica 67, 2005, 269-77. Salomies 1987: O. Salomies, Die römischen Vornamen: studien zur römischen Namengebung, Helsinki 1987. Salomies 1992: O. Salomies, Zur Namengebung der Konsuln in den handschriftlich überlieferten Konsulverzeichnissen für die Zeit 15-284 n.Chr., Arctos 26, 1992, 105-116. Salomies 1993: O. Salomies, Consular Fasti and Consular Dating during the Empire, Ktema 18, 1993, 103-112. Salomies 1996: O. Salomies, Bemerkungen zu einigen konsularen Datierungen: auf den neugefundenen Weihealtären der beneficiarii in Sirmium, ZPE 110, 1996, 278-282. Salomies 2005: O. Salomies, Polyonymous Nomenclature in Consular Dating, Arctos 39, 2005, 103-135. Solin 1993: H. Solin, Le iscrizioni antiche di Trebula, Caiatia e Cubulteria, Caserta 1993. Syme 1958: R. Syme, Tacitus, Oxford 1958. Syme 1984: R. Syme, Roman Papers, III, Oxford 1984. Syme 1988a: R. Syme, Roman Papers, IV, Oxford 1988. Syme 1988b: R. Syme, Roman Papers, V, Oxford 1988. Syme 1991: R. Syme, Roman Papers, VII, Oxford 1991.  es tra tto 536 O. SALOMIES Thomasson 2009²: B.E. Thomasson, Laterculi praesidum, Göteborg 2009². Tortoriello 2003: A. Tortoriello, I fasti consolari degli anni di Claudio, MAL 17, 2003, 393-691. Vidman 1982²: L. Vidman, Fasti ostienses, Praha 1982². Wolf 2010: J.G. Wolf, Neue Rechtsurkunden aus Pompeji: Tabulae Pompeianae Novae, Darmstadt 2010.