Africanus (Macedonicus etc') - A name , a title

[Caesar CXXXVII]

They say That Publius Cornelius Scipio (Cos. 205 and 194) was the first Roman to get a name after the people he conquered (There was a Consul named Mesala after he took Messena in PW1 and others) .

 

Did Scipio took "Africanus" as a title ? If the answer is yes Then his sons could not used it . But we know that the Emperor Claudius inherited the name/title "Germanicus" from his father so the answer must be no , that is , Scipio took it as a name . If so , why the sons of Scipio (Publius and Lucius) did not used it ? Because it was a title ? If they had used it the problem is solved .

 

Did Scipio Aemilianus got the name/title "Africanus" because he was the adopted son of the great Scipio or because he took Carthage ?

 

Any information will be welcome .

[The Augusta]

They say That Publius Cornelius Scipio (Cos. 205 and 194) was the first Roman to get a name after the people he conquered (There was a Consul named Mesala after he took Messena in PW1 and others) .

 

Did Scipio took "Africanus" as a title ? If the answer is yes Then his sons could not used it . But we know that the Emperor Claudius inherited the name/title "Germanicus" from his father so the answer must be no , that is , Scipio took it as a name . If so , why the sons of Scipio (Publius and Lucius) did not used it ? Because it was a title ? If they had used it the problem is solved .

 

Did Scipio Aemilianus got the name/title "Africanus" because he was the adopted son of the great Scipio or because he took Carthage ?

 

Any information will be welcome .

 

Phew - a tough one, Caesar 137, and I can only really answer from the Julio-Claudian point of view. Certainly the name 'Germanicus' was an agnomen or extra nickname, rather than a title as such, but things were very different under the early Principate, when names could be handed on. It is my understanding (perhaps not the best) that the 'Africanus' awarded to Scipio was also more of an agnomen than an actual title. In this case, I am sure his sons could have used it had they chosen to - although someone with greater knowledge of this exact period may contradict me.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Thanks The Augusta , but surely someone knows the answer...no ?

[Pantagathus]

a-gnōmen (adn- ), ĭnis, n. gnomen, nomen,

 

I. a surname (this word seems to have been first employed in later Lat. by the gramm. in order to distinguish the surname of individuals, e. g. Africanus, Asiaticus, Cunctator, and the like, from that belonging to all the members of a family (the agnati),

 

It has always been my understanding that in the case of an agnomen being granted due to military accomplishment, it was individually earned. That being said, Aemilianus did not inherit the title but earned Africanus as well.

 

It may have changed during the Empire; wouldn't suprise me if it did.

 

P-P may have a better insight.

[Primus Pilus]

Thanks The Augusta , but surely someone knows the answer...no ?

 

I can't find any evidence that the blood sons of Scipio Africanus Major also used the agnomen Africanus. It doesn't mean they didn't use it, but since his sons never advanced beyond the praetorship their historical record is rather limited.

 

As for Scipio Aemilianus...

From Appian Histories, Book 8; 98

The Romans, when they saw themselves scorned by an unarmed enemy, were still more exasperated, and dashed in fiercely. But Scipio, who a little later took Carthage and from that feat gained the surname Africanus, being then a military tribune, held back, divided his companies into several parts, and stationed them at intervals along the wall, not allowing them to go into the city. When those who entered were driven back by the Carthaginians, who fell upon them from all sides, he gave them succor and saved them from destruction. And this action first brought him renown, as he had shown himself wiser than the consul.

 

Others mention the name Africanus for Aemilianus prior to the defeat of Carthage, such as Livy in the Periochae from book 49:

During the siege, two tribunes rashly broke through a carelessly defended wall and suffered greatly from the inhabitants, but were relieved by Scipio Orfitianus.

But this doesn't mean he had yet earned the title, but rather Livy could just be referring to him by his commonly known name (after the fact).

 

Plutarch says this in the life of Aemilius Paulus:

His estate, we are told, hardly amounted to three hundred and seventy thousand drachmas, to which he left both his sons heirs; but the younger, Scipio, who had been adopted into the wealthier family of Africanus, allowed his brother to have it all. Such, as we are told, was the life and character of Paulus Aemilius.

 

Obviously inconclusive since we the use of the name Africanus may have just been a common way for later writers to identify the family line of Africanus Major rather than being proof that it was an actual hereditary name for the entire line.

 

I'll keep digging around to see if anything else interests reveals itself.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Thanks , good points . I am still confused but now I say 75% that it was a title (republican times) .

I hope P P will come up with more material .

[Primus Pilus]

Thanks , good points . I am still confused but now I say 75% that it was a title (republican times) .

I hope P P will come up with more material .

 

Agreed, the Appian quote is fairly telling since he, writing centuries later, depicted it as a title rather than a hereditary name. The evidence is fairly scant though. It's a shame that Plutarch's Life of Scipio is lost... it might help answer your question.

[Maladict]

Claudius was given the agnomen Germanicus before his accesion, and retained it no doubt because of his brother when he became emperor. When offered the title Britannicus after his conquest of Britain, he refused it but gave it to his son, who was from then on known as Britannicus.

 

So basically the agnomen is strictly personal and based on military feats, the only thing missing is why Claudius was given the agnomen Germanicus in the first place.

 

Interestingly, the agnomen Germanicus was originally also bestowed on the father, Nero Claudius Drusus, who also accepted it on behalf of his son, 'Germanicus'.

 

edit: The title Germanicus does seem to have been hereditary. From wiki: His (Drusus') family was granted the hereditary honorific "Germanicus", which was given to his eldest son before passing to his youngest.

Edited December 19, 2006 by Maladict

[caldrail]

These extra names were honorific. Not hereditary as such, but if your father had earned the title (or received for the purposes of toadying) and you were coming into a position status and respect it was likely your peers would award you the same prerogative. I don't know for sure but simply calling yourself by these extra titles would only invite derision?

[Mosquito]

Considering the fact that very often people in the same familly had exactly the same names and surnames, additional honorary title/agnomen was helping a lot to distinguish someone inside familly. For example - Gaius Iulius Caesar - was father of Caesar, probably grandfather of Caesar, Caesar himself - the one whom we call a Caesar dictator, Augustus after being adopted by Caesar and also Caligula - after being adopted by Tiberius. Most of aristocratic famillies in Rome used only 1 or 2 names which were given to sons and those names often repeat for centuries. I know that it is a little bit off topic but if some of Romans didnt get extra names i would have myself a real problem when learning ancient Roman history

To say truth i still have and often when i get deeper into Roman history im not sure if the peron i read about is the one i think or his father or his son.