Surnames of the Sempronii

[Nephele]

The Sempronii Atratini (the only patrician branch of the otherwise plebeian Sempronii) were among the earliest of Rome's founding fathers, for scarcely a dozen years had passed since the founding of the Roman Republic by the time a member of this family was made consul (in 497 BCE). But the patrician Sempronii Atratini of the earliest years of the Republic vanished after the 5th century BCE, and the first plebeian Sempronius to attain the consulship (in 304 BCE) was Publius Sempronius Sophus.

 

...read the full article of Surnames of the Sempronii

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Good job !

 

About the Atratini and all of the "Plebeian" names of early consuls . First, we know that the surnames of the 5th and early 4th centuries were invented by Roman historians of the 1st century who looked at the surnames of the 3rd, 2nd and 1st centuries and used their imagination .

Second, there are many theories about the "plebeian names" (not the surnames but the clan name, ie Sempronius, Cassius etc') of the early 5th century consuls -

1. There were Patricians pure and simple

2. There were Plebeians pure and simple, who won the praetura (the title consul came later) because until the XII tables there was no ban on them to become such

3. There were not Plebeian and not Patrician but a "clients" of the Patricians and the ancestors of the later Plebeian consuls

4. The list of early 5th century is nonesense (the imagination of Roman historians of the 1st century - again)

 

The scholarship about option 3 is huge but this is not the place...

 

Alas, we will never know the truth !

Edited February 18, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Nephele]

Good job !

 

Thank you!

 

3. There were not Plebeian and not Patrician but a "clients" of the Patricians and the ancestors of the later Plebeian consuls.

 

This is very true, and this accounts for the vast variety of cognomina -- both of Latin and foreign origin (particularly after the era of the Republic) -- which we find accompanying the more familiar nomina gentilicia. For the purpose of my Surnames series, I have limited the cognomina for each gens to those possessed by magistrates of Rome's era of the Republic. The few notable, non-magisterial exceptions, which I've chosen to include, are also limited to the era of the Republic.

 

4. The list of early 5th century is nonesense (the imagination of Roman historians of the 1st century - again)

 

I don't agree that all of the names of the magistrates of the early 5th century are complete "nonsense," as that's a rather sweeping statement to make. There may have been some truth-stretching. However, to quote M

[Maty]

First, we know that the surnames of the 5th and early 4th centuries were invented by Roman historians of the 1st century who looked at the surnames of the 3rd, 2nd and 1st centuries and used their imagination .

 

I'm not sure that we do 'know' this. In fact I'm sure that anyone who could prove it would gain considerable kudos in the field. As you know, there's an ongoing academic dogfight between the literalists, who think that the early history of Rome is basically accurate, and the hyper-criticals who think that everything before the first Punic war is a made-up story. (Personally I am of the hyper-hyper criticalist school, which believes that all of Roman history was made up by medieval monks with too much time on their hands.)

 

Is there any particular reason why a surname cannot endure for 400 years? After all, we know that in non-literate societies - which was most of Rome at this point - have an astonishing ability to retain a strong verbal tradition, and if we are going to discredit this, it should really be on the basis of showing it to be wrong, rather than saying it can't happen, when it demonstrably can.

 

After all, the thing that really annoys the hyper-critical school is that archaeology stubbornly refuses to prove the literalists wrong - and if anything seems to support them. And remember, the earliest bit of Roman writing we have is on a stone dug up from the forum which bears less resemblance to Latin than Chaucer does to modern English. And if I remember rightly, it contains a name which was both on the ancient fasti and in the first century - namely Valerius. (with apologies for the pun)

 

Also many of the early names on the fasti are not repeated later, some are definitely archaic, the prosopography in the fasti supports a credible pattern of demography in the way families appear and produce offspring, and some have been shown to have clear roots in other languages such as Oscan and Etruscan which suggests that the tradition of early Rome keeping open house was correct. Perhaps indeed, these were made up by people who worked really hard to make them credible to later historians. But we would need to show some evidence.

 

I'd agree, however with your final words

 

"Alas, we will never know the truth !"

 

But not with the 'Alas!' bit. If we knew for certain who did what, when and why, history would be really boring.

[Ursus]

Interesting as always!

[Viggen]

...is now on the front page, with its own page http://www.unrv.com/culture/surnames-of-the-sempronii.php thanks Nephele...

 

cheers

viggen