Crassus and the Cognomen Dives

Author(s): Bruce A. Marshall

Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 22, No. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1973), pp. 459-467
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435357 .
Accessed: 28/12/2010 11:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org
 CRASSUS AND THE COGNOMEN DIVES

It would be appropriate if M. Licinius Crassus, the triumvir, had the cogno-

men Dives, in view of his reputation for vast wealth. There is, however,
nothing in the ancient evidence to suggest that he did bear that name: it is the
purpose of this paper to examine the evidence to show that he did not.
Modern opinion varies on whether Dives was one of Crassus' names.
Broughton, in listing the praetors for 73 B. C., the pro-magistrates for 72 B.
C. and the consuls for 55 B. C., records him as M. Licinius Crassus Dives,
but leaves out Dives in listing the consuls for 70 B. C." Gelzer (R. E. xiii.
295) includes Dives in his name, while Miinzer (R. E. xiii. 249 and 288)
and others2 state specifically that is was not one of his names. Garzetti
(AthenaeumN. S. xix [1941], 7) believes that Crassus' family had the cognomen
Dives, derived from the consul of 205 B. C., but admits that it is not
specifically mentioned in the sources. However, the genealogy of the family
(v. table, p. 466) shows that the Dives branch of the faniily followed a differ-
ent line.
As a starting point, it would be useful to define some of the applications of
cognomina:there are three basic applications, and the Republican writers refer
to all of them as cognomina.3 The original use was as a "nick-name" following
the praenomenand gentilicium,and this is what later writers distinguished by
the term agnomen(this term will be used in the following discussion to desig-
nate this particular application - the use of a distinguishinlg "nick-name" by
a person for the first time: a good example of this usage is Cn. Pompeius' ag-
nomenMagnus). The use of agnominawas continued into the later Republic
and was the origin of names such as Africanus, Felix, Nasica, Celer etc.
However, individual agnominacame to be transmitted to children, and thus
came to be used to designate a familia within a gens. This is the origin of the
Roman third name, and is the commonest use of the cognomen:in the follow-
ing discussion this usage will be called a family cognomen.An example of this

I T. R. S. Broughton, M. R. R., ii. 110, 118, 126 and 214. In the Additions and Corrections
(Suppl. to vol. ii, p. 34), Broughton accepts the Dives in Cic. A tI. 2.13.2 (v. inf. p. 463) as a refer-
ence to the triumvir, while accepting Munzer's comment that the cognomen Dives does not appear
on any official list.
2 E. g. J. Carcopino, Histoire Romaine,p. 520; T. J. Cadoux, G. &fR. 2nd ser. iii (1956), 161-2.
3 On the applications of cognomina, v. A. E. Douglas, G. & R. 2nd. ser. v (1958), 62-3; 1. Ka-
janto, TheLatin Cognomina(Helsinki, 1965), esp. p. 20.

30 Historia XXII/3
460 BRUCE A. MARSHALL

is the Crassus in the name of M. Licinius Crassus: the name was originally an
agnomen,borne first by the brother of the consul of 208 B. C. (v. genealogical
table, p. 466), but thereafter it became a family cognomen,borne by each suc-
ceeding generation to distinguish that branch of the Liciniangens.
The third application of cognomenis a slight extension of this: that is the
case where an agnomenbecomes a family cognomenand provides a fourth, and
sometimes even a fifth, name. An example of this is P. Cornelius Scipio Nasi-
ca Serapio, the consul of 111 B. C., who inherited both Nasica and Serapio as
additional family cognominato the already existing Scipio.4 If Crassus did have
the cognomen Dives, it would have been of this type.
Examination of contemporary inscriptional material proves inconclusive.
There are numerous examples where cognominaof various types are found:
good examples of the contemporary use of agnominacan be found in the case
of two of Crassus' contemporaries, Sulla and Pompey. In the Hellenistic
East, Sulla had used 'Enag'p66tTog,5a rough Greek equivalent of Felix, dur-
ing his command against Mithridates, before he formally adopted the agno-
menFelix, which he seems to have done soon after his victory in the civil war
(Plut. Sulla 34.1-2). An inscription found at Suessa (where Sulla settled some
of his veterans) contains his agnomenFelix:
L. Cornelio L. [f.] I Sullae Feleici I imperatori I publice.6
This seems to have been set up before he was made dictator, since it men-
tions him only as imperator;it must have been inscribed very soon after he
had formally adopted the name Felix, and so suggests the contemporary in-
scriptional use of an agnomen.
The following inscription shows the contemporary use of Pompey's agno-
menMagnus:
Cn. Pompeio Cn. f. I Magno I imper. iter.
As Pompey had three triumphs, the use of iter. shows that this inscription
was put up before his third triumph, and is thus quite contemporary. Fur-
ther, a gold aureus,the only one of its kind, has on the obverse MAGNVS,
and was issued, probably in 61 B. C., to celebrate Pompey's victories (E. A.
Sydenham, The Coinageof the RomanRepublic,no. 1028).
There are contemporary and slightly later inscripdions, where family cog-
nominaof the additional type (such as would be the case with Crassus' name
Dives, if he had it) are used.8 The inscriptions so far examined can be taken
" He inherited Serapio from his father, the consul of 138 B. C.; the cognomen Nasica had been in
the family for four generations, being held originally by the consul of 191 B. C., and passing to his
son, the consul of 162 B. C., and to his son, the consul of 138 B. C.
6 E. g. 0. G. I. S., nos. 441-442. On Sulla's use of 'EnaoppM&TOg, v. J. P. V. D. Balsdon, J. R. S.
xli (1951), 4-10. 6 J. L. S., no. 870 (= C. I. L., ix. 4751); cf. I. L. S., nos. 871-874.

7 I. L. S., no. 876 (C C. I. L., 2. 768).

9 E. g. I. L. S., no. 48 (which includes the additional family cognomen Strabo in the name of
C. Iulius CaesarStrabo, curule aedile in 90 B. C.); no. 8777 (which has Koivrov MeTnAOV[HJiov
 Crassus and the Cognomen Dives 461

to show that it was contemporary practice to include all of a man's names, at

least occasionally. In the case of Crassus, we have only one or two inscrip-
tions,9 and in none of them is the additional family cognomen Dives used. It is
tempting therefore to argue that Crassus did not have this name, since it was
not included, but unfortunately we cannot, since it was not the consistent
practice of contemporary inscriptional material to include all of a man's
names.
Later inscriptional evidence, the consular and triumphal fasti, is a little
more conclusive. Part of the argument in favour of the view that Crassus did
have the name Dives is that it was passed on to him from his father. But
there is no mention in the fasti of Dives in the name of Crassus' father, for
whom entries are still extant. Yet there are examples where an additional
family cognomenhas been used in the consular fasti:10 so we would expect
Dives for Crassus' father, if he had it. There is one instance where Dives is
used for a member of the family of the Licinii Crassi: in the entry for the cen-
sorship in 210 B. C. and the consulship in 205 B. C. of P. Licinius Crassus
Dives (Degrassi, Insc. Ital. xiii 1.47). But as he was the man who was the first
to bear the name Dives and who gave the cognomen to his branch of the fami-
ly, it does not prove that the name passed to the other branch of the family,
to which Crassus the triumvir belonged: in fact the absence of the cognomen
Dives in his branch of the family, and its use in another branch, tends to sug-
gest his branch of the family did not have the name. The inscriptional evi-
dence from thefasti, then, seems to suggest that the name Dives did not pass
to Crassus from his father.
Turning to the literary evidence. Pliny (N. H. 33. 134) says that Dives
was a family cognomen,and mentions Crassus as a member ex eadem gente.
But Pliny's knowledge of the family appears to be shaky, and so his
statements become doubtful: for he says that the first man to bear the name
Dives went bankrupt and that afterwardsDives became a family name. But
this bankrupt looks like the one chosen as an example of the reverse of for-
tune, the praetor of 57. B. C.,"1and there were certainly members of the fam-
ily who bore the name beforehim. In fact, the first member of the family to
bear the name Dives was the consul of 205 B. C., and further evidence of Pli-

Extalcovog);and no. 8886 (which includes the additional name Nasica for the pontifex maximus
and consul of 138 B. C.).
9 C. I. L., i2. 765 and 901-903. The argument based on these inscriptions is not strong, since
Pompey's agnomenMagnus is not included either, and they are both associated in these inscrip-
tions.
10 E. g. in the Fasti Consulares Capitolini, the additional cognomenNasica appears for the consul
of 162 B. C., inherited from his father, the consul of 191 B. C. (A. Degrassi, I. I., xiii. 1.51), and
the additional cognomenBrutus appears for the consul of 277 B. C., inherited from his father, the
consul of 317, 313, and 311 B. C. " V. inf. p. 463; cf. Cadoux, loc. cit.

30*
462 BRUCE A. MARSHALL

ny's shaky knowledge of the family is given by a story which he tells about
this Crassus Dives (N. H. 21.6): for he credits him with being the first to
make artificial leaves of gold and silver, and to use them in crowns given as
prizes at games he conducted, but this action may not have been the respon-
sibility of the consul of 205 B. C., but of a later member of the family, the
consul of 131 B. C.12
Apuleius mentions a Crassus Dives (Apol. 20):
non habuit tantam rem familiarem Philus quantam Laelius, nec Laelius
quantam Scipio, nec Scipio quantam Crassus Dives; at enim nec Crassus
Dives quantam volebat.
Some commentators have suggested that the reference is to M. Licinius
Crassus, the triumvir (and thus that the passage indicates that he had the cog-
nomenDives). But the other three mentioned are all contemporaries (and, in
fact, members of the "Scipionic circle"): L. FuriusPhilus, consul of 136 B.C.,
C. Laelius, consul of 140 B. C., and P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, consul
of 147 B. C. It is tempting, therefore, to say that the Crassus Dives men-
tioned by Apuleius was P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus, consul of 131
B. C., a contemporary of the other three.
Cassius Dio (intro. to Bk. 39), in listing the consuls for 55 B. C., uses Mag-
nus with Pompey's name, but does not include Dives in Crassus' name. Eu-
tropius (6.18) does the same thing. In the earlier historians, Sallust and Livy,
there is no mention of Dives in Crassus' name. In fact, most ancient writers,
particularly in passages commenting on his wealth where it would be most
appropriate to mention the name Dives, do not.
Cicero's evidence bears closer examination: there are four relevant pas-
sages. The first to be examined comes from de OffIciis(2.57):
itaque et P. Crassus cognomine Dives, tum copiis functus est aedilicio
maximo munere, et paulo post L. Crassus cum omnium hominum moder-
atissimo Q. Mucio magnificentissima aedilitate functus est.
There is nothing in the passage itself to show that the Publius Crassus
mentioned is the father of Crassus the triumvir: Gelzer, however, takes it to
be a referenceto the father,and so uses the passage to suggest that Dives was
a family cognomen and that it passed to his son (R. E. xiii. 295). The reference
by Cicero to a Lucius Crassus, and the inference of paulopost could be taken
to show that the Publius Crassus referred to was the father of the triumvir,
since the career of L. Licinius Crassus (consul of 95 B. C.) was only about
two years behind that of P. Licinius Crassus (consul of 97 B. C.). But others
12 Such an action would not be appropriate to the consul of 205 B. C., in view of the restrictions

placed on personal spending as a result of the stringencies of the Hannibalic war. Pliny's descrip-
tion would be better applied to P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus, whose lavish games are re-
ferred to by Cicero (Off. 2.57: v. inf. p. 462) and who had a reputation for great wealth (Gell.
1.13.10: cf. Cic. Rep. 3.17, where the reference may be to this man).
 Crassus and the Cognomen Dives 463

have suggested that the reference could be to P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mu-
cianus,13whose career was only a generation before that of L. Licinius Cras-
sus (and this would not be stretching paulopost too far). This suggestion fits
just as well; perhaps better, since we know that this Crassus belonged to the
Dives branch of the family. The passage does not definitely prove that Cras-
sus' father had the name Dives, and so it cannot be used to argue that this
family co,gnomen passed to Crassus.
Another example of possible confusion between the father of Crassus and
P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus results from the description of a sump-
tuary law given by Aulus Gellius (2.24.7-10; intro. to 15.8; 20.1.23), which
is followed by Macrobius (Sat. 3.17.7). Gellius mentions this lex Licinia,
which Macrobius says was proposed by P. Licinius Crassus Dives, and
which was preceded by sumptuary laws proposed by Fannius and by Didius,
and followed by those of the dictator Sulla. The suggestion has been made
by Miinzer (R. E. xiii. 288) that the Crassus referred to could possibly be the
father of the triumvir, whose consulship in 97 B. C. was not long before the
dictatorship of Sulla and who would thus be a suitable sponsor for a lex Lici-
nia, said by Macrobius to have been followed by Sulla's laws. Thus the pas-
sage could support the argument that Crassus' father had the name Dives
and that it passed to Crassus.
However, it could just as suitably be a reference to P. Licinius Crassus
Dives Mucianus, whose consulship in 131 B.C. was not long after the tribun-
ate in 143 B. C. of T. (?) Didius, the author of the lex Didia, who in turn was
preceded only a short time by the consulship in 161 B. C. of C. Fannius Stra-
bo, the author of the lex Fannia.14 Thus the consul of 131 B. C. fits quite well
into the chronological order of these laws as given by Macrobius; and this
consul did have the name Dives. So again, there is no certain indication that
the P. Crassus mentioned was the father of the triumvir, and no proof that he
had the name Dives; this passage, then, cannot be used to suggest the name
passed to his son.
The second passage of Cicero carries more weight with Gelzer: it is con-
tained in a letter to Atticus (2.13.2: April, 59 B. C.):
quanto in odio noster amicus Magnus! cuius cognomen una cum Crassi
Divitis cognomine consenescit!
As Tyrrell points out,15 some editors are too hasty in thinking that the ref-
erence here is to Crassus the triumvir: such haste is understandable in view

13 E. g. Munzer (R. E. xiii. 249, 288 and 335) and Broughton (M. R. R., i. 568).
14
The date of the lex Fannia is given by Pliny (N. H. 10.139: undecim annos ante tertium Pun-
icum bellum), and Macrobius gives the date for the lex Didia, eighteen years aftcr the lex Fannia
(Sat. 3.17.6: Fanniam legem post annos decem et octo lex Didia consecuta est). On these laws, v.
G. Rotondi, Leges PublicaePopuli Romani,pp. 287-8 and 295.
15 R. Y. Tyrrell, The Correspondence of Cicero,2nd ed. (1885), i. 293. In this edition, Tyrrell takes
464 BRUcE. A. MARSHALL

of the closeness of the reference to a Pompey and a Crassus, and of the fact
that Pompey and Crassus, the triumvirs, were two very prominent figures at
that time. However, the inference of Cicero's words is that this Crassus
Dives had fallen from wealth to poverty and that his cognomen was no longer
appropriate: such a fall was certainly not true of Crassus the triumvir. The
reference is to P. Licinius Crassus Dives,18 who was judge of a quaestiode vi
set up to examine the Vettius affair in 59 B. C. (the year in which this letter
was written).
The third passage is contained in a letter written to Atticus later in the
same year (2.24.4: August, 59 B. C.):
nunc reus erat apud Crassum Divitem Vettius de vi . . .
The reference to Crassus Dives here tends to confirm that the Crassus
mentioned in the earlier passage was this iudex quaestionis,not the triumvir.
Moreover, this Crassus Dives was later taken as an example of a reverse of
fortune,17 and so would have been a suitable person to illustrate Cicero's
point about the inappropriateness of his cognomen Dives. His position as iudex
quaestionisin the notorious Vettius affairwould have made him a well-known
figure at the time, and Atticus would have had no difficulty in understanding
who was meant by Cicero's reference in the earlier letter.
These last two passages, taken together, demonstrate that the Crassus
Dives referred to in Cicero's earlier letter was not the triumvir, and the refer-
ence therefore cannot be taken to show that he had the cognomen Dives.
The fourth passage of Cicero comes in de Finibus (3.75):
rectius enim appellabitur rex quam Tarquinius qui nec se nec suos regere
potuit, rectius magister populi (is enim est dictator) quam Sulla qui trium
pestiferorum vitiorum, luxuriae, avaritiae, crudelitatis, magister fuit, rec-
tius dives quam Crassus qui nisi eguisset numquam Euphratem nulla belli
causa transire voluisset.

the reference to be to P. Licinius Crassus Dives, the quaesitorof 59 B. C. (v. next note), though he
wrongly calls him praetor for that year. He was not practor until 57 B. C. (Cic. Red. in Sen. 23).
16 Munzer, R. E. xiii. 334; Garzetti, AthenaeumN. S. xix (1941), 7; D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Ci-

cero'sLetters to Atticus, i. 289 and 379. The third edition of Tyrrell's work, edited jointly with L. C.
Purser (London, 1890), has a revised opinion: they now say that Cicero was referring to the
triumvir, not the iudex quaestionis,for if Cicero were referring to the latter, he would have used a
stronger word than consenescit to describe a bankrupt. The argument that it is too weak a word to
describe a bankrupt, but an appropriate word to describe Crassus' loss of favour at the time, seems
a little stretched. The verb is applied to the subject cognomen, and means quite literally that the cog-
nomenhas lost its validity: on this meaning, Oxford Latin Dictionary, s. v. 'consenescere' (cf. a
similar use by Cicero in Clu. 5, and by Livy in 6.39.6). H. A. Sanders (M. A. A. R. x [1932], 63) also
rejects this interpretation of Tyrrell and Purser, and agrees that it is a reference to the quaesilor of
59 B.C.
17 Val. Max. 6.9.12; cf. Plin. N. H. 33.134 (though he says it was the first Crassus to be called

Dives who went bankrupt; v. sup. p. 461).

 Crassus and the Cognomen Dives 465

Again, the passage does not specify that Dives was actually a cognomen used
by Crassus. Obviously many people would have thought that the cognomen
Dives would be an appropriate one for Crassus, in view of his great wealth,
and such a thought would have been reinforced by the knowledge that one
branch of the family actually did bear that name. But the passage does not
say that he had it: for a start, the passage is suppositional, and further it
should be noted that the other two "titles" referred to in this passage are not
cognominabut positions held in the state. Cicero is not here specifically talking
about cognomina:18if he were, he ought to have been talking about Superbus
and Felix. What he really says is: who has a better right to be called a richman
than Crassus? The passage does not prove that Crassus had the cognomen
Dives.
If one accepts the interpretation of these four passages of Cicero, we are
left with an argument from silence, for Cicero makes no mention of Dives in
his many other references to Crassus. Yet there is a number of occasions
where he uses, for example, Pompey's cognomenMagnus,'9 and occasions
where a family cognomenof the additional type is used.20 Cicero's usual prac-
tice, in the letters anyway, is to use the last of a man's names (in most cases
the family cognomen) :21 hence he continually refers to the triumvir as Crassus.
But as he also occasionally uses agnominaand additional family cognomina,we
would have expected him to use Dives for Crassus sometimes, if he in fact
had the additional cognomen.
There is also an argument from silence in Plutarch: one would expect him
to mention the cognomen Dives for Crassus, if he had it, since the main theme
in his Life of Crassus was to point out the moral degeneration which result-
ed from Crassus' pursuit of wealth.22 Moreover, in other cases, Plutarch
shows an interest in cognomina:in the opening chapter of his Life of Fabius
(1.3), he discusses his cognomenMaximus and his agnomenVerrucosus, and in
his Life of Sulla (34.2-3) and of Pompey (13.4-7), he describes how they
18 Sanders, loc. cit., also thinks that this passage is not a discussion of
cognomina,and thus no
proof that Crassus had the name Dives.
19 E. g. Arch. 24; Alt. 2.13.2; 2.12.11 (where he uses both Pompeius and Magnus).
20 E. g. Nasica for
Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica in At. 2.1.9 (the Nasica came from
his father, the praetor of 93 B. C., who received it from his father, the consul of 111 B.C.), and
Marcellinus for Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus in Alt. 4.2.4 (the Marcellinus came from his
father: Munzer, R.E. iv. 1389-1390).
21 E. g. Att. 1.1.1-2 (which lists the candidates for election in 65 and 64 B. C.): the last
name of
a person, either of the type of the family cognomen, or where the person had only two names, is used
fourteen times, whereas there are only three other types of usage (a combination of praenomenand
family cognomen twice, and the gentiliciumalone once). On the common use of praenomenplus gentili-
caium to refer to a member of the nobilitas,v. R. Syme, Hisloria vii (1958), 172-5.
22 E. g. 2.1 ('Pcjaiot piv oJv A'yovcnno2AaigdpeTai TOV) Kpaaarciov xaxdav/oivi7v intaxooTiaa
To 9tAo7rAovTiav- EiOme 61 yea naordv 1ppcoAeivecrrepa TWv iv aV3vTixaxteov yevo/iuv? a tAAas
adavpcZicaa);17.5 (the description of Crassus' financial exactions in Syria).
466 BRUCE A. MARSHALL

CD

(6~tn _ Zm 6 ~~~~
-,4.(6 ft N *,.0_6O
,
>6 >

0.~~~~~~~~~~~ 0
-
CD
C : - J-
1
,
u4 cn3 :E: b
*,3 . 6

*a3 S _9 ~~~~~~~~~~~~-3
~ g .
UQ5 C C 0xC
(6 rt uz 01 .2 0(6
>1 S D n c C a) x
*(6 g:-D 0(6 n U) 3 (O .. 0 ..
S -3
---0 .3-(6 *H 3
.-)3.. 3 *16 a C~~~')
t 03 J 03X
(.3( S4 .1 _0
CC C. )
C; v r V))( (6(61*
_ *.-) *(.-4~.-. 16

3 w00 160
(6 C.' C.'.-( 0
*-

f
0n
M
C ;j~~~~~~~~~~~U O
C)..
g
C.)-

@6 0..-t-
0.*(30. -* C C
C.) U. 16 U0(6 )1

.
On 0d 0(6n
._ , C.) (6e
.,l e < X C Z C D o.~~~C:~
uo~~
(6 (6 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
*H16~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
.,-4 H.,n
.-( f - to
F
D~~~~
0
~~ ~ ~ H~~~:~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0:6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tn -4nS

.) 1616 :6

a
~~~~~~~~~~~~n
.e~~~~~~~~~~~~:
*
0
*d
to
m
-- I *e
co
t
0
Wi~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~t -u U) vtn 0 -H -n --, E I

0 In rl
.-IM -4
71 to
-,4 -4
o.~~ ~~~
u In cov ~ b-H > U)
2
4-b C14 ~ ~ ~ ~ -44 .
OI-4 (6 C <L4 *,
U (6
(6 (6 (6
0 0'
C0 u ..0
n

i ~ .4(6
~~~~
.- C) 6
*d(6
,1
0'
4 v)-1
+ '(
wN
U a)-4-*
.(*,1
0(
v (6
.:3
0
(6

0 c (. 3 :*m- H U

S Jo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.,I-H 4H d * -

CJ M. f *d 0 a) v 1 CJ
> :^:3 .

0
*L. * <)4 >.: _
.~~~404-
.,1 .,I
_030.0U
. ((-4-4 (

C.) > 03 > . a 03 Z6 3

d
sn-4) u0
,~~~~~~~~~~4
~ ~ (6
16 H
H 1

0 0 r?6:6
(63 (6. H 40
0oEn
(6 OH t 0uya
.4(6 ..4~
00(6 ~~~~X4
0,1~~~~ -L4
00
.2.~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.:S .

0L.0.0 ~ ~ 030 * H *.3.-

U? o u) en 0 u 6) .63 .64

_.,?
<) ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~C
_.,1. ~ .322
3 (33
(.
3
(
 BRUCEA. MARSHALL, Crassus and the Cognomen Dives 467

received their additional names of Felix and Magnus and goes on to discuss
them.23
There is ample evidence that one branch of the Licinii Crassi carried the
cognomenDives, but Crassus the triumvir belonged to a different branch of the
family, and there is no satisfactory evidence that he was called Dives.24

The University of New England Bruce A. Marshall

Armidale, N.S.W.
23 V. also Plut. Cor. 11 and Marc. 1, where he discusses Roman nomenclature.
24 I should like to thank Professor J. H. Bishop, Professor R. D. Milns and Associate Professor
J. J. Nicholls, who read early drafts of this paper and made encouraging suggestions, and to ac-
knowledge assistance from a research grant by the University of New England.