Scanned text contains errors.
NOMEN.
it (Cod. 9.’tit. 25); and henceforth the ancient Roman names disappear from the history of the empire with incredible rapidity.
If a person by adoption passed from one gens into another, he assumed the praenomen, nomen, and cognomen of his adoptive father, and added to these the name of his former gens, with the termination anus. Thus C. Octavius, after being adopted by his great-uncle C. Julius Caesar, was called C. Julius Caesar Octavianus, and the son of L. Aemi-lius Paullus, when adopted by P. Cornelius SScipio, was called P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, [adop-tio (roman).] There were, however, two gcntes, viz., the gens Antonia and the gens Fla-minia, which, in case of any of their gentiles being-adopted into another gens, took the termination inns instead of anus, as Antoninus find Flamininus, instead of Antonianus and Flaminianus. Sometimes also the cognomen of the former family was retained and added without any alteration to the name of the adoptive father,, as in the case of Q. Servilius Caepio Brutus-. (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. vol. v. p. 59.) This was dbne only in case the cognomen was of great celebrity ; bia’t it sometimes underwent a change in the termination!. Thus Claudius Marcellus, when adopted by Cbradfos-Lentulus, was called Cornelius Lentufes MaTceli-nus. (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. vol. v. p. 59 and p. 187.) If one man adopted two brothers, the adoptive father might choose any praenomina at his discretion in order to distinguish his adoptive sons from each other. Thus when Augustus adopted the two sons of Agrippa, he gave to the one the praenomen Caius, and to the other the praenomen Lucius. (Veil. Pat. ii. 96.) During the early period of the-empire it appears to have sometimes occurred that a person, when adopted into another gens, atkled his own nomen gentiliciimi without any alteration to that of his adoptive father, as in the cases of C. Plinius Caecilius Secundus, and L. Aelius Aure-lius Commodus. (Dion Cass. Excerpt, lib. Ixxii. c. 15.) Besides this, many other irregularities occurred in cases of adoption during the period of the empire, but it is not necessary for our purpose to enumerate them here.
Slaves had only’one name, and usually retained that which they had borne before they came into slavery. If a slave was restored to freedom, he received the praenomen and nomen gentiliciimi of his former master, and to these was added the name which he had had as a slave. He became thus in some measure the gentilis of his former master, in as far as he had the same nom’en genti- licium, but he had none of the other ekinis which a freeborn gentilis had. (Cic. Top- 6.) Instances cf such freedom are, Titus Ampins Menander, a freedman of T. Ampius Balbus (Cic. ad Fain. xiii. 70) ; L. Cornelius Chrysogonus, a freedman of L. Cornelius Sulla (Cic. pro Rose. Am. 2, &c.), M., Tullius Laurea, and M. Tullius Tiro, freedmen of M. Tullius Cicero. If the state emancipated a servus publicus, and gave him the franchise at the same time, any praenomen and nomen were given to him, or he took these names from the magistrate who performed the act of emancipation in the name of the state, and then received a cognomen derived from the name of the city, as Romanus or Rorna- nensis. (Varro, de Ling. Lat. viii. 83 ; Liv. iv. 61.) [L. S.]
NOMEN. [fenus, p. 5275 a ; obligation es.
803
NOMOS.
NOIVTENCLATOR. [ambitus, p. 77, a.]
NOMISMATOS DIAPHORAS GRAPHE opiq-paTos diatyopas ypa^) is the name of the public action which might, at Athens, be brought against any one who coined money either too light in weight or not consisting of the pure metal pre scribed by the law. The lawful punishment in flicted upon a person in case he was convicted was death. (Demosth. c. Lept. p. 508, c. Timocrat. p. 765, &c.) What action might be brought against those who coined money without the sanc tion of the republic, and how such persons were punished, is not known. (See Petitus, Legg. Att. p. 510.) [L.S.]
NOMOPH YLACES (wyw<f»Jai«s), were cer tain magistrates or official persons of high authority,, who exercised a control over other magistrates, and indeed over the whole body of the people, it being their duty to see that the laws were duly admi nistered and obeyed. Mention is made of such officers at Sparta and elsewhere, and some of the Greek philosophers who wrote on legislation ap pear to have thought, that such a body of men was essential to the well-being of a social community. (Schomann, Ant. Jur, Pub. Gr. p. 130 ; Plat. Leg. vi. p. 252 ; Xen. Oecon. ix. 14.) No such body existed at Athens, for they must have had a power too great for the existence of a democracy. The Senate of 500, or the Areopagitic council, performed in some measure the office of law- guardians (Arist. Pol. vi. 5, sub fin. ; Andoc. De Mysti 11) ;•• but the only persons designated by this name appear to have been inferior function aries (a sort’ of police), whose business it was to prevent irregularities and disturbances in the jMiblic assemblies. Even their existence has been doubted by modern writers; some think they have been confounded with the frecr/xofleVcu. Another hypothesis is, that the office was never introduced until the time of Demetrius Phalereus, who, when he was invested with the authority of lawgiver by Cassander, gave to the Eleven the additional duty of watching the conduct of all the other magis trates, with a view to introduce a more aristo- cratical government. In favour of this opinion it has l>een observed^ that the office of ro/xo^uAa/ces is only mentioned by grammarians, and they refer to Dteinar-chus, who was the friend and contempo rary of Demetrius. (See Schneider’s note to Arist. Pol. vi. 5. § 10 ; Wachsm. vol. i. pt. i. p. 209 ; Meier, Att. Pros. pp. 68—73.) [C. R. K.]
NOMOS (vo/jlos). This word comprehends the notion not only of established or statute law, but likewise of all customs and opinions to which long prescription or natural feeling gives the force of law ; as Euripides (Baccfi. 893) expresses it, to eV xpovy /*«#/*£ vafjii^ov a€ tyvarei re ireQvitos. In the heroic ages, before the period of authentic history begins, we find in the Homeric and other poems traces of a general belief among the Greeks that government ought to be controlled by law. As even the supreme God was supposed to be subject to a higher power, Fate or ‘AvajKrj., so the Atorpe^Tjs fiaariMvs was bound to govern according to the rules of justice, siktj, j/^os, evvofjLirj. (Horn. Od. xvii. 487 ; Pind. Pyth. 2. 157; Herod, iii. 38 ; lies. Op. et Dies, 274.) Government, though monarchical and hereditary, was nevertheless limited, eVi farois yepacri (Thuc. i. 13). The monarchs were yyfiTopes i?5e /ieSoi/Tes, bound to consult for the good of their people, and to listen
9 -c. O "
«j F &
