The Social and Cultural Meanings of Names in Late Antique Italy, 313-604

Home , Agapitus (consul 517), Albinus (consul 444), Apollinaris of Ravenna, Bagaudae, Battle of Pavia (271), Bauto

Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU

Master's Theses Graduate College

6-2014

Eric Ware

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses

Part of the European History Commons, Italian Language and Literature Commons, and the Medieval Studies Commons

Recommended Citation Ware, Eric, "The Social and Cultural Meanings of Names in Late Antique Italy, 313-604" (2014). Master's Theses. 510. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/510

This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL MEANINGS OF NAMES IN LATE ANTIQUE ITALY, 313-604

Eric Ware

A thesis submitted to the Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts History Western Michigan University June 2014

Thesis Committee:

Dr. Luigi Andrea Berto, Ph.D., Chair Dr. Robert F. Berkhofer, III, Ph.D. Dr. E. Rozanne Elder, Ph.D. Dr. Anise K. Strong, Ph.D.

THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL MEANINGS OF NAMES IN LATE ANTIQUE ITALY, 313-604

Eric Ware, M.A.

Western Michigan University, 2014

This thesis examines many uses of names in Italian culture and society between the years 313 and 604. Through an anthroponymic study of names in Late Antique Italy,

I explore the relationships between names and religion, social groups, gender, and language. I analyze the name patterns statistically and through micro-historical studies.

This thesis argues that, contrary to studies emphasizing the late antique decline of the

Roman trinominal system, Italian names demonstrated continuity with classical onomastic practices. The correlations between saint’s cults and local names and the decline of pagan names suggests that saints’ names replaced pagan ones as apotropaic names as paganism. declined The introduction of Christianity brought only moderate change to naming practices, as Christians preferred to adapt the meanings of existing names. The senatorial elite continued to use names as a means of tracing family lineage and clung to traditional names. Women’s names became more varied during this period but still derived from male names and their role as transmitters of lineage did not improve.

Finally, despite the decline of Greek names in Italy during this period, those regions that maintained classical economic, social, and political practices retained use of these names, suggesting a link between the two. Together, these arguments demonstrate endurance and importance of classical anthroponymic customs in Late Antique Italy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Historical Overview ...... 1 The Interest of Names and Italy ...... 7 Historiography and Theory ...... 12 Sources and Thesis ...... 24 The Database ...... 28 CHAPTER I – Saints’ Names, Saint’s Cults, and Anthroponymic Practice ...... 35 Introduction ...... 35 Biblical Names...... 39 Non-biblical Saints ...... 45 Saints’ Names as Taboo ...... 57 Conclusion ...... 58 CHAPTER II – Christianity and Names ...... 62 Introduction ...... 62 The First Generations: Names 313-392 ...... 64 Ecclesiastics and Laypeople ...... 72 Names at the End of Late Antiquity, 573-604 ...... 90 Conclusion ...... 94 CHAPTER III – Gender and Names ...... 98 Introduction ...... 98 Males, Names, and Family ...... 101 Women’s Names and Kinship ...... 104 Senatorial Cultural Conservatism: A Case Study ...... 112 Conclusion ...... 116 CHAPTER IV – Greek Names in Italy ...... 119 Introduction ...... 119 Greek Names in Social Contexts ...... 122

Table of Contents – continued

Greek Names in an Urban Context ...... 126 Byzantine Influence ...... 128 Conclusion ...... 141 CONCLUSION ...... 144 APPENDIX I: The Foreigners ...... 149 APPENDIX II: The Constitutum Silvestri ...... 152 APPENDIX III: Tables and Figures ...... 156 APPENDIX IV: List of Names ...... 167 Part 1: Ecclesiastical Males ...... 167 Part 2: Lay Males ...... 251 Part 3: Ecclesiastical Females ...... 297 Part 4: Lay Females...... 303 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 314 Primary Sources ...... 314 Secondary Sources ...... 315

iii 1

INTRODUCTION

Historical Overview

To say that Late Antiquity was an era of significant change in the Mediterranean world would be to risk understatement. At the beginning of the fourth century, when this period dawned, the Roman Empire still dominated the whole of the Mediterranean basin, calling the sea Mare Nostrum , “Our Sea.” To be sure, the crises of the third century had weakened the empire, but, to all appearances, Diocletian had restored order and found the path to effective government by dividing the state’s rule between four men, the

“Tetrarchs”. Yet, an enduring peace was not to be. Even within Diocletian’s own lifetime –he retired from the post of emperor in 305 – Rome sank back into another round of civil wars, first to decide who would succeed Constantius Chlorus and, later, to determine who would be sole emperor. After several more civil wars the Roman Empire was permanently split between East and West in 395, and the fates of the two halves began to diverge.

The Western Roman Empire, unlike its Eastern counterpart, disintegrated relatively rapidly. The central government in Ravenna lost control of the outlying provinces in less than a century. The Romans abandoned some, such as Britannia, lost control of others to native factions, like the bagaudae in northern Gaul, ceded control of still others to foreign entities formally acting on behalf of the Empire, as in the Visigothic

Kingdom of Toulouse, or in a few cases lost them to outright conquest, like the province of Africa to the Vandals. By the mid-fifth century, the Western emperors essentially controlled only Italy. Additionally, enemies twice sacked the city of Rome, once the capital of the empire, still one of its largest cities, and still the symbolic heart of empire.

These destructive events dealt a strong blow to the morale of the empire’s citizens.

Finally, the Western emperors lost their authority as rulers and by 476 were so marginal that Odovacer, a general at the Western court, deposed the ruling emperor, Romulus

Augustulus, and decided to take the rule of Italy himself. By the early sixth century, what was once the Western Roman Empire had become a patchwork of kingdoms, mostly ruled by Germanic peoples who had moved into or invaded the empire in the preceding centuries.

Although the Eastern Empire, based at Constantinople, endured, constant struggles with external encroachment along its northern frontier and internecine warfare with its eastern neighbor Persia sapped its strength. The emperors at Constantinople were, after 476, the de jure suzerains of the West, too, but they could enforce these claims only in a nominal fashion, such as by bestowing titles upon the rulers of the West that ostensibly put them in service of the Empire. Only the Justinianic Wars in the mid-sixth century managed to enforce these claims of sovereignty over North Africa, Italy, and parts of Iberia, but they yielded by and large only temporary success. By the end of the sixth century, the Byzantines 1 had lost all of the Iberian conquests and half of Italy, and their authority in the regions of Italy which they held against the Lombard invaders, including the City of Rome and its environs, was often tenuous. Thus, the political landscape at the end of Late Antiquity differed vastly from affairs at the beginning of the period.

1 From this point on, I shall generally refer to the Eastern Roman Empire from the sixth century onward as the “Byzantine Empire,” and its inhabitants as “Byzantines.” This is a matter of terminological convenience, used to distinguish the denizens of the Eastern Empire from those of the city of Rome, without recourse to extra, and often awkward, adjectives. I do not intend this usage in any way to contribute to the debate about when the Eastern Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire. I only use it to avoid semantic complications.

Nor were all of the changes solely political; society and culture also witnessed significant transformations. For example, although the senatorial aristocracy endured, new men entered the ranks of elite society through the new administrative system begun under Diocletian. Although the old senatorial order continued to prosper in the short term, the development of an aristocracy bound to patronage at the imperial palace spelled doom for many of the old landowning families, at least in Italy. 2 This period also witnessed the rise of a new religion. In 300, Christianity was a minority faith, persecuted by the authorities. Yet, in 313, the emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which legalized Christianity. Thereafter it spread rapidly, enjoying varying levels of imperial patronage, so much so that by 393 Theodosius issued edicts severely curtailing pagan practices and making Christianity the only legal religion. At the end of Late Antiquity,

Christianity was dominant in the Empire, and nominally the main religion in most of the successor states – some of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in Britannia excepted. 3

The Germanic invasions brought their own types of social and cultural metamorphosis as well. In Italy, for example, the arrival of the Lombards heralded many changes, particularly at the top strata of society. During the interregnum, when the

Lombard dukes held ultimate authority because they refused to name a king, the remnants of the old Roman aristocracy were killed or driven out of Lombard-held lands. 4 Not only

2 T.S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power in Byzantine Italy AD 554-800 (Hertford: Stephen Austin and Sons Ltd, 1984), 21-38. Chris Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 155-168 and 202-219. 3 Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 54-75 provides a brief overview of this process. 4 Neil Christie, The Lombards , (Oxford [UK]: Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 1995) 82-84, and Chris Wickham, Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society, 400-1000 (Totowa [NJ]: Barnes & Noble Books, 1981), 31-32 give introductions to this period. The destruction is perhaps best characterized by Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum , ed. G. Waitz, MGH SS. rer. Germ. 48 (1848) II.32; trans Foulke (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 86-93.

4 did this upset the normal social hierarchy, as one elite replaced another, but it also led to the weakening and destruction of much of the Roman cultural heritage from monumental building to naming practices.

These dramatic changes tend to hide underlying threads of continuity. The traditional view of this period, classically set forth by Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , depicts this era as one of dramatic transformation. He particularly sees a fundamental shift from the “classical” or “antique” world to a “medieval” one.

More recently, scholars championing the idea of “Late Antiquity,” Peter Brown being the foremost among them in English-speaking circles, have come to the fore. Rejecting established ideas about the sudden, catastrophic “Fall of Rome” in 476 that left an entirely new, medieval world (often in the pejorative sense) in its wake, scholars of Late

Antiquity emphasize traditions, institutions, and other socio-cultural constructs that persisted from the classical period and slowly into the medieval one.

One topic that has, in many ways, resisted the late antique paradigm is anthroponomy. Anthroponomy is the study of human names in a social and cultural context, and seeks reasons behind and the effects of names and their uses. This field operates on two levels. First, it is interested in large systems of names and how they operate in particular cultures. So, for example, some anthroponomists study the relationship between the early medieval Germanic naming system and kinship structures.

The second level is at the individual level, seeking what a single name can tell us about the individual who bore it. For instance, the name “Flavius” became associated with the highest echelons of Roman society, and so the assumption of the nomen by the Lombard

5 king Authari after his election as king demonstrates, inter alia , the social position he claimed. 5

According to the traditional accounts in anthroponomy, naming systems underwent a vast change in Late Antiquity. In the West, the classical Roman trinominal system was most influential. For those who engaged in this onomastic practice, all free men – that is, Roman citizens of any social rank, non-citizens, and freedmen – bore three names, at least in theory. These three were the praenomen , essentially the equivalent of a first name; the nomen , which denoted an individual’s gens or tribe, and which scholars often call the gentilicium ; and the cognomen , which carried many functions, most commonly either to designate the particular branch of a gens to which an individual belonged or to act as a kind of nickname describing one of an individual’s traits. 6 Slaves and women did not use this system, and generally had only one name. Women’s names

5 Jacques Dalarun, “Dis-moi comment tu t’appelles je te dirai qui tu es,” in L’anthroponymie : document de l’histoire sociale des mondes méditerranéens médiévaux , ed. Monique Bourin, Jean-Marie Martin, and François Menant (Palais Farnèse, Rome: École Française de Rome, 1996): 1-5 offers an excellent overview of the field, and provides the example of the anthroponomy of St. Francis of Assisi. The reader must not confuse the field of anthroponomy with a sub-field of onomastics that is also called “anthroponomy.” Onomastics is the study of names in a linguistic context, looking at the lexical values of names. It is exceedingly popular in the German academy, as Germanic names provide essential tools of the reconstruction of early Germanic languages. Cecily Clark, “Onomastics,” in Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. II, 1066-1476 , ed. Peter Jackson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992): 456-462 provides an introduction to this field. The reader must rest assured that I am engaging with anthroponomy as a field of social and cultural interest, not a linguistic one. That said, the astute reader will note that I use the adjectives “onomastic” and “anthroponymic” interchangeably. This is because both words provide an adjective for the noun “name” that common English lacks. They both have a roughly equivalent meaning and do not refer specifically to either of the fields which I have above discussed. For “Flavius,” see Benet Salway, “What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700,” in The Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994): 137-140. On Authari’s assumption of “Flavius,” see Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum , III.16; trans. Foulke, 113-114. 6 Stephen Wilson, The Means of Naming: A Social and Cultural History of Personal Naming in the West (London: Routledge, 1998) 3-19 provides a basic overview of the naming system, and its role in Roman society. Benet Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 124-131 also outlines the basic principles of the Roman trinominal system and some of its early changes. The cognomen often started as a nickname and thence, after being passed down through generations, became a family name (Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 127- 128). During the imperial period, as cognomina became more associated with family names than nicknames, a new category of names, called the supernomina , which only denoted nicknames, developed; however, the heyday of this name category did not come until Late Antiquity (Wilson, Means of Naming , 55-58).

6 were usually the grammatically feminine form of their fathers’ nomen . Slaves typically received a name at birth from their masters, and the type and meaning of it varied according to the name-giver’s tastes. Men from the Eastern Empire, as well, did not use this anthroponymic system, adhering instead to the Greek tradition of using only one name. 7

The trinominal system had started to decay even before Late Antiquity. By the late second century, most men in the lower classes tended to use one or two names, and the Antonine Constitution, the 212 edict which gave all free men Roman citizenship, compounded this trend. Moreover, the senatorial class did not always adhere perfectly to naming conventions, either, as some would adopt multiple cognomina over the course of their lifetime, even in the Republican era. 8 Finally, women also occasionally bore cognomina , partially as a means to avoid confusion in families with multiple daughters. 9

On the subject of naming practices, the traditional narrative of the decay of the

Roman trinominal system runs thusly. Starting in the fourth century, many aristocrats began using more than three names, particularly adopting multiple cognomina . Moreover, praenomina largely began to disappear in favor of a few gentilicia – particularly Severus and Flavius, both made popular by the Antonine Constitution – while the use of other gentilicia also declined. 10 The introduction of many new persons into the ranks of the

7 At least, scholars often call it the Greek system. This is somewhat misleading, in that, although Greek was the lingua franca of the East, many peoples, particularly in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt retained their native languages and customs. Most of these peoples used only a single name, as did the Greeks, and these names were most often recorded either in Greek- or Latin-language sources, and were usually Hellenized in both cases. Maurice Sartre, “The Ambiguous Name: the Limitations of Cultural Identity in Graeco-Roman Syrian Onomastics,” in Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics , ed. Elaine Matthews, Proceedings of the British Academy 148 (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007): 199-232 provides a useful introduction to the complexities of names in the Eastern Mediterranean. 8 Wilson, Means of Naming , 47-50. 9 Ibid ., 17-18. 10 Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 133-141.

7 elite after the Diocletianic reforms hastened these trends, as the new elite adopted new names to mimic those of the old aristocracy, and some added as many cognomina as possible, adopting illustrious names to compensate for their lackluster bloodlines. 11

Amongst the lower classes, movement toward a single name continued, driven by the decline of the praenomen and the ubiquity of a few gentilicia caused by the Antonine

Constitution. 12 By the sixth century, both tendencies had reached their logical conclusions. The lower classes almost always had only one name, whereas some elites would bear six or more names. 13 In much of the West, though, the Roman naming system began to disappear entirely. In areas controlled by Germanic tribes, the Germanic dithemic system – which consisted not of set names but rather of a large selection of base words that could be combined into a name – began to displace the old Roman practices.14

The Interest of Names and Italy

Scholars have long preferred to focus on the development of the Germanic system for a number of reasons. First, these names lend themselves well to the study of family and kinship because at least one of the name elements of a family’s founder (or another illustrious member) tended to appear in the names of subsequent generations. 15 King

Theoderic of the Ostrogoths, for example, was the son of Theodemer, the younger brother

11 Wilson, Means of Naming , 51-55. 12 Ibid. , 47-50. 13 Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 144-145. 14 Wilson, Means of Naming , 65-70 briefly describes this process. 15 Régine Le Jan, “Personal Names and the Transformation of Kinship in Early Medieval Society (Sixth to Tenth Centuries),” in Personal Names Studies of Medieval Europe: Social Identity and Familial Structures , ed. George T. Beech, Monique Bourin, and Pascal Chareille (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2002): 31-50 provides an introduction to the Germanic Naming System, as well as an overview of its importance to studies in family and kinship.

8 of Theodimund, and the father of Theodegotha. 16 Additionally, many German academics have examined these names as key to increasing knowledge of now-lost Germanic dialects, like Frankish and Lombard, and the linguistic relationships between them, because many of the name elements were complete words. 17 Finally, the distribution of name elements across social categories, such as class, can provide insight into the social dynamics of late antique Germanic groups. 18

Scholars have shown much less interest in Latin names except to chronicle of the demise of the Roman trinominal system. In some areas, like Britain, there is some justification for this, as such names largely fall out of view by the mid-sixth century, with the exception of those of a few churchmen. Yet in other places, like Italy or those parts of Gaul where the senatorial aristocracy was fairly well-entrenched, Latin and Latinate names persisted into the Middle Ages and, in some cases, even to modernity. Despite this state of affairs, however, scholarship has mostly passed over these names. One of the purposes of this present study, then, is to remedy, in some small way, this lack of interest. 19

Names intersect with numerous popular social and cultural topics. One of the most-discussed subjects in late antique studies is that of Christianization. The spread of this religion affected many aspects of public and private life, and, as many have noted,

16 A.M.H. Jones, J. R. Martindale, and J. Morris, eds., Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire , 3 vols. (Cambridge [UK]: Cambridge University Press, 1971-1992) (Hereafter PLRE ), stemma 37, II.1330. 17 E.g. Norbert Wagner, “Die Langobardennamen Rodanus , Ahald * und Potilus ,” Beiträge zur Namenforschung 29, no. 4 (1996): 416-417. This is, in any case, a perfect example of the type of studies in the field of onomastics. 18 Jörg Jarnut, “Petronaci qui Flavipert: Der Name als sozialer und kultureller Indikator,” in Nomen et Fraternitas: Festschrift für Dieter Geuenich zum 65. Geburtstags, ed. Uwe Ludwig and Thomas Schilp , Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 62 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008): 99- 105 demonstrates how the thematic elements of a single name can reveal the social and cultural complexities of Lombard Italy. 19 Although many of the names Wilson discusses in The Means of Naming did have classical roots, he never discusses the long-term history of these names or the implications thereof.

9 this tendency did not exclude naming customs. Over the course of Late Antiquity, names evoking pagan connotations like Jovinus, which honored Jove, slowly disappeared, whereas names with Christian meanings, such as Stephanus, which could refer to the

“crown of glory” faithful Christians hoped to attain in the afterlife or to St. Stephen the

Protomartyr, exploded in popularity. 20 Additionally, some have speculated upon the effects of the cults of saints on naming patterns, but no one has actually undertaken an exhaustive investigation of these trends by correlating all cultic sites, not just major ones, with local onomastic practices. 21

Italy and the associated islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica provide a fitting geographical basis for the study of late antique names. Exceptionally, this region provides evidence of classically Roman names throughout Late Antiquity. As late as the turn of the seventh century, for example, one can find classical Roman names like

“Claudius,” “Maximus,” and “Saturninus.” 22 Moreover, unlike many areas in the

Western Roman Empire, Italy retained a powerful, conservative, and culturally Roman aristocracy that persisted in using traditional names. To be sure, other formerly Roman areas do show evidence of Latin names among churchmen; Gregory of Tour’s

Historiarum libri X alone attests dozens of monks, priests, and bishops with Latin and

20 Wilson, Means of Naming , 58-61. 1 Peter 5:4: “And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.” (NSV) 21 Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 58 makes vague references to this. The fullest study of the relationship between saint’s cults and onomastic practice is Iiro Kajanto, Onomastic Studies in the Early Christian Inscriptions of Rome and Carthage (Helsinki [Finland]: Tilgmann Press, 1963), which we will discuss below, 13-14. 22 Charles Pietri and Luce Pietri, eds., Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire , 2. Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne 313-604 , 2 vols (Rome: École Franc ise de Rome, 1999-2000), (Hereafter PCBE ) “Claudius 6,” I.450-452, “Maximus 26,” II.1478, and “Saturninus 7,” II.1994.

Greek names. 23 Yet in Italy alone do we find that such names were widespread in all parts of society, not just among the aristocracy.

Two factors aided these Italian anthroponymic tendencies: the relative lateness of the Germanic invasions in Italy, and the low number of migrants resulting from them.

The first invasion that resulted in permanent Germanic occupation of Italy occurred in

493, when Theodoric the Ostrogoth overthrew Odovacer; by comparison, the Western

Empire had lost control of most of its provinces to barbarians between 409 and c. 450.24

Moreover, Theodoric’s coup saw only a limited movement of people and his governance of Italy was fairly Romanized. 25 The first barbarian invasion really comparable to those which had occurred elsewhere in the West was that of the Lombards in 568-569, and even this one involved a relatively small number of people, probably no more than

150,000.26 These factors meant that late Roman civilization continued to evolve without disruption up to the Lombard invasion at the latest – although the Byzantine-Gothic war of the mid-sixth century provided, at the very least, a great shock to the native Italian culture.

The persistence of the senatorial class allows for a rich analysis of the social situation in Italy. In terms of names, the most obvious item of interest is how the senators did or did not use names as a means of preserving their identity. Partially, one

23 E.g. Gregorius Turonensis, Historia libri X (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2010), IV.36, 168-169. English translation, idem , The History of the Franks , trans. Lewis Thorpe (London: Penguin Books, 1974), IV.36, 230-232. This passage mentions bishops named “Sacerdos,” “Nicetius,” and “Priscus,” a priest named “Martin,” and a bishop’s wife named “Susanna,” all of which names are Latin or Greek. 24 Bryan Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (Oxford [UK]: Oxford University Press, 2005), 33-62 provides an intelligent basic overview of the process. In 409, the Vandals and Sueves ran rampant in the Iberian Peninsula, causing a disruption in Roman authority. By around 450, Rome lost North Africa to the Vandals, had abandoned Britannia, and had parcelled up most of Gaul to various tribes. To be fair, the imperial court held on to the nearer parts of Gaul up to 475/476 ( Ibid ., 56). 25 Patrick Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554 (Cambridge [UK]: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 6-9 and 40-41. He suggests an army of around 25,000. 26 Christie, The Lombards , 63-64. His number includes women, children, and non-combatants. For comparison, Christie later estimates the population of Rome to be around 100, 000. Ibid ., 92.

11 ought look at the family level to discover the extent to which the elites used names as a function of kinship. One might ask, for example, whether particular names appeared commonly over multiple generations and if such names passed into other families.

Italy moreover provides a wealth of onomastic evidence for non-elite classes.

Such a state of affairs allows some comparative analysis between different social categories. One possibility for inter-class comparison is to look at the various names a particular class uses. If certain names appeared commonly among one group but never, or very rarely, among another, it would suggest that there were strict boundaries between classes. Another possible means to study the social context of names is statistical. The ratio of the number of names to individuals in a given sample gives us some idea of how varied the onomastic corpus of a group was. Additionally, we can also find the minimum number of names required to name half of a sample’s population; this number tells us the degree to which a population relied on a few popular names. When looking at various socio-economic classes, these numbers tell us whether a group used only a few names, which would imply, among other things, a high level of name management, or it used many names, meaning that name choice was relatively free. This last strategy of analysis allows a comparison not only of socio-economic classes, but also of other social categories such as gender or ecclesial status.

The persistence of the building monumental stone structures and the related custom of inscribing names upon them in late antique Italy also makes the peninsula an ideal area in which to study names. In some instances, we find examples of names dating from this period carved into older edifices; the senatorial names carved into the steps of

12 the Colosseum provide an excellent example of this.27 Likewise, many public buildings, particularly churches, were still built in stone, and they often record, either in mosaics or inscriptions, the names of those persons who underwrote the projects.28 Resultantly, Italy has a significant anthroponymic corpus inscribed upon its surviving buildings. Compare this to Merovingian Gaul, for example, in which it appears that many equivalent structures – like churches, palaces, and monuments – were very often composed of wood and have rotted away, and therefore, deprived historians of the valuable records of the names of builders and donors. The fuller Italian onomastic record thus provides a larger sample and consequently allows historians studying them to make conclusions that are hopefully more representative of the entire population.

Historiography and Theory

Iiro Kajanto’s two classic works, The Latin Cognomina 29 and Onomastic Studies in the Early Christian Inscriptions of Roman and Carthage provide the foundational texts for anthroponymic studies of the late antique West. The former work attempts an exhaustive study of the cognomen from its origins in Republican Rome until the demise of the Roman naming system. Kajanto draws mostly upon epigraphy, but he also employs other supplementary sources, such as letters. The first part of the book is his categorization of names, either by form or by meaning, and his attendant analysis. For example, Kajanto, when discussing names derived from “fauna,” dismisses the notion that these names had an especially Christian significance on the grounds that many were

27 The classic study of this example is André Chastagnol, Le sénat romain sous le règne d’Odoacre (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1966), which we will examine in more detail below, 112-116. 28 Jean-Pierre Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie et à ses marges: d’après l’épigraphie des pavements de mosaïque (IVe–VIIe siècle) (Roma: École Française de Rome, 1993), xi-xiii. 29 Iiro Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina (Helsinki: Helsingfors, 1965).

13 either also popular with pagans or occurred too infrequently in the sources to allow any conclusions.30 The second portion, also of enduring value, consists of lists of names divided into the categories he constructed in the first part. Although the enormous scale of Kajanto’s work and its many categories remain useful today, the publication of new materials and new prosopographies in the past fifty years means that one should not blindly rely upon his conclusions.

Kajanto’s study of Christian names also provides an important base for further study in the anthroponymic field. There, the author uses epigraphic evidence from the cities of Carthage and Rome by comparing pre- and non-Christian sources with Christian inscriptions to analyze the relationship between Christianity and naming patterns.

Perhaps the most useful portion of this work to the present study is his analysis of saint’s cults. Kajanto concludes that although major cults had an impact on the naming practices of populations near Rome and Carthage, these effects were generally limited and minor cults had virtually no effect whatsoever. 31 One limitation of his line of argumentation is that he focuses almost exclusively upon biblical figures and martyrs. Although these saints likely had the widest devotion, one should not underestimate the popularity of sanctified Apologists and non-martyred saints revered for their holiness, particularly among ecclesiastics. The narrow scope of his study, which examines only two cities, leads Kajanto to assume that the results from the two largest and most cosmopolitan cities in the Western Empire are applicable to the entire Latin West. As with all case studies, further research is needed to determine whether preliminary conclusions have broader applicability. For example, if the name “Petrus” constituted two percent of male names

30 Ibid ., 87-88. 31 Kajanto, Early Christian Inscriptions , 97-100.

14 in all of Italy, but five percent in Rome, then clearly the cult of St. Peter in the city did have a significant impact, even if the name still made up a small proportion overall.

Likewise, if five percent of men were named “Petrus” both in Rome and in the rest of

Italy, one could argue that the cult located in Rome had a limited local onomastic influence, despite the use of the saint’s name by a notable percentage of the Roman population. Thus, Kajanto’s conclusions ought be tested on a wider scale.

Heikki Solin’s Beiträge zur Kenntnis der griechischen personennamen in Rom covers much the same ground as Kajanto’s Latin Cognomina , but using Greek names, again only in the city of Rome. 32 Here, Solin also makes several arguments of interest to social historians. First, he contends that, outside the aristocracy, only slaves bore Greek names in significant numbers, and that lower class people purposefully eschewed such names to avoid the stigma of servility. 33 Amongst the aristocrats, Greek names were popular as cognomina , particularly in the Republican era; this appears to have been a function of the upper class’s general fascination with Greek culture. 34 However, Solin’s work examined only the Republican and Early Imperial eras, which calls for a testing of these theses in later periods. Even in the periods on which he focused, his dating is imprecise – names are dated only to a century at best – something he claims his work with computers necessitated. In addition, because Solin restricted his study to Rome, one must be cautious in applying his conclusions to Italy as a whole, especially to those regions that hosted a significant Greek-speaking population. Nevertheless, this book, combined with its companion Die griechischen personennamen in Rom: ein Namenbuch ,

32 Heikki Solin, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der griechischen personennamen in Rom (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1971). 33 Ibid ., 39-47, 155-158. 34 Ibid ., 39-47, 138-145.

15 which collects all of the names used in the Beiträge , provides the foundations for any study of Greek names in Rome and the West. 35

Since the publication of Kajanto’s and Solin’s studies, several scholars have treated of the Roman naming system and Roman names in a more general sense. Benet

Salway, in a short article entitled “What’s in a Name?,” surveyed the history of the trinominal system, from 700 BC to AD 700. Although necessarily briefly, Salway argues that political and social forces shaped the development of Roman anthroponymic customs.

Particularly, he asserts that the old aristocracy tended toward polyonomy during Late

Antiquity as a result of a desire to preserve and display their lineage, 36 and that the ubiquity of nomina such as Flavius and Aurelius was the result of the rise of the class- conscious new elite under and following Diocletian and the Constantinian dynasty. 37

However, much of his analysis focuses on the senatorial class. After an examination of the Constitutio Antoniniana , Caracalla’s edict of 212 that granted citizenship to all free men in the Roman Empire, and which had the onomastic effect of giving the nomen

Aurelius – that is, Caracalla’s nomen – to large swathes of the population, Salway gives the lower classes nary a mention. 38 This means that he effectively ignores the onomastic trend among the non-elites toward bearing only a single cognomen . Thus, whilst Salway provides several strong arguments about the evolution of Roman names, he leaves large gaps in his discussion.

35 Heikki Solin, Die griechischen personennamen in Rom: ein Namenbuch , 2nd ed., 3 vols. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), contians very little argument, as it simply lists all instances of Greek names found in Rome, sorted into the categories Solin described in his Beiträge . The short Prolegomena justifies the categories, briefly reiterates the methodological issues in classifying “Greek” names, and recapitulates his arguments from the Beiträge . 36 Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 141-144. 37 Ibid ., 137-140. 38 Ibid ., 133-136

Stephen Wilson, in his The Means of Naming , provides a general historical survey of naming practices in Europe from Antiquity to the present, and fortunately fills the gap to some extent. Wilson argues that, particularly in the wake of the Constitutio

Antoniniana , both the praenomen and nomen had become so imprecise as a means of identifying a single individual that most people emphasized the cognomen alone as the identifier. Over the course of several generations, nomina and praenomina fell out of use. 39 In general, Wilson concurs with Salway, that social and political forces, particularly concerns over lineage and the rise of the Constantinian new elite, contributed to the polyonomy of the upper classes.

One must be cautious in relying too heavily on Wilson’s arguments, however.

First, because he was writing a synthesis on the subject, Wilson comments only on general trends and ignores localized particularities. For example, in his discussions of

Late Antiquity, he rarely distinguishes between naming patterns in the Eastern and

Western Roman Empires, let alone variations between provinces. Secondly, Wilson tends not to consider names only in terms of their own period, but often implicitly compares them to developments in later eras. This problem is most egregious with

Christian names, the importance of which Wilson tends to downplay during both Late

Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, because they are much less prevalent in these times than during the and after Central and Late Middle Ages. 40

Finally, Wilson’s methodology in studying names is less than ideal because he sorts names into very strict categories. For Late Antiquity, Wilson sees four types of

39 Wilson, Means of Naming , 47-50. 40 Ibid ., 86-87 makes this bias particularly evident, when he argues that Christian names were uncommon and not of much importance in the Early Middle Ages by comparing the rates of Christian names in Ravenna, Rimini, and Genoa during this period to the those of Siena, Cremona, and other Northern Italian cities in the Central Middle Ages.

17 names: Latin, Greek, Germanic, and Christian, and does not allow for any overlap between them. Thus, for example, the name “Deusdedit,” in Wilson’s categorization, is

Christian and not Latin. In Wilson’s view, moreover, names apparently cannot change categories over time. For him, names like “Leo” were always Greek, despite the contention of other scholars, including Kajanto, that Greek names of high popularity and long duration in the Latin onomastic corpus ought be considered Latin because contemporaries would not have viewed them as alien or non-Latin. 41 The isolation of the

“Christian” name category from other types of names is particularly distressing because it can mask the effect of saint’s cults on local naming customs. For example, the high concentration of the name Iuliana around Naples, the locus of a popular cult of a St.

Iuliana, suggests that at least some instances of this name were, in contemporary eyes, religious in nature. In Wilson’s estimation, though, this name is “Latin,” not “Christian,” because it is an adjectival derivative of the classical praenomen Iulia. The rigidity of

Wilson’s categories, then, prevents subtle analysis and runs the risk of creating artificial constructs that do not reflect the attitudes and beliefs of contemporaries who chose these names.

Roger Bagnall’s article “Religious Conversion and Onomastic Change in Early

Byzantine Egypt” provides a different approach to categorizing names in terms of religion. 42 Bagnall attempts to trace the Christianization of Egypt through a study of names, positing that, as the province Christianized, the use of pagan names would decline in favor of Christian ones. Bagnall initially claimed a very strong link between Christian

41 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 42-43. 42 Roger Bagnall, “Religious Conversion and Onomastic Change in Early Byzantine Egypt,” The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 19 (1982): 105-124.

18 names and adherence to this religion, 43 but, after his article drew strong methodological criticism, 44 he wrote a follow up article in which he moderated his argument. 45 This latter essay contended that even if bearing a Christian name did not necessarily indicate

Christian belief, it did reflect the importance of the religion in the surrounding society. 46

In order to make these arguments, Bagnall created several categories of Christian names:

Biblical names; saints’ names, with the caveat that such names could not be Christian until after the death of the saint; names reflecting Christian theological concepts, including both abstract ideas, such as “Anastasius,” which recalls the Resurrection, and more obvious types like theophoric names, e.g. “Adeodatus;” and finally the names of

Christian emperors, such as Theodosius or Constantine. 47

Bagnall’s final category of imperial names yields some problems in that it is impossible to tell at this distant remove whether such names were given or adopted out of piety or political loyalty. To be sure, the close association of the church and the imperial patronage system, particularly in the East, may render distinctions between these two motives moot. Nevertheless, it is not out of the question that pagans could name their child after a Christian emperor solely on account of politics. One must also exercise caution with the Biblical and saints’ names, since some of these overlapped with names already in use. For example, it is difficult to tell whether a “Philippus” had the Apostle

Philip as his namesake, as the name was not uncommon among Greek-speaking populations, regardless of religious persuasion.

43 Ibid ., 121-123. 44 See mainly Ewa Wipszycka, “La valeur de l'onomastique pour l'histoire de la christianisation de l'Egypte. A propos d'une étude de R. S. Bagnall,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 62 (1982): 173-181. 45 Roger Bagnall, “Conversion and Onomastics: A Reply,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 69 (1987): 243-250. 46 Ibid ., 245-247. 47 Bagnall, “Religious Conversion and Onomastic Change,” 109-111.

The present study will attempt to construct two parallel levels of categorization in attempting to analyze late antique Italian names. First, it will sort names by linguistic derivation, namely Latin, Greek, Germanic, and Hebrew/Aramaic. The categories are not always clear-cut; for example, we shall classify “Leo” and “Hilarus” as Latin names because of their long currency among Latin-speaking populations, despite their originally

Greek derivation. In instances where such names are recorded in Greek and are in areas with a significant Greek-speaking population, however, we shall consider them to be linguistically Greek as well. Names of Greek derivation that have a shorter and much more sparsely attested history in Latin sources, such as “Theodorus,” “Stephanus,” or

“Anastasius” we shall consider Greek. Secondly, we shall sort names as Christian, pagan, or non-religious. A Christian name, by our definition, is one that very likely had a strong

Christian religious connotation for its bearers. That is to say, a Christian name is a name that either strongly connotes a Christian meaning, like “Martyrius;” contains the word

“God” in Greek or Latin, such as “Adeodatus” or “Theophilus;” or uses a saint or biblical figure as namesake, as in “Laurentius” or “Petrus.” Bagnall’s categories of Christian names, with the exception of that of the names of emperors, provide useful typologies when seeking and sorting these names. Once again, the different name types display some overlap. Although the name “Apollinaris” is derived from the name of the god

Apollo, several saints, like Apollinaris of Ravenna, bore it, and so one should consider at least some instances of this name as Christian, rather than pagan.

Using two separate, parallel types of categorization for the names allows a single name to fit into multiple groups. This will perhaps allow us to view the names in a more natural historical context. The people bearing these names, if they thought of them in

20 categories, would likely recognize their names as having a different meaning in different contexts. In a religious ceremony, for example, the christianitas of a name would matter more than its linguistic origin. Likewise, recall Solin’s argument that for the lower classes a Greek name would have been a sign of servile origins. If this were the case in

Late Antiquity, one ought consider whether the language of a name had significant social consequences. Additionally, the parallel categorization of names allows us to understand that multiple understandings of names could be significant in some settings. For example, some scholars have noted that the clergy of the Arian church under the Ostrogoths used almost exclusively Germanic names, whilst orthodox churchmen never bore them.48 Still others have argued that this split according to language primarily points to separate ethno-linguistic identities. 49 Yet, given the background and chosen career of these Arian clergymen, the religious associations of the names, as well as their ethno-linguistic origins, may have simultaneously played a role in the choice of names used.

Scholars have contended that names can play a role in other aspects of identity, too. Patrick Amory, in his People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy , argues that conceptions of identity based around career and ideology could affect the choice and use of names.50 Names are not, according to Amory and the Vienna School in general, 51 an

48 Amory, People and Identity , 87. 49 Ibid ., 36-38. 50 Ibid ., 87-102. 51 The Vienna School is a group of scholars of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages who, in reaction against nationalistic history, particularly of the type published in Germany in the early Twentieth Century, argue that the Germanic tribes of this period did not constitute ethnicities, either individually (e.g. the argument that the Ostrogoths were a tribe ethnically distinct from the Franks) or as a whole (e.g. the case, argued often and strongly in the early Twentieth Century, that all the Germanic tribes were early Germans and therefore genetically related to the inhabitants of modern Germany). Indeed, they argue that the ethnography of Roman histories and literature, whence most of our information of these peoples derive, is largely constructed, and so our understanding of these people is filtered through authors trying to fit living groups of people to literary archetypes. Moreover, these scholars argue that conceptions of identity in this period were quite fluid. According to this school, the important element in identity for the Germanic tribes was not ethnicity, but a core of stories, rituals, and beliefs, called a Traditionskern , that a tribal leader, who

21 indicator of ethnic identity: having a Greek name does not make one ethnically Greek, having a Roman name does not make one ethnically Roman, and – as he here argues – having a “Gothic” name does not make one ethnically Gothic. People tended instead, he says, to use names appropriate to their social stratum and profession. Members of groups that were essential to the Ostrogothic regime and part of Theodoric’s identity-building program for the Ostrogoths, such as soldiers and the Arian clergy, would be likely to adopt Gothic names. This does not mean that all such individuals were Goths, at least in the ethnic sense, but rather that these people thought it appropriate, or even advantageous, to use Gothic names. Amory does note that, particularly among the military, this trend was not absolute, and he provides plenty of evidence of native Italians retaining their

Greek or Latin names while in the army; but the near absence of any Gothic names amongst the civilian laity suggests a connection of Gothic names and the armed forces.

In general, Amory makes a strong case for the relation of names, career, and identity.

Other scholars have attempted to use names as evidence of the geographic origin of population groups within the Roman Empire. In 1976, P.A.B. Llewellyn argued that

Pope Symmachus was elected to the papal throne during the contested election of 498 in part because of support from a faction of African priests in Rome who had fled from

Africa because of anti-orthodox persecutions carried out by Africa’s Arian Vandal

attracted many followers through his charisma and the battle-prowess of himself and his personal retinue of warriors (his comitatus ), used to weld his followers into a cohesive group. Given that the Traditionskern and group cohesiveness were bound so closely to the personality of the leader, these tribes would often collapse every generation or so and then be re-formed by a new charismatic leader. The essential English introduction to this school of thought is Patrick Geary, The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002). The Vienna School, then, would argue that names have very little to do with ethnic identity, and were not really important to corporate identity in themselves; rather, their importance to identity would rest in their relation to those factors that helped hold groups together, such as the Traditionskern , kinship, and extant social groupings.

22 rulers. 52 Llewellyn buttressed his argument the next year by publishing a “preliminary” analysis of the social structure of the Roman clergy at the time. As part of the study, he used onomastic evidence that, he said, demonstrated a significant African population amongst the Roman clergy. He claimed, following Kajanto’s earlier discussion of

African names, that certain names, particularly several Latin theophoric names like

Adeodatus, were so much better attested in Africa than in Italy, that they were a strong indication of African origin. 53

In his recent book Staying Roman , Jonathan Conant made his own “preliminary” analysis of the names Llewellyn argued were distinctively African. 54 Using both epigraphic corpora and prosopographies, many of which have been published or updated since 1977, and using the names “Adeodatus/-a” and “Benenatus/-a” as examples, Conant argues that these names are much less “African” than Llewellyn and Kajanto had stated.

First, he found that both of these names, which were indeed more common in Africa, rarely appeared in an epigraphic context outside Africa and Italy. 55 Secondly, he found no correlation between the frequencies of these names in Italy and the Vandal invasion of

Africa; both these names showed up in Italy well before the Romans lost control of North

Africa. 56 He concludes that, particularly if these patterns hold true for the other

“African” names Llewellyn found, these results are evidence not of an African flight to

Rome but of the close cultural and social ties between Italy and Africa. This makes sense in the context of his book, which demonstrates that strong links between these provinces,

52 Peter A.B. Llewellyn, “The Roman Church During the Laurentian Schism: Priests and Senators,” Church History 45 (1976): 418. 53 Peter A.B. Llewellyn, “The Roman Clergy During the Laurentian Schism (498-506): A Preliminary Analysis,” Ancient Society 8 (1977): 245-275. Cf. Kajanto, Early Christian Inscriptions , 100-105. 54 Jonathan Conant, Staying Roman: Conquest and Identity in Africa and the Mediterranean, 439-700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 114-127. 55 Ibid ., 119-122, 126-127. 56 Ibid ., 122-126.

23 established by a strong senatorial presence during the Imperial period, endured well into the sixth and seventh centuries, despite the century-long disruption of the Vandal kingdom in Africa. Although Conant’s argument reveals that, although presumed links between onomastic practice and location are not always as clear as he initially thought, names can be a useful piece of evidence in showing cultural affinity.

One further caution in regard to the treatment of names ought be mentioned, particularly that names most likely reflect the views of a person’s parents, not of the individual himself. Certainly in the High Empire, and probably continuing into Late

Antiquity, the power of naming a child lay in the hands of his parents, the father in particular. 57 The name given speaks more to the preferences of the child’s father, than of the child himself. The only situation in which this would not be true is if individuals could and did regularly change their names over the course of their lives. There is little evidence for or against this practice, and so scholars are, naturally, rather divided on the subject. The adherents of the Vienna school tend to hold the view that changing names was easy and relatively common, whilst more traditional scholars argue that the lack of evidence means that, until proven otherwise, we should assume people kept their birth names for their entire lives. 58 We shall examine this topic in several particular instances in the following chapters, but here we need only say that, in general, we tend hold to the latter view on account of a general lack of evidence for name changes. One other implication of the importance of parents in the naming process is that, because the vast

57 Wilson, Means of Naming , 18-19. 58 Amory, People and Identity , 87: “People could, and did, change their names, at marriage, baptism, monastic vows, and conversion.” This succinctly sums up the position of the Vienna School. One should note the lack of references he provides for this statement. Wilson, Means of Naming , 47-61, emphasizes the assumption of extra names, as either cognomina , agnomina , or signa , rather than the changing of names. On the subject of changing names, he only says that a few may have adopted new names upon baptism, but that there is not, in any case, reliable evidence for this practice before the sixth or seventh centuries ( Ibid ., 59-60).

24 majority of individuals in our study are mentioned only as adults and without reference to their age, the effects of societal changes and major events on naming will appear to be delayed. Thus, for example, if parents tended to name their children after the reigning emperor, most children assuming his name would not, unless the ruler had a long reign, appear in the sources until the decades following his rule, rather than during it.

Sources and Thesis

The Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire , volume two, Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne 313-604 (or PCBE Italie ) is the best source of names for the present study because of the latter’s focus on Christian names and its analysis of many levels of society.59 This work aims at providing data on all known Christians in Italy and all non-

Christians in that peninsula who influenced the religion or its institutions between 313 and 604. 60 In addition to listing the names of these people, the work provides a short biographical sketch for each entry that describes his social position, occupation, connections to other persons, and impact on Christianity, and other known details of his life. This makes it a rich source for social historians of the period, but has yet to be mined.

For the purposes of this study, the PCBE Italie is superior to other prosopographical and anthroponymic collections in several respects. Unlike the better- known Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (PLRE ), the PCBE covers all levels of

Italian society, from slaves and fossores to kings and emperors, and also includes as complete an collection of clergymen as is possible. The PLRE , on the other hand, covers

59 See above, 9, n. 22 for full citation. 60 PCBE , I.ix-x.

25 only the lay elites and includes only a few clergymen of known senatorial background; thus, this otherwise important work does not provide a full picture of late antique Italian society. 61 Another collection, Salvatore Cosentino’s Prosopografia dell'Italia bizantina

(493-804) (or PIB ), not only covers a later-than-ideal period for a my study of the late

Roman west, as only the first 107 years of the PIB overlap with my own period of study, but is also incomplete; the two published volumes include only names starting with the letters A-O. Finally, the four most commonly cited epigraphic collections, the Corpus

Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL ), the Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (CIG ), the

Inscriptiones Graecae (IG ), and the Inscriptiones Christianae Vrbis Romae (ICVR ) cite only inscriptions, which leaves us with an incomplete view of society as these record only individuals who could afford to leave them and, occasionally, those who worked on them. Moreover, these vast works contain some errors, particularly in regard to cross- referencing, and so require much care and attention for even the most basic of analyses.

Nevertheless, all these collections, particularly the PLRE and the PIB , remain useful works against which to check information gleaned from the PCBE Italie .

We shall use the names from the PCBE Italie as a means to discuss the myriad social and cultural changes endured in Italy during Late Antiquity by examining them in several particular milieux. First, we shall look at the relationship between names and the rise of Christianity. The conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity is arguably one of the most-discussed topics in Late Antiquity and has occasionally been discussed in the context of anthroponomy.62 Such treatments are often brief and, however, based on case- studies, rather than on large-scale analysis of names in a region. For example, numerous

61 PLRE I.v-vi. 62 E.g. Wilson, Means of Naming , 58-61.

26 scholars have argued that Christians would take the names of saints as a sign of piety, but based their assumptions on very limited studies. 63 We therefore hope to discover, in chapter one, whether there is any correlation between the use of the names of saints and their respective cults. On a wider level, we wish to ask to what extent names became

“Christian” during Late Antiquity, for this would give indications as to how important religion was in everyday affairs; we shall broach this topic in chapter two.

In chapter three, we will analyze naming patterns at all levels of society, but with two particular focuses. First, we shall examine the names of women, which changed significantly before and during this period from more classical forms. Among these names, we hope to find clues as to the status and roles of women within the family.

Secondly, we shall discuss the names of the elite and use names to highlight the aristocracy’s cultural conservatism.

Finally, in chapter four, we shall examine the ways in which Greek names in Italy acted as social and cultural indicators. At the most basic level, the presence of these alien names amongst a primarily Latin-speaking society would appear to be an indication of the degree of contact Italians had with Greek culture; the better acquainted Latinate

Italians were with Greek culture, the more likely – in theory – they would be to use Greek names. Additionally, because scholars have argued that Greek names were associated with two particular classes in Antiquity, slaves and the elite, studying the use of names amongst these classes in Late Antiquity will help illuminate the social conditions of Italy during this period. We shall also use Greek names as an indicator for the influence of the

63 Peter Brown, Cult of Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1981), 58 makes a general claim to this from the case of St. Sergius. Bagnall, “Religious Conversion,” 111 accepts prima facie that Christians would use saints’ names out of piety. Kajanto, Early Christian Inscriptions , 97-100, argues for only a limited use of saint’s names in this manner, but bases his remarks on studies only of Carthage and Rome.

Byzantines in Italy at the end of Late Antiquity. These Eastern masters of much of the peninsula became increasingly identified with Greek language and culture in their heartlands, and so the extent to which Greek names flourished under them in Italy could demonstrate how culturally influential they were in this region.

Together, we shall use these discussions to explore how conservative late antique

Italians were in their onomastic practices. That is not to say we believe that there were no changes, or that they were unimportant. Indeed, as Salway argues, the transformations we do see in the trinominal system were linked to larger transformations in society.

However, it remains unclear whether the changes in onomastic tendencies were rejections of older, traditional naming customs or simply adaptations to new societal realities. In much of late antique society, we find that what may on the surface appear to be significant ruptures with the classical past in fact display continuity, and so it is worth examining whether names hold to this pattern. We hope that an analysis of Italian names in the contexts mentioned above will prove instructive on these points.

This study shall cover the years 313 to 604. These limits are not due simply to the convenience of the PCBE covering these dates; in addition, both ends of the spectrum signify important markers in the religious and cultural history of Italy. The beginning date, 313, corresponds with the issuing of the Edict of Milan, which not only legalized

Christianity in the Roman Empire but also led, at least indirectly, to the imperial administration’s patronage of the church. The year traditionally marks the beginning point of the rapid expansion of Christianity, and so it makes a convenient beginning point for examining the relationship between the Christian faith and names. The final year corresponds with the death of Pope Gregory I “the Great.” Gregory’s papacy is often

28 cited as a watershed between classical and medieval Christianity, 64 and so his death represents a convenient end for studies dealing with Late Antiquity. In addition, the year

604 also occurred roughly one generation after the invasion of the Lombards in 568/569, and so by this year the first onomastic fruits of this momentous event may begin to be visible.

The Database

In order to analyze the PCBE Italie , I have constructed a simple database in

Microsoft Excel, into which I have entered all 4,858 names contained in the prosopography. In many respects, the data follow the conventions of the PCBE . I have arranged names in alphabetical, and then chronological, order. That is to say, I have listed all individuals named “Iohannes” together in order of their first date of appearance.

I have placed all names of questionable authenticity after all names with a verified historicity, regardless of chronology, because this makes it somewhat easier to manipulate the data; this is also the manner in which the PCBE recorded spurious names.

I have included the database in Appendix 4 in an abbreviated form, and it might seem better to discuss such matters in the appendix. The database, however, is essential to this entire study, and so a description of it and my methodology is more appropriate here.

At the most basic level, I have sorted each name twice, first on the basis of gender, and secondly by the individual’s lay or ecclesiastic status. Thus, there are four basic categories: “male ecclesiastic,” “female ecclesiastic,” “male layperson,” and “female layperson.” An ecclesiastic, by my loose definition, is a person who held a formal position within, and recognized by, the institutional church. Even this most basic

64 See Herrin, Formation of Christendom , 145-183.

29 analysis came with some problems. In many cases, an individual has only the description

“servus/ancilla Dei/Christi.” In this early era at least, those titles could refer either to an unusually pious layperson or to an ecclesiastic.65 Nor did the PCBE offer much help, as most entries with these descriptors do not comment on the person’s ecclesiastical state. I have sorted these to the best of my ability, but it is possible that a perusal of the data by other, more-learned minds may reach a different opinion in certain cases.

Likewise, many of the females were quite difficult to sort according to ecclesial status. Many women in Late Antiquity took a vow of chastity, either as a virgin or a widow, but rather than join a community, they often lived in the home of a relative and had varying degrees of contact with the outside world. 66 Unlike men, for whom the status of deacon, priest, monk, bishop, or other formal ecclesiastical office clearly set them off from the lay population and included varying levels of institutional recognition and support, women taking vows rarely enjoyed as close an association with the institutional church. For cases in which women did enter a monastery or a formal ordo of widows or virgins or lived a clearly eremitic lifestyle, I have considered them to be ecclesiastics. However, I identify as “laywomen” those women who took such vows but still had significant contact with, or even involvement in, secular society.

To facilitate analyzing names at particular times, I have delineated short periods, most of them thirty-year time spans, which is about the length of a generation. There are some exceptions. The first two periods are of forty years, rather than thirty. The years

313-392 run from the Edict of Milan to the reign of Emperor Theodosius I, who made

65 See, e.g. PCBE , “Honorata 3,” I. 1005, where the title, used in a letter of Gregory I, appears to be an honorific, not a precise indication of her standing in the church. 66 Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 263-265.

Christianity the only legal belief system in the Roman Empire. This eighty-year span I have divided in two, in order to study the changes in the “Christian-ness” of names over this time of great religious upheaval. In almost every case, the use of shorter time-spans would result in so few names as to render statistical analysis problematic at best. This is particularly true in the earliest periods; for example, the first twenty years of the study would comprise of a mere forty-nine individuals. The entirety of the first eighty years would result in similarly tiny samples, if divided into twenty-year periods. Moreover, with twenty-year spans, the numbers per period do not regularly much exceed one hundred before the end of the fifth century, this is, more than two-thirds of the way through the study. 67 By increasing the periods after 393 to thirty years apiece, we consistently have larger samples without much decrease in our ability to determine short- term changes. 68

The database also has a category for alternate spellings of a name; I use this category to compensate for the PCBE ’s tendency to normalize the orthography of names.

Although I do follow the PCBE ’s editors in listing the main entry with the regularized spelling of a name, I also include any variants, for they can sometimes hold important clues. For example, a Latin name that is spelled with an -os ending instead of the usual - us – e.g. “Valentinos” instead of “Valentinus” – could indicate that the individual with the name dwelt in a Greek-speaking area. Orthography is a naturally difficult type of evidence to use, and arguments ought not rely solely upon it – after all, the writer could

67 The only exception is the period 393-412, which would contain exactly 200 individuals. 473-492 would have 184 persons, and 493-512 526. From this last period on, conciliar records and papal letter registers allow for larger numbers per period. 68 The smallest periods after 393, spanning 423-452 and 453-482, have 145 and 144 individuals, respectively. With the exception of the period 313-352 (which has 131 persons total), no other period has fewer than 275 persons,.

31 be a poor speller and, at any rate, Latin had no official system of correct spelling at this point– but, in conjunction with other data, it can provide ancillary support for an argument.

A related category is one entitled “Alternate or Full Name.” Most of the names in this grouping are the full names of an individual; here I follow the PCBE in listing only the final cognomen of an individual as the main entry, since a polyonomous person would most likely use only his final cognomen on a regular basis. Nevertheless, because of the importance of the name in signaling one’s heritage, and also in order to identify general patterns in Late Roman polyonomy, it is necessary also to record the entire name. If a person changed his name, I have listed his original name in this category and their new name in the main entry. Such instances are very few, and while they are rare enough that they defy any statistical analysis, specific cases can still provide witness to sparsely attested phenomena. For example, although there are only two examples of this in the database, the fact that two recorded bishops are known to have changed their names from pagan to Christian theophoric names may perhaps bear witness to a wider, but largely unrecorded, practice. 69 I have combined the categories of full and alternate names because the entire name of a polyonomous individual was used in rare and specific enough circumstances as to be almost an alternate name. 70

Geographic regions constitute still another set of data. One cannot assume that all

Italy had uniform naming patterns, with all names distributed fairly evenly throughout the peninsula, especially given the linguistic differences between the south and the north. To facilitate the comparison of naming customs on a geographic basis, I have divided Italy

69 See below, 78-9. 70 Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 141-142.

32 into seven regions (see fig. 0.1, page 156). I determined them by reconciling the laws of

Diocletian that reorganized the provincial administration of Italy, with Paul the Deacon’s description of the provinces of Italy at the time of the Lombard invasion. 71 I then grouped the provinces described in these sources into larger geographic units. The mainland has five main regions: the northeast, the northwest, central Italy, south Italy, and Rome. The northeast consists of the provinces of Istria et Venetica and Aemilia; the northwest of Liguria, and the Cottian Alps; central Italy of Umbria et Tuscia, Flaminia,

Valeria, Picenum, and northern Samnium; and southern Italy of Campania, Lucania,

Apulia et Calabria, the Bruttium, and southern Samnium. 72 The remaining two regions are Sicily and the islands of Corsica and Sardinia. Rome constitutes its own area for two main reasons. First, separating Roman names from the rest of the corpus will allow a direct comparison of my data and conclusions with those of other scholars, especially

Kajanto and Solin, who worked almost exclusively with the City. Secondly, Rome and its environs provide about a quarter of the entire sample, and so setting off the City allows for fairer comparisons between the other areas, particularly between Central Italy and the rest of the peninsula.

I have also included two related categories: “occupation or office” and “social rank.” On one level, they provide support for giving persons their respective “lay” or

“ecclesiastic” designation. In addition, the “social rank” category allows for an analysis of naming trends within groups, particularly within the “lay” set. Among the laity, an

71 Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum , ed. G. Wait, MGH SS. rer. Germ. 48 (1848), II.15-24, 96- 102. Idem , History of the Lombards , trans. William Dudley Foulke, ed. Edward Peters (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), II.15-24, pp. 71-79. I also used Richard J.A. Talbert et al., Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton [NJ]: Princeton University Press, 2000), nos. 1 and 101 as an aid in creating the map and finding specific locations. 72 I have divided Samnium because it is a long, narrow region which runs Northwest-Southeast down the center of Italy and it crosses the line that otherwise divides the central and southern regions.

33 entry’s occupation can provide evidence of his social rank. In the Later Roman Empire, in the kingdoms of Odovacer and of the Ostrogoths, and in Byzantine Italy, a person’s position at court afforded him a specific status in the social hierarchy. Knowing an individual’s occupation can therefore indicate his rank in society, even if he does not bear one of the formal honores of the late imperial period, like vir illustris . Thus, for example, we know that Theopompus 1001 must have been of a high rank because he held the office of comes domesticorum , even though no record of any specific honor he might have borne has survived. Likewise, the fossor Ipolytus 1001, judging by his menial profession, was probably a member of the lower classes. 73 For the ecclesiastics, we can use these groupings to seek different naming patterns amongst the various ranks and types of clergy. If neither social rank nor occupation is known for an individual, I designate him as “lay.”

Finally, I list the type of source which contains each entry’s name, and then its citation, as two separate categories in the database. The most obvious function of this is to evaluate whether a name is authentic or spurious. If the source containing the name is fantastical, is known to be forged, or appears to have been written at a much later date and not based on known, contemporary sources, that name will be considered specious.

However, being aware of a name’s provenance has other implications than simply determining its authenticity. The language of a source also has great import. For example, a Latin name appearing in a Greek source and being spelled in the Greek manner and in the Greek script, does not provide evidence that the individual with this

73 PCBE , “Theopompus,” II.2189-2190, and “Ipolytus,” I.1155.

34 name had any identification with the Greek language or culture. 74 Additionally, knowing the sources may reveal potential biases in the data. A very large number of the names in the final period of this study come from the collected works of Pope Gregory I, and so the data are skewed somewhat toward the social groups in the pontiff’s personal network, namely clergymen and the Roman senatorial aristocracy.

74 For example, the list Synodi Sardicensis nomina episcoporum is entirely in Greek and gives many Western bishops Hellenized Latin names, but one cannot tell from this list alone whether each of these bishops preferred the regular Latin version of their name, or the Hellenized version.

CHAPTER I – Saints’ Names, Saint’s Cults, and Anthroponymic Practice

Introduction

Given the prominence of Christianity in many of the cultural and social changes in Late Antiquity, scholars have often mused on the religion’s influence on nearly all facets of life in the late Roman world. Most authors have assumed that Christianity had some impact on late antique anthroponomy, but very few have attempted to prove a link between the two on a comprehensive basis. Even Iiro Kajanto, one of the great authorities on Latin naming practices in late antiquity, limited his studies on Christian names to the cities of Rome and Carthage. The present work, then, aims to help correct this imbalance by looking at Italy as a whole and seeking he degree to which people adopted names that might reasonably be considered Christian. Before addressing this issue, though, we must first establish what exactly constitutes a Christian name. As was mentioned above, 1 scholars generally agree that biblical names, theophoric names, and the names of major saints had a particularly Christian meaning to their bearers. However, only Kajanto argues explicitly that major saints’ names, that is, the names of widely or universally recognized saints, alone were Christian; others have only tested the assumption, if at all, in terms of major saints, but assume that their conclusions also pertain to minor saints as well.2 The lack of rigorous analysis of the effects of saints’ names on the onomastic practices of the surrounding population, particularly looking at whether those of minor saints had local popularity, warrants further investigation of the

1 See above, 16-18. 2 Kajanto, Early Christian Inscriptions , 97-100. Bagnall poses a possible exception on this point. I am not familiar with how “major” many of the Egyptian saints are, but the ones he mentions explicitly appear to have had at least regional importance, like Felix of Nola in Italy. See Bagnall, “Religious Conversion and Onomastic Change,” 111.

36 topic, if only to check Kajanto’s conclusion that even major saints had only a limited impact on naming practices. Thus, before looking at the effects of Christianity on anthroponymic practice, we must more closely study the “saints’ names” category and determine the extent to which there was or was not a link between cults and names.

Moreover, various scholars have come to contradictory conclusions about the relationship between naming practices and saint’s cults. On the one hand, Peter Brown in

The Cult of the Saints mentioned in passing that the use of a particular saint’s name in an area implies devotion to his cult.3 Likewise, Roger Bagnall assumed that the use of a saint’s name indicated links to devotional practice, and consequently he groups these names under the “Christian names” category. 4 On the other hand, Stephen Wilson argues that taking saints’ names did not become a popular practice until the High Middle Ages, and he tacitly dismissed the effect of local saint’s cults on naming customs.5

Some scholars have posited, in other contexts, that the names of religious figures and of the holy dead might be taboo. Anthropologically, societies not uncommonly avoid using the names of powerful figures. For example, Caroline Humphrey discusses how, in

Mongolia, the ability to call another person by his personal name has complex political associations; in particular, one cannot utter the name of a person more powerful than oneself.6 Late antique Italy does not provide a direct analogue, as the saints were not alive to early Christians in the same way were as mortals still dwelling on earth, even though scholarship suggests that late antique and early medieval Christians thought of the

3 Peter Brown, Cult of Saints , 58. This claim is based on a case study of the rising popularity of the name “Sergius” in the Holy Land, which argues that one can track the spread of the cult of St Sergius by mapping the spread of his name, which was hitherto rare in the region. 4 Bagnall, “Religious Conversion and Onomastic Change,” 111. 5 Wilson, Means of Naming , 58-61. 6 Caroline Humphrey, “On Being Named and Not Named: Authority, Persons, and The Names in Mongolia,” in Barbara Bodenhorn and Gabriele vom Bruck, eds., The Anthropology of Names and Naming (Cambrige [UK]: Cambridge University Press, 2006): 167-172.

37 saints as having a continuing presence on earth.7 Patrick Geary argues that the dead, and particularly the saints, “constituted an age class that continued to have a role and to exercise rights in society.” 8 Although Geary makes this argument largely in the context of

Merovingian and Carolingian Gaul and Germany, he builds upon the work of Peter

Brown, who makes similar claims about the deceased during Late Antiquity. 9 If, then, the people believed the holy dead were powerful, active forces in the living world, it is not a stretch to consider that the names of these saints could have been taboo in a fashion similar to that which Humphrey describes.

In this chapter, then, we shall test whether saints acted as namesakes or as taboo figures for naming. This analysis will consider two categories of saints: biblical saints – e.g. the Apostles Peter and Paul – and non-biblical saints, such as Felix of Nola. This distinction will help determine whether late antique persons thought of members of one group as worthier namesakes than members of the other. Such differences may not always be clear. One must consider that some saints, like Lawrence and Martin, were so widely popular as to be nearly as recognized as many of the biblical saints, and so the occurrences of their names might have patterns more similar to the biblical figures than post-biblical saints. We shall point out any such major exceptions but the analysis will, on the whole, focus on the overarching patterns, not the few, attractive exceptions, like

Lawrence and Martin.

7 For an introduction to medieval views about the dead, see Patrick J Geary, Living With the Dead in the Middle Ages (Ithaca [NY]: Cornell University Press, 1994), particularly 49-92 and 177-193 for the Early Middle Ages. 8 Ibid ., 36. 9 Peter Brown, Cult of Saints 69-85, and Peter Brown, Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982): 222-250.

It is only after examining the influence of saint’s cults in naming practices that we can attempt to determine the full impact of Christianity on naming practices. We hope to measure the degree of correlation found between cultic sites and the names of their associated saints in the surrounding regions. If a saint’s name does appear more commonly near his cultic site than elsewhere, then it would be safe to say that the names were considered to be Christian by contemporaries, and should therefore be categorized by modern scholars in this way. If the opposite is true, that a saint’s name is markedly absent near his cultic site, then the name was likely considered taboo, and so instances of that name further away from the saint’s cultic center are less likely to be Christian. For this reason, then, we must examine saint’s names before discussing the overall anthroponymic effects of Christianity. We shall assay this second topic in the next chapter.

One must also keep in mind that what was considered a saint’s name could shift over both time and space. A name cannot be considered linked to a saint until the life of the saint– and, more generally, after his death; for example, one cannot consider

“Martinus” to be a saint’s name until after the death of St. Martin of Tours in 397. Roger

Bagnall’s study on Egyptian Christian names stresses this point. 10 Likewise, the name of a minor saint might not gain recognition as a saint’s name elsewhere. The name

“Epiphanius,” might have called the late-fifth century bishop-saint of Pavia to Northern

Italian minds, but not to Sicilians’.

One final word of caution before proceeding to our present analysis. Most of this section must, for better or worse, rely upon large saint’s cults, for these are the ones which are best attested. Italy in particular boasts myriad late antique saints, particularly

10 Bagnall, “Religious Conversion and Onomastic Change,” 111.

39 martyrs, bishops, and martyred bishops. There is generally little evidence, however, for most of these cults before the Carolingian era and, in many cases, the dating of these saints’ acta and vitae (or the sources upon which they were based) is uncertain. Most of the cults discussed herein have independent witness to the veneration of holy persons as saints in this period, and we shall be forthright in indicating which cults lack such evidence.

Biblical Names

Rome serves as perhaps the most fitting starting point for the present analysis, for the wealth of onomastic evidence from the City has been essential to studies of Italian anthroponomy, both past and present. Kajanto’s large-scale study on Christian names focused largely on Rome, and so we can more clearly make comparisons with his conclusions. Additionally, Rome gives us the largest selection of names in the PCBE : of the 3,825 authentic male names in the collection, 1,320, or about one-third of all men’s names, hail from the Eternal City.11 This substantial sample allows for significantly more detailed analyses than studies on other regions, each of which have substantially smaller samples. The Roman onomastic corpus also has a smaller margin of error than other regions’ collections of names, due to the larger sample from Rome. Finally, Rome hosted the cults of its patrons, Saints Peter and Paul, who were widely-recognized biblical saints.

Of the city’s two patron saints, the Peter’s name far outstripped in popularity that of Paul. Even after accounting for some confusion over the precise number of individuals who bore the name which arises from the imprecise identification of attendees

11 34.51%, to be precise.

40 at church councils and synods held in Rome, the number of Petri in the city outnumbered the Pauli by over two to one. 12 Italy as a whole generally follows this pattern, with there being forty six Pauli for one hundred three Petri . However, “Petrus” appeared more commonly in Rome than in any other region of Italy, as roughly half of all Petri hailed from Rome, whereas an even distribution of names throughout Italy would yield only one-third of men bearing the name.13 Additionally, the name “Petrus” as a percentage of the entire naming corpus is marginally higher in Rome than elsewhere. 14 “Paulus,” too, proved rather more popular in Rome than elsewhere; about four out of ten Pauli had a

Roman origin, rather than the one in three one would expect from an even distribution of names.15

Figure 1.1, on page 157, represents the distribution of the names of “Paulus,”

“Petrus,” and “Iohannes” throughout Italy, and demonstrates that the names “Petrus” and

“Paulus” tended to appear near or slightly below the proportions yielded by an even distribution of names in most regions elsewhere in Italy. The chart shows the number of individuals bearing a name as the percentage both of the total number of instances of that name and of the total naming corpus in each region. This second figure helps

12 There are between forty and fifty-one Petri , compared to eighteen Pauli . Henceforth, I shall refer only to the maximum number persons bearing any name. Among the prosopographic and anthroponymic communities, there is the general consensus that fusion – combining the information about two or more persons into the entry for a single individual – is a much greater problem than fission – attributing information about one person to multiple individuals. See Dion C. Smythe, “‘A Whiter Shade of Pale’: Issues and Possibilities in Prosopography,” in K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, ed., Prosopography Approaches and Applications: a Handbook (Oxford: Unit for Prosopographical Research, Linacre College, 2007): 135-136. 13 The precise number depends on overlap again, of course. If there is no overlap, fifty-one of one hundred three (49.51%) are from Rome. The highest overlap decreases the numbers to forty out of ninety-two (43.48%). 14 The percentage ranges between 3.06 percent (forty of 1,309) and 3.86 percent (fifty one of 1,320) in Rome, compared to 2.41 percent (ninety two of 3,814) and 2.69 percent (103 of 3,825) overall, assuming maximum and minimum overlap, respectively. 15 Nineteen of forty six Pauli, or 41.30 percent, come from Rome, even though Rome comprises only 34.51 percent of all non-spurious male names in the study. Moreover, the Pauli comprise 1.44 percent of the Roman naming pool (nineteen of 1,320), compared to 1.2 percent for Italy as a whole (forty six of 3,825).

41 compensate for the large sample sizes in some regions. It should not overly surprise us that Rome had a larger number of men named “Paulus” than did Sicily, since the former region had six times the total names of the latter. The name’s percentage within the regional naming corpus, though, demonstrates that “Paulus” was also proportionally more popular in Rome than elsewhere.

Overall, the chart’s data show that, in Rome, the names of the city’s patron saints were proportionally more popular there than elsewhere in Italy, but there were a few exceptions. “Petrus” comprised a larger percentage of the naming pool both in Sicily and in Corsica and Sardinia than in Rome. In Sicily, one may explain this by the island’s large Greek-speaking population and the originally Greek derivation of “Petrus,” and so the name may have been popular there simply through linguistic affinity. The small sample size in Corsica and Sardinia may explain the large proportions of the name on the islands, since the small size means that the chances of “Petrus” – and, for that matter,

“Paulus” – being over-represented are quite significant. The large proportion of individuals named “Paulus” in Central Italy remains difficult to explain, although the proximity of the region to Rome, and particularly the ties between Rome and Ravenna, may partially answer this phenomenon.

One other way in which saints may have affected the naming patterns in Rome was not through a formal cultus, but through churches dedicated to a saint. In some cases, a church’s patron saint would highlight a saint’s cult in the city. For example, Saint

Peter’s Basilica, the cathedral church in Rome, emphasized the importance of Peter’s cult.

To be sure, the effect of churches with the same patron as the local saint’s cult on the naming corpus can be difficult to separate out from the cult itself.

One Roman example of a church not dedicated to a saint with a known cult in the city was that of the titular church of Saint Marcus. Although there was a Pope Marcus (r.

336), the fact that half of the Roman Marci were active three-quarters of a century or more after the pope makes his influence less likely. The presence of a church dedicated to St. Marcus may help explain the relative prevalence of the name “Marcus” in the City, as just over half of people bearing this name in this period came from Rome. “Marcus” was also a traditional Roman praenomen , and so the name may have been viewed as

“traditional,” although half the Marci date from the fifth century or later, when the use of praenomina had long fallen from use.16 One could be more certain of the church’s influence were it possible to map the locations of the individuals vis-à-vis the church, but the nature of the available evidence makes this nigh impossible. Llewellyn argues that the use of church baptisteries affected naming patterns, for he claims that parents would often name their children after the patron saint of the church in which they were baptized. 17

Ravenna also offers a possible example of a church that affected local anthroponomy, the church of San Giovanni Evangelista. Galla Placidia built the church in the early fifth century, probably around the year 430. 18 Figure 1.1 demonstrates that

Central Italy boasted an inordinate number of men named “Iohannes.” Of these thirty- seven, nineteen, or half, came from the city of Ravenna. 19 With the possible exception of a bishop attested in the late fifth century, all of the Iohannes appear long enough after the

16 Eight of fifteen authentic Marci came from the City, as well as the two spurious ones. Four of these date from the fifth or sixth centuries. PCBE , II.1388-1394. 17 Llewellyn, “Names of the Roman Clergy, 401-1046,” Rivista di storia delle chiesa in Italia 35, no 2 (1981): 362. He makes this argument in regard to the baptistery at the Lateran, which was one of the few, and one of the most important, such buildings in Rome at this time. 18 Janet Charlotte Smith, “The Side Chambers of San Giovanni Evangelista in Ravenna: Church Libraries of the Fifth Century,” Gesta 29, no. 1 (1990): 86. 19 Nineteen of thirty seven yields a proportion of 51.35 percent.

43 church’s construction that it is feasible they used the building’s patron saint as a namesake. 20 Moreover, twelve of these individuals were laymen, meaning that we can discount any possibility that they took a new name upon adopting holy orders. 21 This large proportion of Iohannes in a city with a church dedicated to John the Evangelist suggests a link between the church and names in Ravenna.

An examination of names throughout Italy reveals that its denizens were somewhat picky about what New Testament names they chose. Unlike their counterparts in the Central and Late Middle Ages, late antique Italians generally did not favor the names of the evangelists. Of the four, “Lucas” does not appear at all, “Matheus” appears only once, “Marcus” fifteen times, and “Iohannes” 148 times. As we mentioned above, the relative popularity of “Marcus,” especially in Rome, may be due in part to the existence of a Roman church, the long history of the name as a praenomen , and the reign of Pope Marcus. “Iohannes,” the most popular name in this study, is somewhat more complicated than the other three names. Although it can refer to John the Evangelist, the name also recalls the ever-popular John the Baptist. Given the relative uncommonness of the other three Evangelists’ names, it is tempting to attribute many of the instances of

“Iohannes” to the Baptist, rather than the Evangelist.

Yet other equally circumstantial evidence suggests that, at least in some cases, the

Evangelist provided the namesake for men named Iohannes. The strongest argument stems from the popularity of the names “Petrus” and “Paulus,” which were the second and sixth most common names in Italy, respectively. Saints Peter and Paul both, like

20 PCBE , “Iohannes 8,” 1061-1062 first attests Iohannes 1008 in the year 477. Given the lack of his birth date, it is impossible to determine whether he was born before, during, or after San Giovanni Evangelista’s construction. 21 For more on this possibility, see below, 82-88.

John, were Apostles, were believed to have authored New Testament Epistles, and were major figures in the New Testament narrative accounts. To be sure, the ubiquity of

“Petrus” and “Paulus” owed much to the active cults of Peter and Paul in Rome, while

John the Evangelist lacked a formal cultic center in the city at this time. 22 Nevertheless, the commonness of the names Petrus and Paulus outside Rome indicates that they derived their popularity not only from geographic proximity to these cults but also from other, probably religious, criteria, many of which John the Evangelist shared. Thus, the name

“Iohannes” may still have been popular because of devotion not only to John the Baptist, but also to John the Evangelist. The church of San Giovanni Evangelista in Ravenna suggests that, at least in imperial circles, John the Evangelist enjoyed popular veneration.

The names of these biblical saints did not commonly appear until the fifth century, however. In the fourth century, we have record of two ecclesiastics named “Petrus” and seven called “Paulus,” mostly from the city of Rome. However, with the exception of two fossores named “Petrus” and a Paulus in the train of the translator-historian Rufinus of Aquileia, no laymen appear with these names before the fifth century – the late-fifth century in the case of “Petrus.” Ecclesiastics, on the other hand, used both names throughout the fifth century. Clearly, churchmen had adopted these names into their corpus of acceptable names earlier than had laymen. By contrast, the name “Iohannes,” the most common name in the study, proved even less popular in the early years than those of Peter and Paul. With two lay exceptions, the name does not again appear in the records until the mid-fifth century and became popular only in the late-fifth century, at which point the number of examples quickly multiply, particularly among the

22 Llewellyn, “Names of the Roman Clergy,” 362, attributes the popularity of “Iohannes” in part to the Lateran Baptistery and, therefore, John the Baptist.

45 ecclesiastics. Indeed, before 470, we have five recorded ecclesiastics named “Iohannes,” but ten with that name from the period between 470 and 500. The name “Petrus” demonstrates a more striking example of this pattern, with eight churchmen bearing the name before 470, but twenty three between 470 and 500. 23

All these points beg the question of why the names of biblical saints might suddenly explode in popularity at the end of the fifth century. For the ecclesiastics, at least, the explanation may partially be documentary: in the final decades of the fifth century, the popes called three Church synods at Rome, and the records of the meetings list an unprecedented number of churchmen. That a perusal of this evidence should return a large number of previously recorded names ought not unduly surprise. Yet, the degree to which the names increased in popularity seems too great for increased documentation alone to provide the explanation. Before speculating upon the reasons for the surge in these names’ use at the end of the fifth century, however, it seems prudent to examine the patterns among non-biblical saints, too.

Non-biblical Saints

The City of Rome provides a convenient starting-point for a discussion of non- biblical saints, for it hosted a multitude of saint’s cults, in addition to those of Peter and

Paul. One of the most popular cults was that of Laurentius, more familiar to English- speakers as St. Lawrence. Devotion to this saint by the mid-fourth century is fairly clear: many late antique churches bore his name, and several Popes, including Damasus (r. Oct.

366- Dec. 384) and Leo I (r. Sept. 440 – Nov. 461), expounded upon the story of his

23 Likewise, we have two lay Petri from before 470, and five for the period between 470 and 500.

46 martyrdom. 24 For example, one of the major titular churches in the City was dedicated to

Laurentius. Of all the Laurentii in Italy, roughly forty percent came from Rome (see fig

1.2, p. 158).25 Outside Rome, the name was most popular in Central Italy; the Laurentii from this area constitute another quarter of the total. 26 This region’s proximity to the cult of St. Lawrence at Rome may explain his name’s popularity here, as the saint’s name tended to appear in low frequencies in the rest of Italy.

Moreover, St. Lawrence may have had an effect on female naming patterns in

Rome, as half of the women named “Laurentia” in this study hailed from the City and there is no evidence of a cult to a Laurentia there. 27 Nor does this seem an isolated phenomenon. Some three-quarters of the recorded instances of the name “Anastasia,” for example, come from Rome, which possibly hosted cults of the popes named Anastasius and contained a titular church dedicated to a St. Anastasius. It is also possible that female saints affected male naming patterns, too. The high proportions of Aemiliani and Sabini in Rome may partially result from the titular churches of St. Aemiliana and St. Sabina, although “Aemelianus” may also have its derivation from the gens Aemilia , a famous patrician family. Overall, though, females were more likely to have a masculine saintly namesake than the opposite. This makes sense in light of traditional Roman naming practices, by which females received the feminine version of the masculine family

24 Damasus papa, Epigrammata Damasiana , ed. Antonio Ferrua, S.J. (Città del Vaticano: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1942), 167. One might also note the church San Lorenzo in Damaso in Rome, which is associated with the pope. Perhaps one of the earliest full accounts of the saint’s martydom is that of Leo the Great: Leo Magnus, “Tractatus 85: ‘De Sancto Laurentio’” in Tractatus septem et nonaginta , ed. A. Chavasse CCSL 138, 2 vols. (Turnhout: Brepols, 1973), II.534-537. 25 39.06 percent (twenty five of sixty four), to be exact. 26 Fifteen of sixty four total, or 23.44 percent. 27 Some four out of eight, to be precise.

47 name. 28 It is not a great stretch to posit that naming a woman after a male could cross over from the family sphere to the religious.

The cult of St. Valentinus may also witness the effects of cults on anthroponomy.

Although scholars still debate about the identity of St. Valentine, they agree that by the late fourth century, there was a moderate popular following of the cult of a St. Valentinus.

29 On the Via Flaminia, over the purported site of the saint’s martyrdom, the faithful erected a church in his honor around 350. 30 Additionally, a fragmentary carmen of Pope

Damasus refers to veneration of the martyr. 31 Of the nineteen attested Valentini in the database, eleven, or nearly sixty percent, hailed from Rome.32 This evidence suggests that there may have been a link between this saint’s cult and naming practices. However,

“Valentinus” belonged to a category of names derived from the participial adjective valens , meaning “strong,” that was quite popular in Late Antiquity. 33 This fact provides an alternate, non-religious derivation of the name, and it is therefore likely that a number of these individuals received the name due to its lexical meaning. Yet the overwhelming concentration of this name in Rome and its relatively even distribution elsewhere suggests that the city had a particularity which made the name popular, and the cult of St.

Valentine provides the simplest explanation.

28 For a fuller discussion of Roman naming practices, and particularly female naming patterns, see chapter three, especially 104-112. 29 Particularly, there appear to have been at least two different Valentini to whom the saint’s cult could refer: a priest from Rome and a bishop of Interamna (modern-day Terni). In both cases, the saints were martyred in the late third century. For a brief overview, see Jack B. Oruch, “St. Valentine, Chaucer, and Spring in February,” Speculum 56, no. 3 (Jul. 1981),:535-536. 30 BS , “Valentine of Rome,” 579. 31 Damasus, Epigrammata Damasiana , 167. 32 57.89 percent, to be exact. 33 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 66. He notes on 45-46 that the name could also be related to the town of Valentia, but its wide distribution in comparison with other geographic names suggests most instances of the name were derived from the adjective.

Rome also had a renowned line of bishops, the popes, many of whom were eventually regarded as saints. The names of the popes pose something of a problem in terms of naming patterns. Peter Llewellyn, in an article surveying the names of the clergy at Rome between 401 and 1046, argued that the names of popes affected naming customs in Rome not because of the sanctity or personal appeal of a pope, but because of the office’s practical or political prestige. 34 He attributes the popularity of the name

“Felix,” for example, to the pontificates of Popes Felix III (r. 483-492) and Felix IV (r.

526-530) rather than to any saint named Felix, such as Pope Felix I, or to its general popularity as a Christian name.35 An examination of the commonality of popes’ names in

Rome lends merit to Llewellyn’s assertion. The name “Anastasius” appears rarely until after the pontificates of Anastasius I (r. November 399-December 401) and Anastasius II

(r. November 496-November 498). 36 Moreover, of the sixteen individuals named

Anastasius after 498, nine are Roman. Additionally, the three non-papal Anastasii between the pontificates were all Roman. One might attribute the latter statistic to the fact that Pope Anastasius I was considered a saint,37 although the evidence for his being regarded as such during the fifth century is very slim, and, at any rate, the name became much more common after the second Anastasius. Indeed, the evidence for veneration of most of the popes who eventually came to be recognized as saints – St. Peter excepted – is scarce, if at all extant, for Late Antiquity. These data consequently indicate that the names of popes affected naming practices because of political circumstances, rather than religious ones.

34 Peter A.B. Llewellyn, “Names of the Roman Clergy,” 362-363. 35 Ibid ., 359-360. 36 PCBE, 112-121. 37 Dom Basil Watkins, OSB, ed., The Book of Saints: A Comprehensive Biographical Dictionary , 7th ed. (London: A&C Black Publishers, 2002), “Anastasius I, Pope,” 33.

Papal names reveal another significant problem with examining naming patterns.

If a pope had a relatively common name, such as “Felix,” how much of the popularity of the name was due to the prestige and authority of the pope, and how much to other factors? “Felix,” according to Kajanto, was the most common Christian name in the

Western Empire during the fifth and early-sixth centuries, and two popes with the name reigned in this period. 38 Yet, of the twenty eight individuals from Rome bearing the name, thirteen lived before the reigns of the two Popes Felix, and a further five were contemporary with them – not to mention the two popes themselves. This means that the majority of the Felixes – twenty of twenty-eight – in all likelihood cannot owe their names to the two popes. Certainly, some of these individuals may have Pope Felix I (r.

269-274) or the relatively successful Antipope Felix II (r. 355-357) as namesakes.

Nevertheless, the ubiquity of the name elsewhere in Italy at the same time indicates that

“Felix” likely was a popular name for reasons other than papal associations.39

The name of Pope Leo poses a similar problem. The past scholarship on the subject suggests that animal names, such as Leo – Greek for “lion” – were popular regardless of religious creed and therefore had little or no Christian significance.40 The evidence supports this argument, for the name was just as common in Rome before the pope as after him, meaning that his name had little effect on the Roman naming pool, regardless of any political or religious appeal he may have added to the appellation.41

38 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 71-72. The popes were Felix II (III) (r. 483-492) and Felix III (IV) (r. 526- 530). Additionally, there was Antipope Felix II (r. 356-365), who may also have had an effect. 39 Some twenty three of forty eight non-Roman Felixes came before, or were contemporary with, the two popes. 40 Llewellyn, “Names of the Roman Clergy,” 362; Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 84-88. 41 Some seven or eight of the fourteen Leos in Rome were prior to or contemporary with the pope. PCBE , II.1269-1272.

As with the biblical saints, the patron of a major church might also affect local naming patterns. Rome again proves a useful example of this effect, as we have records the titular churches, which were the most important parishes in the City. We have already mentioned how the cult of Saint Lawrence likely affected the city’s anthroponymic practice after the construction of a church dedicated to him in the mid- fifth century. Other titular churches included those of Saints Aemiliana, Cyriacus, Sabina, and Sixtus. 42 These four churches all have a significant number of namesakes in the city of Rome. Both Aemilianae in the name corpus come from Rome, as does the one Sabina.

Although these numbers are not overwhelming, it is worth noting again that half of the

Aemiliani and one sixth of the Sabini are also found in Rome, suggesting that these churches could also have affected male names. 43 A little more than half of those named

Cyriacus and all of those named Sixtus came from the City, too. 44 Although “Sixtus” may partially owe its Roman popularity to the three popes bearing that name before or during this period, the significant concentration of these two names in a city with major churches bearing their names suggests a connection between them.

There are indications that names also had links to local saint’s cults elsewhere in

Italy. A striking example of this phenomenon comes from Southern Italy. One of the

42 These titular churches are all drawn from those mentioned by Roman conciliar and synodal lists cited in the PCBE . The rest of the titular churches mentioned in the PCBE are those dedicated to Saints Aequitius, Anastasius, Balbaina, Byzantus, Cecilia, Chysogonus, Clemens, Damasus, Eusebius, Fasciola, Gaius, Iohannes and Paulus, Iulius and Calistus, Iulus, Lucina, Marcellus, Nereus and Achilles, Nicomedius, Pammachius, Praxida, Priscus, Pudentiana, the “Four Crowned Martyrs” ( Quattuor Coranati ), Silvester, Susanna, Tigrida, Vestina, and Vitalis. 43 That the proportion of Sabini in Rome is not higher is due in part to the relatively high number of them in Southern Italy, where the cult of Sabinus of Spoleto was located, not to mention the region of Sabinum . 44 Three of six named Cyriacus and two of three named Quiriacus come from Rome. PCBE I.521-525, II.1874-1875. According to the Book of Saints , the two spellings are equivalent: Watkins, Book of Saints , “Cyriac, Cyriaca,” 138. Likewise, the editors of the PCBE treat the names “Sixtus” and “Xystus” as the same name, and all six came from Rome.

51 most famous saints from this area in Late Antiquity was Felix of Nola (d. ca. 250). 45 The saint’s popularity was due in large part to Paulinus of Nola’s many laudatory poems about him, which also bear witness to the popularity of his cult both in Southern Italy and in Rome. 46 Some twenty Felixes, about one-quarter of all Italian Felixes, hailed from the

Southern Italian region, the largest proportion outside of Rome itself. 47 Of these, fourteen come from Campania, the province in which stood Nola, the site of his cult. The tendency to use the name “Felix” may have been compounded in the area immediately surrounding Nola by that of another Felix of Nola, martyred there in 287, 48 although the relatively small size of his cultus makes it much less likely that he acted as namesake for many of the Campanian Felixes, let alone those in the rest of Southern Italy.

The cult of Juliana of Nicomedia provides another notable example of positive correlation between names and saint’s cults. Although apparently martyred at

Nicomedia, 49 Juliana had a popular following around Naples, as Pope Gregory I’s letter to Bishop Fortunatus II of Naples attests, since in it Gregory exhorts to bishop to allow a local matron to found a monastery in honor of Saint Juliana.50 Of the nine authentic

Julianae in the corpus, four came from Southern Italy. Moreover, a significant proportion

45 Watkins, Book of Saints , “Felix of Nola (1),” 203-204. See also Brown’s discussion of this saint in Cult of Saints , 53-57. 46 E.g. Paulinus Nolanus, “Carmen XXI,” in Thesaurus Paulini Nolani (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 158. 47 There are seventy nine Felixes total. PCBE I.769-811. 48 Watkins, Book of Saints , “Felix of Nola (2),” 204. 49 Watkins, Book of Saints , “Juliana of Nicomedia” 332. 50 Gregorius Magnus, “Epistola 185,” in Registrum Epistolarum , ed. D. Norberg, CCSL 140A (Brepols: Turnhout, 1982): “Januaria, religiosa femina, sanctuaria beatorum Severini confessoris et Julianae martyris oblata petitione sibi postulat debere concedi, quatenus in eorum nomine oratorium propriis sumptibus constructum possit solemniter consecrari. Et ideo, frater charissime, praefatae desideriis ex nostra te praeceptione convenit obedire, ut devotionis suae in consecratione quam postulat potiatur effectu.”

52 of Juliani also hailed from this region, suggesting that her cult may also have affected male naming patterns. 51

Central Italy affords a more modest example. Here, an early bishop of Ravenna,

Severus (d. 348?), enjoyed a small cult. 52 Of the seven Severi post-dating the bishop in this region, four come from Ravenna. 53 Since all four Ravennan Severi flourished at least a century after the bishop’s death, it seems unlikely that they took him as namesake for political reasons. The dating of the first three make it doubtful that they were members of the Byzantine administration who, as immigrants, were unlikely to use the name of a

Ravennan saint.54 Together, the seven Central Italian Severi constitute a quarter of the total number of men with this name. 55

Severus of Ravenna’s example also warrants a cautionary note in searching for local saint’s cults. As we indicated above, virtually every Italian city with a bishop has at least one, and often several, bishop regarded as holy. In most cases, however, we have little evidence outside of various acta and vitae for their veneration before the Central

Middle Ages. These types of documents are problematic in any case, for it is often difficult to determine whether they are authentic, relatively contemporary accounts or works that later bishops “discovered” in the process of enhancing the prestige of their own see. That Ravenna had an inordinate number of Severuses after the bishop suggests that there the bishop may have acted as namesake, and religious devotion seems a likely motivation for bestowing the names in at least three of the cases. Nevertheless, we do not

51 Five of thirty four total Iuliani, or 14.7 percent, came from Southern Italy. 52 Watkins, Book of Saints , “Severus of Ravenna,” 527. 53 There are in fact eight Severi in the region, but one is Severus of Ravenna himself. PCBE II.2052-2065. 54 PCBE , “Severus 1015,” 2058; ibid ., “Severus 1018,” 2060; ibid , “Severus 1019,” 2060; ibid ., “Severus 1021,” 2061. Severus 1015 is attested in 491, Severus 1018 and Severus 1019 are attested in 521, and Severus 1021 is attested in 553. Only the last would likely be an immigrant from the Eastern Empire. 55 24.13%, where Central Italy as a whole has 17.3% of the names in Italy.

53 have independent evidence from Late Antiquity that Ravennates regarded Severus as a saint, and so the results must remain somewhat speculative.

Most of the late antique bishops regarded as saints, though, had little or no effect on local anthroponymic patterns. This suggests two possibilities. First, these bishops were revered as saints, and their names were taboo. Secondly, these bishops had no cults, or only very minor cults, in late antiquity, and so there was no religious reason to use them as namesakes. The example of Felix of Nola, though, suggests that local saints with a popular cult could and did affect local naming patterns, and that of Severus of Ravenna indicates that even smaller cults could, on a local scale, affect anthroponomy.

The link between saints and names also appears to be stronger near cultic sites than in areas in which a saint spent good portions of his life. Saint Martin of Tours, one of the most popular late antique saints, provides an example of this. According to

Sulpicius Severus, who wrote Martin’s Life , Martin grew up in Pavia and, after leaving the military and entering the Church, spent some time in Milan, Gallinaria Island in the

Ligurian Sea, and Rome. 56 The evidence from Rome and Northwest Italy, however, does not reveal any notable prevalence of the saint’s name in these areas: one Martinus hailed from Northwest Italy, and three from Rome. Although these four Martini constitute one- third of all people bearing the name, one should note that they nevertheless make up a statistically insignificant portion of their local naming corpora. 57 Indeed, “Martinus” was actually most popular in Northeast Italy, which is best associated with Saint Martin by

56 Sulpicius Severus, Vita sancti Martini Turonensis (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2010), cc. 1, 5-7. Idem. , The Life of St. Martin , in Alexander Roberts, trans. and ed., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church , series 2, vol. 11 (New York: 1894; reprint, New York: Cosimo Press, 2007), c. 1, 5-7, pp. 3-4. 57 The three Martins from Rome constitute 0.3% of the Roman naming group, and the one from Milan makes up 0.4% of the Northwest Italy category.

54 lying between his birthplace, Pannonia, and Pavia, the city of his youth. There we find three people called “Martinus,” making them almost one percent of the population in our surviving sample.58 In none of these areas, though, does “Martinus” significantly outstrip its rate of appearance in the entire Italian naming corpus, and so we cannot establish any especial connection between the saint’s life and naming patterns. 59

It is not always obvious when a local saint served as a namesake near his cultic site. For example, the name “Petrus” displays a decidedly average rate of appearance in

Central Italy, despite the city of Ravenna hosting the cult of the moderately famous

Petrus Chrysologus (Greek, “of the Golden Speech”). The name appears in the region seventeen times, constituting about sixteen percent of all Petri in Italy, although two must be discounted in this case, since one is the saint himself, and the other pre-dates him. 60

The region boasts just over seventeen percent of the entire name corpus, meaning that the name appears slightly less often than might be expected. Likewise, “Petrus” accounts for about two-and-a-half percent of Central Italian names, which is nearly the same rate as for all of Italy. 61 Was it likely that some of these Petri were named after Petrus

Chysologus, since all fifteen that post-date him are recorded in Ravenna? The above- mentioned examples of Iuliana, Felix of Nola, and Severus of Ravenna all indicate that the local saint was a strong contender for namesake. Nevertheless, the fact remains that

Central Italians were no more likely to name children “Petrus” than inhabitants of the rest of the peninsula simply because there was a nearby cult of a well-regarded saint with that

58 0.75%, to be exact. 59 Overall, there are twelve Martinuses in Italy (out of 3,913 total male names), which yields a rate of 0.30667%. 60 Central Italian Petri account for seventeen of the one hundred three Petri total, or 16.5%; this falls to 14.56% after removing the two. Central Italy has 677 names, or 17.3% of the total. 61 In Central Italy, “Petrus” accounts for 2.51% of all names (2.21% for those post-dating Petrus Chrysologus), compared to 2.63% for all of Italy.

55 name. In many cases, it appears that universal or widely popular saints still enjoyed more popularity than minor, local ones. This does not mean that the local saints did not exert any influence on naming patterns, but rather that such effects are simply more difficult to find by comparison with of more universally recognized saints.

Both Central and Southern Italy, the regions with the largest naming corpora after

Rome, follow this pattern (see fig. 1.3, p. 159). The three most popular Central Italian names were “Iohannes,” “Petrus,” and “Stephanus,” with thirty seven, seventeen, and seventeen instances, respectively. Of the three, neither “Iohannes” nor “Stephanus” denotes a saint from Central Italy; the most famous saintly referents for these names were the Apostle John, John the Baptist, and Stephen the Protomartyr, all New Testament figures. “Petrus,” as was noted above, could refer to Petrus Chrysologus but, given that

Biblical characters are the most likely antecedents for the other two names, one should probably not rule out that some, if not most, were named for the Apostle Peter.

Particularly interesting is that “Iohannes,” although referring probably only to biblical persons, is much more common in Central Italy than in most other places in Italy. 62

“Stephanus,” as already mentioned, need not refer to the Protomartyr, as it also connotes a common Christian hope. 63 In Southern Italy, the four most popular names were

“Felix,” “Iohannes,” “Petrus,” and “Stephanus.” Other than Felix, which we have already discussed, none of these names have any connection to local saint’s cults.

As with the biblical saints’ names, we find that non-biblical saints’ names did not become popular namesakes until the fifth century. The earliest attested Laurentii , for example, were two ecclesiastics who appeared in the 390s, although four laymen with the

62 The thirty seven Central Italian Iohannes make up twenty five percent of the total; they also constitute 5.46% of Central Italian names, compared to 3.78% in all Italy. 63 See above, 9.

56 name are imprecisely dated to either the fourth or fifth centuries. Counting the laymen, only ten Laurentii appear before 470, but nineteen are attested between 470 and 500 alone. Similarly, only two ecclesiastics and one layman bore the name “Valentinus” before 470, compared to nine ecclesiastics using the name in the following thirty years.

Of the saints examined in this section, only the name of St. Felix does not follow this pattern. We must remember, however, that “Felix” was a popular name from Antiquity onwards, and was also popular as a Christian name for other reasons, too. The constant occurrences of “Felix,” then, may be due to the popularity of the name for reasons other than being linked to a saint’s cult.

The trend of saintly and biblical names not appearing frequently until at least the mid-fifth century is moderately puzzling. The simplest explanation appears to lie in the growth of Christianity after Theodosius I banned pagan religious practices at the end of the fourth century. That saints’ names should begin appearing much more frequently half a century after Theodosius’s edict seems natural, since many of the mature men and women using them would have been born after the decree. It seems natural that as pagan customs, in naming and other cultural practices, would slowly decline and, in many cases, be replaced by analogous Christian ones. But this cannot have been a simple one-to-one replacement. To make this assertion would be to ignore the fact that pagan theophoric names, which acted similarly to biblical and saints’ names, were not widely popular in the fourth century, constituting ten percent of the population, and they continued to occur throughout Late Antiquity.64 Even while these pagan names declined in frequency, their already low popularity suggests that Christian saint’s names did not simply replace them; other factors must have amplified their rates of occurrence in the general population.

64 See below, 66-67.

Saints’ Names as Taboo

Although it is not easy to prove that a saint’s name was more popular around his cultic site than elsewhere, it is much more difficult to demonstrate the opposite, that his name was taboo near the cultus. As the foregoing discussion shows, the names of major saints did appear with greatest frequency near their cultic sites. The cults of Ss. Petrus,

Paulus, Laurentius, Juliana, and Felix of Nola all very clearly illustrate this point. It is also hard to illustrate a naming taboo around minor saints, for many of them had borne generally unpopular names. For example, the name of St. Dominator, Bishop of Brescia, appears neither around his home city nor elsewhere in Italy. A lack of evidence, therefore, precludes drawing conclusions about whether his name was taboo near Brescia.

Other examples provide something of a false positive for a name being taboo.

The name of the martyr Chrysogonus provides a useful illustration of this point. An

Aquileian saint, Chrysogonus’s name does not appear often in the region. Only one person from Aquileia or Northeast Italy generally bears the name; the other three examples occur elsewhere. 65 This could appear to argue that the name “Chrysogonus” was not popular in the city and, perhaps, that the Aquileians avoided it because of the saint. A closer examination of the evidence, though, indicates that such a conclusion is not necessarily warranted. First, the one example from Aquileia in fact represents twenty-five percent of the examples of this name, although this is not statistically particularly significant. Secondly, the few records of names in Aquileia after the sack of the city in 452 creates difficulties in making any evaluation of the naming practices there after that point. Thirdly, all three other examples come from Rome, where there was a titular church dedicated to St. Chrysogonus. This means that the name had greater

65 Chrysogonus 1001, from PCBE I.439.

58 popularity around a site dedicated to the saint than elsewhere. The cultic center just happened not to be at Aquileia, where one might initially expect it. Finally, after accounting for alternate spellings of the name, three more individuals appear, two of whom come from Northeastern Italy – one from Aquileia and one from Tergeste – and one from Rome. 66 Thus, the name in fact did cluster around two sites associated with this particular saint, even whilst being absent from the expected cultic center, as it first appeared.

Indeed, the only taboo names of a religious nature appear to be those of the

Christian God. In no instance do we find an individual named “Jesus” or “Joshua” – the latter being a more direct transliteration of the Hebrew name – and only one “Christus,” which may not actually refer to Christ. 67 Likewise, there are no persons bearing derivatives of these names, either. Likewise, the names of God the Father and the Holy

Spirit is also absent, although the names “Columbus” and “Palumbus” may refer obliquely to this Person of the Trinity. 68

Conclusion

Given the amount of evidence for a correlation of names and saint’s cults, and a lack of information which might indicate a marked absence of a saint’s name near his cultic center, it seems reasonable to conclude that there was at least some tendency to name people after a local saint. To be sure, many examples of correlation are quite modest, and the greater popularity of somewhat more famous saints often overshadows

66 Crysogonus 1001 (from Tergeste), Crihsogonus 1001 (from Aquileia), and Crisogonus 1001 (from Rome); PCBE 509, 505, and 505. 67 See our discussion of the name “Chrestus” below, 66. 68 See below, 96-97. Both names mean “dove,” in Latin and Greek, respectively.

59 them. The strong associations of the names of major saints with areas around their physical cultic sites, as in the cases of Ss. Peter, Paul, Felix of Nola, and Juliana of

Nicomedia, indicate that people were purposefully named after at least these saints.

The correlation between saint’s cults and names suggests a little about late antique religious beliefs. The practice hints that Christians did not view saints as persons who were too holy to take as namesakes, but rather as beings to honor through the appropriation of their names. It appears that names may even have been a way of attempting to forge a link with the saint, whether simply by commemorating him or as a means of invoking the saint’s protection on the individual. Of course, looking only at names, we cannot definitively state how exactly names were used as a form of religious practice, yet this correlation between cults and names fits in well with Peter Brown’s hypotheses on the importance of the saints in late antique culture. One of the main roles of the saints, Brown posits, was to act as guardian spirits of sorts, rather like the genius or daimon in pagan Roman belief. He suggests that one or one’s parents could claim a saint as a child’s guardian in several ways: being born on his feast day, or naming the child after a saint.69 The moderately common practice of using a saint’s name, particularly when living near to the saint’s cultic center, as we have seen was done, lends weight to this argument.

The evidence also suggests something of a hierarchy in names commemorating holy persons. At the top of the hierarchy was the Christian God, particularly the Person of Jesus, the God-man. His name appears to have been wholly taboo. Next came the biblical saints, exemplary Christians whose names appear most frequently throughout all

Italy. This suggests that these saints were seen as the most worthy namesakes. Such a

69 Peter Brown, Cult of Saints , 57-59.

60 state of affairs makes sense in terms of Peter Brown’s interpretation of the role of saints: biblical figures would have been the easiest saints to associate closely with God, because of their interactions with Jesus, and so they may have been seen as the most effective protectors owing to their intimate contacts with God incarnate. The third level in the hierarchy was that of the local saints. The more popular cults did provide namesakes in their own regions, but rarely did they approach the popularity of the scriptural saints.

Only “Felix” rivaled the biblical saints in popularity, but this may be due as much to the fact that it was a widespread Christian name independent of the cult of Felix of Nola.

The overall trend was that local saints were less popular as namesakes than their biblical counterparts.

Iiro Kajanto argued in his study of Christian epigraphy in Carthage and Rome that the elites in Late Antique society generally tended to bear saints’ names more often than did their lower class counterparts, who more often used names denoting Christian concepts. 70 This disparity could be used to argue, among other things, that the upper classes used names to demonstrate attachment to a particular saint’s cult, which they likely patronized. However, the evidence in this present study does not support Kajanto’s assertions. Of the major saint’s cults that showed a noticeable correlation between cult and location, only the name Petrus occurred relatively more frequently among the aristocracy than the lower classes (see fig. 1.4, p. 159).71 Even then, most of those Petri did not come from Rome or Ravenna, both of which cities, as we have noted, had major cults of a St. Peter. Otherwise, the likelihood that an individual bore the name of a major cult figure was nearly equal for both classes.

70 Kajanto, Early Christian Inscriptions , 121. 71 For our definitions of class and ecclesial status, see above 33-34.

One reason that Kajanto made this assertion was that he grouped ecclesiastics and the aristocracy together. 72 His unstated reason for doing so appears to be that most ecclesiastics came from the elite, and so they had likely displayed similar naming patterns.

It seems prudent, therefore, to check whether ecclesiastics and the laity did indeed have similar naming patterns, before wholly dismissing Kajanto’s argument. We shall take up this task in the next chapter.

72 Ibid ., 121: “There were certain names which were never or extremely seldom borne by titled persons, the nobility and the clergy… This obvious class division of Christian names is difficult to explain in terms other than simple fashion.”

CHAPTER II – Christianity and Names

Introduction

Having shown the modest popularity of saints’ names, we can now return to the question of the degree to which Christianity affected Italian naming practices in Late

Antiquity. Previous scholars, although generally accepting that Christianity influenced anthroponymic practice, have been divided over the how strong the religion’s impact was.

Stephen Wilson assumes a minimalist position by arguing that, although biblical and theophoric names entered the onomastic corpus, they had a limited effect by comparison to the broader trends of the breakdown of the Latin trinominal system and the introduction of the Germanic dithemic system in Late Antiquity.1 The broad swath of time covered by Wilson, from the third century BC to the twentieth century AD, partially explains his position, as Christian names were demonstrably less dominant in Late

Antiquity than they were in the High and Late Middle Ages. Consequently, downplaying

– purposefully or not – the impact of Christianity on late antique names helps Wilson highlight the changes in later periods. Roger Bagnall adheres to a maximalist position.

He argues that one can use names to trace the rise of Christianity in Egypt, implying that

Christianity had a drastic effect on naming patterns, at least in his province of study.2 As

Bagnall admits, arguing that a “Christian” name discloses its bearer’s religious leanings is quite shaky, and so he notes that his study provides tentative results, at best.3

The present study also adopts a generally maximalist position in regards to the effects of Christianity on personal names. This is largely due to the nature of the sample

1 Wilson, Means of Naming , 65-103 2 Bagnall, “Religious Conversion and Onomastic Change,” 107-109. 3 Ibid. , 109.

63 of names used here. The majority of individuals in the PCBE Italie , and therefore this study, almost certainly explicitly thought of themselves as Christian, as many were either clergymen or Christian ascetics, or else the sources unequivocally called them Christians.

For most of the remainder there is only circumstantial evidence to suggest they were

Christians, such as interment in a Christian burial ground or inscriptions identifying them as supporters of a Christian building project. Thus, the vast majority of names in this corpus belonged to people who likely identified as Christian. If the Christian religion did indeed have an impact on anthroponymic practices, this group should be the most likely place to find evidence of their affinity with the religion.

Since we assume that Christianity had some impact on name choice in Late

Antiquity, the next step is to examine what names the religion popularized, and ask why they became common. We therefore propose to discuss three different topics in this regard. First, we shall briefly examine the initial two forty-year periods of the study, from 313-392, to see if Christianity wrought any naming changes over the first two generations after the religion’s legalization. It should become clear that Christian names did not become significantly more popular over these two periods, although they constituted a significant minority in both. Rather, Christianity seems not to have made much impact in Italian onomastic practice. Thereafter, we shall compare the names of ecclesiastics and laypersons, looking at how Christian were their naming pools. This examination shows that, on the whole, the two groups demonstrate moderate differences in the proportion of Christian names they employed, although those ecclesiastics living an ascetic life were much more likely to have Christian names. This final point suggests that monks, perhaps purposefully, chose Christian names. Finally, we shall briefly

64 analyze names from the final time period, 573-604, so as to see how “Christian” names had, or had not, become at the end of half a millennium of Christian belief. The much more Christian nature of names in this period indicates that, over the two intervening centuries, it became more common for an individual to use a name with religious connotations.

Before moving on, it seems prudent to reiterate what constitutes a “Christian” name. The three main categories – adapted from Bagnall – are biblical names, names expressing theological concepts, and saints’ names. The first refers to any names drawn from the Bible, particularly the New Testament. Barring contrary evidence, biblical names overlapping with other linguistic corpora, such as “Philippus,” are, for the purposes of this part of the study, considered to be Christian. The second category, theological concepts, is a bit ambiguous, but it includes names that have an obvious meaning in their original language and are seemingly related to Christian attitudes and concepts – e.g. “Eulogius” or “Felix.” This category includes theophoric names, such as

“Deogratias” or “Theodoros.” The last category, saints’ names, includes the names of major or local saints. As stressed above, one must keep in mind that what people considered to be the name of a saint could shift over time and space. 4

The First Generations: Names 313-392

The Roman Empire underwent a radical change in religious composition during the fourth century. In 313, when Constantine I issued the Edict of Milan, the Christians were a small, if vocal, minority within the Empire.5 Until the Edict, Christians had no

4 See above, 38. 5 Judith Herrin, Formation of Christianity , 54-55.

65 legal sanction for public worship, and so they were vulnerable to sporadic attempts at suppression by the authorities, with the recent Diocletianic persecution being the best known. After the religion began to enjoy explicit imperial patronage under Constantine I and his successors, adherence to the Christianity spread rapidly. By 380, the religion had enough of a public following for Emperor Theodosius I, together with his co-emperors

Gratian and Valentinian II, to issue the Edict of Thessalonica, which ordered that all subjects of the Empire adhere to the Christian faith. 6 Theodosius followed the edict with multiple prohibitions of various pagan customs. 7 In 393, the year after Theodosius became sole emperor, he officially proscribed all public forms of pagan worship, effectively outlawing polytheistic worship in the Empire. 8

392 provides a convenient end date for the opening period for several reasons.

First, the era splits into evenly divisible periods, allowing study of the change in naming patterns over smaller units of time. Unfortunately, the relative paucity of surviving names from between 313 and 392 force the smaller divisions to be forty-year, rather than twenty-year, periods. Nevertheless, contrasting the two divisions should suffice to indicate whether any major changes occurred. Secondly, the year 392 has particular political significance for the Western Empire, since in this year began the final single- man rule over the entire Roman Empire. Finally, 392 marks the last year in which other religions could openly compete with Christianity. The year 393 inaugurates Christian

6 Theodor Mommsen and Jean Rougé, eds., Le code Théodosien , trans. Jean Rougé (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2005) XVI.i.2, 114-115. And, moreover, that they follow the Nicene version of the faith, rather than the Arian. 7 E.g. the outlawing of public pagan sacrifices in 385: Ibid ., XVI.x.9, 438-439. 8 Peter Brown, “Christianization and Religious Conflict,” in The Late Empire, A.D. 337-425 , ed. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 646. Mommsen and Rougé, Le code Théodosien , XVI.10.12,442-447.

66 religious dominance, and so Christianity serves as the normative Roman religion for the rest of the study.

At first glance, it appears that the initial period, 313-352, has a very low rate of

Christian names. Of 113 names total in the sample, only five, or about four percent of the whole, appear clearly Christian. Four are biblical names: “Petrus,” “Paulus,” “Paula,” and “Ioses.” The fifth, “Chrestus,” which is a fairly common Latin corruption of the

Greek Christos , and probably signaled either devotion to Christ or, since this individual was a bishop, his state of having been anointed bishop. 9 The remaining 108 names are all

Latin or Greek names without any apparent Christian significance. Yet, many of these names may conceivably refer to Christian concepts and ideals, and so should likely still be classified as “Christian.” The names variously come from the other three types of

Christian names: theophoric names, like “Theodorus;” saints’ names, as in “Ianuarius” and “Marcus;” and names with commonly Christian meanings, like “Felix.” Of course, as we have mentioned above, many of these names did not necessarily have a Christian connotation. 10 Nevertheless, after taking such less patently Christian names into account, as many as forty-two of the 113 names, roughly one-third of the whole, may be considered Christian, although, given the impossibility to determining attitudes towards names with any certainty after one-and-a-half millennia, this figure is probably somewhat high.11

9 PCBE , “Chrestus,” I.431-432. For the meaning of “Chrestus,” see Lewis & Short, A Latin Dictionary , “Chrestus.” 10 For “Theodorus,” and theophoric names in general, see below, 75. We mention the possibility of pagan meanings for “Ianuarius” below, 76-770. For the problems with “Marcus” as a Christian name, see above, 42. 11 37.17%, to be precise. Other names possibly referring to saints were Maximus, Agrepinus, Crispinus, Crescens, Marcellinus, Protasius, and Theophilus. Names with non-saintly Christian connotations were Sperantius, Desiderius, Gaudentius, Latronianus, Liberius, Paulianus, Probatius, Adelphius, Agapitus, Encolpius, Evangelius, Gregorius, Martyrius, Theodorus, Zosimus, Zoticus, and Quiriacus.

In many respects, the onomastic corpus for this period displays fairly traditional naming patterns, especially among the Latin names. About one-quarter of the Latin names were classic praenomina , such as “Secundus,” or nomina , like “Iulius.” 12 The

Greek names reveal the continued practice of using descriptive names, such as

“Eulogios,” meaning “well-spoken;” roughly one-half of the Greek names during this period followed these patterns. 13 Another notable category was that of pagan names which were popular throughout Antiquity. 14 These names could be either theophoric, such as “Mercurius” or “Ammonius,” or references to mythological characters and locations, like “Olympius or Heracleianus.” Together, these constitute about nine percent of the sample, over twice the proportion of the most clearly Christian names.15 Overall, a little under half of the persons in the sample used overtly traditional names.

That traditional names, with or without a new-found Christian significance, should dominate the earliest sample makes a fair amount of sense. In 313, and largely throughout this early period, many of the outside influences that hastened the demise of the Roman naming system had not yet come to pass. To be sure, the Roman trinominal system had long been in decline, especially owing to the pressures toward a single name that the Antonine Constitution of the previous century exerted. Yet the transition to single names was far from complete. Many aristocrats still used multiple names, and some lower-rank individuals occasionally used two names. 16 Moreover, the complete lack of Germanic names in Italy at this time suggests that whatever Germanic peoples

12 Seventeen of the sixty three total Latin names, or 26.98%, were nomina or praenomina . 13 Twenty three out of forty-four, or 52.27% 14 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 53-59. 15 Ten of 113, or 8.85%. 16 E.g. PCBE , “Adelphius 1,” I.14-15 was a noble with a trinominal name, Clodius Celsinus Adelphius. Likewise, the deacon Tittius Felicissimus only used one name ( PCBE , “Felicissimus 2,” I.764).

68 may appear in the sample had adopted Roman names rather than attempting to preserve their own names. This means that the Germanic dithemic system had not yet begun its contributions to the tendency towards single names in Italy.

Many Christian names in the corpus, even if not “traditional” in the sense that they had a long history of use, largely adhered to existing naming conventions, particularly Greek ones. Several, like “Theodorus” and “Evangelus,” employed the

Greek custom of creating adjectival, augurative names. Even some of the Latin Christian names, such as “Gaudentius” and “Felicissimus,” appear to follow this Greek convention.

Moreover, many of the names that took on a Christian significance, such as Theodorus, are also attested in pagan antiquity. 17 This indicates that Christians initially preferred to adapt to local naming customs rather than choose unfamiliar names peculiar to their religion. This practice is likely due to a combination of the historical need to blend into the populace during times of persecution and, perhaps more importantly, the strong influences of Roman and Greek civilization. Yet some of the most popular Christian names, such as “Iohannes,” “Laurentius,” “Petrus,” and “Stephanus” were rare or even absent in this initial forty year period. The obviously foreign derivation or Christian significance of these names would militate against their use for Christians seeking to blend into the surrounding population by using more traditional Latin and Greek names.

“Iohannes,” for example, was a foreign Semitic name, and “Petrus” and “Stephanus,” although good Greek words – meaning “rock” and “crowned,” respectively – carry, as names, particular Christian connotations.

The second half of the opening period differs moderately from the first half in many respects. The names reveal a reduced prevalence of traditional names, particularly

17 Wilson, Means of Naming , 59, 60-61.

Latin names. Here, names drawn from the classic praenomina and nomina declined to roughly one-fifth of the group, a decrease of nearly half in comparison to the first period. 18 Traditional Greek names fell less precipitously, but were down twenty percent relative to the first half. 19 Even after taking pagan theophoric names into account, the traditional names decline to about one-quarter to the entire stock. 20 Yet names with

Christian connotations did not become notably more popular, edging up slightly from one-third to just under two fifths of the sample. 21

The rise of several other categories of names, especially in the Latin stock, partially filled the vacuum left by the decline of traditional names. The largest category is that of adjectival names that do not pertain uniquely to Christianity, a category well- attested in other sources, and explained at length by other scholars, particularly Iiro

Kajanto. 22 Although there were some few of these names, such as Fortunatus, in the earlier period, these names now comprise of roughly one-quarter of the Latin name stock. 23 A fair number of these names bear the –ianus ending, which is demonstrably classical. Most of the examples of this ending are in conjunction with other well-attested names, likely denoting that the individual was either formerly a slave of someone with that name or had been adopted by another family. 24 Another significant group is those with locative names, denoting a homeland or location, like “Dalmatius” or “Graecianus” or, more abstractly, “Limenius.”

18 Traditional names represent some thirty one of the 178 Latin names, or 17.42 percent. 19 Traditional Greek names comprise thirty seven of the eighty five total, or 43.53%. 20 Seventy two out of 267, or 26.96 percent. 21 Christian names form some 104 of the 267, or 38.95 percent. 22 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 31-39. 23 There are fifty of these names, thus making up 28.09 percent of the 178 Latin names. 24 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 32-35.

Finally, names denoting animals or animal-like traits, first become significantly popular in this period, with the appearance of names like “Leopardus,” “Taurus,” and

“Ursus.”25 Interestingly, unlike many of the animal names that Kajanto cites, the present selection of names has fewer negative connotations than most recorded in antiquity.

Although “Lupus” could indicate a kind of bestial ferocity that was not necessarily seen as a good trait, most, like “Leo” and “Ursus” have clearly positive connotations of strength and vitality. 26 Moreover, Kajanto argues that animal names, and their positive messages, were usually pagan in connotation. 27 As such, we ought not count them among Christian names.

The overall impression is that changes in naming customs that occurred in the first eighty years of this study followed trends already in action. Although the traditional praenomina and nomina were declining in favor of adjectival and animal names, this is not particularly remarkable, for both of the latter types are also well attested as cognomina in Antiquity. This means that people were still adopting traditional cognomina , at least. Likewise, the apparent stasis in the rates of Christian names may lie in the fact that great many of them had either a pre-Christian history or adhered to the old naming patterns. That is to say, many Christian names were not new-fangled interlopers into the existing naming corpus; rather, people continued older anthroponymic customs.

Given a lack of great pressure to change what cognomina people employed, we should not be surprised that they persisted in using traditional ones. The decline in instances of

25 To be fair, both “Leo” and “Pardus” appear once in the earlier period, but were statistically insignificant. Here they comprise of ten of the 178 Latin names, or 5.62 percent. Two Ursi, two Leopardi, and one each of Aquilinus, Capreus, Leo, Lupus, Taurus, and Taurinus compose the individuals with animal names in this period. 26 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 85. 27 Ibid ., 87-88.

71 biblical names during this period, despite the overall stability of the proportion of

Christian names in the sample, underscores the preferences for traditional cognomina and

Greek names. As was noted above, only four percent of the names in the earlier period were new and overtly Christian. In the later period, that figure falls to three percent. 28

The scarcity of New Testament names, which were most obviously new to the name corpus, indicates that Christians in the Later Roman Empire tended to favor older naming customs rather than introduce new names.

Previous scholarship has indicated that part of the reason for the persistence of traditional names in Italian sources was the conservatism of the senatorial class. 29 For these elites, the ability to document a long line of ancestry was a positive boon, and names offered them a convenient way to mark – or manufacture – their heritage. The conscious use of names to denote lineage, though, also caused the senatorial class consistently to use old names that had fallen out of fashion in other parts of society. 30

Kajanto, in his work on Christian names, indicated that aristocrats filled the ranks of the church, especially as bishops, and so he implied that the lay elite followed naming patterns similar to those of church leaders.31 While many Christian names, as we have argued, conformed to traditional onomastic practices, the foreign nature of biblical names and even some saints’ names to Latin ears means that groups with a highly Christian name pool could contain many foreign, and possibly non-traditional, names Thus, if

28 Eight out of 267 were Biblical, or 2.996%, if we include “Pascentius” and “Pascasius,” which refer to the Paschal Feast. 29 Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 141-144. Wilson, Means of Naming , 51-55. 30 Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 141-143. For example, Salway notes that the Constantinopolitan branches of senatorial families were still employing Latin nomina , like “Severus,” as late as the seventh and eighth centuries, even though they were otherwise Greek-speaking. For more on Greek names in general, see Chapter four below. 31 Kajanto, Early Christian Inscriptions , 121.

72 laymen and ecclesiastics, demonstrated different rates of Christianization in their naming practices, this could affect how traditional their names could be deemed.

Ecclesiastics and Laypeople

Those more familiar with the Middle Ages might find it surprising that Kajanto would indicate that the ecclesiastics employed a similar corpus of names as the laymen.

After all, many central medieval ecclesiastics, especially regular clergy, would adopt new names upon making their vows. With the exceptions of a few bishops,32 though, there is no evidence that this practice was current in Late Antiquity. Our analysis of the

Christianity of names among ecclesiastics and laymen will prove beneficial in several respects. First, we shall demonstrate that, although the ecclesiastics use names somewhat similar to the lay elite, and laymen in general, the differences are great enough that one should not lump them together, contrary to Kajanto’s social categorization in Early

Christian Inscriptions . Secondly, our study indicates that at least some parts of the clergy may have adopted new names later in life that were more fitting to their ecclesiastic station. Finally, our analysis of ecclesiastic names should show that, even though they had employed a fair number of Christian names, their naming patterns were still fairly traditional.

The category “ecclesiastics,” in my reckoning, includes men who belonged to the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the time, as well as monks, hermits, and ascetics. This is somewhat controversial, for church councils from the fourth and fifth centuries were

32 E.g. Pope John II, né Mercurius. PCBE , “Iohannes 30,” I.1081. The editors of the PCBE cite L. Duchesne and C. Vogel, eds., Le Liber Pontificalis , (Paris, 1955), 1:285.

73 explicit that the final three groups were lay, not clerical.33 However, their rigorous devotional practices and their common tendency to separate themselves from the population at large sets them off from the rest of the laity. Moreover, even if they were part of the formal clerical hierarchy, monks and ascetics made religious worship more central to their lives than the rest of the laity. For these reasons, monks and other ascetics still rank among the “ecclesiastics,” although one ought recognize that for much of the period contemporaries would not have thought of them as being in a similar category as other clerics.

A glance at the twenty most popular names for laymen and ecclesiastics (see fig.

2.1, page 159) reveals several trends in naming patterns that make for convenient comparisons between the groups. The names that both lists share offer a useful point from which to begin analysis. Given the affinity between the sites of saint’s cults and saints’ names, it is unsurprising that many of the most popular names, including the top three on each list, were the names of saints with major cults in Italy. 34 The fact that saints provided many of the most popular names further underscores the importance of major saint’s cults to Christian anthroponymic practice. Most of the names shared by both lists either referred to notable cults in Italy, like “Laurentius,” or were traditional Roman names, such as “Maximus” and “Severus.”

Of the shared names, “Constantius” and “Bonifatius” are the most difficult names for which to account in a religious sense. The popularity of “Constantius” in Central

Italy – and perhaps in Rome, to a degree – could be due to the cult of St. Constantius of

33 Warren C. Brown, et al. , “Introduction,” in Documentary Culture and the Laity in the Early Middle Ages , ed. Warren C. Brown, et al. (Cambridge [UK]: Cambridge University Press, 2013): 4. 34 We could extend the list to the top five, except that we have found no evidence for a cult to a St. Stephen in Italy.

Perugia. Similarly, the sanctified Pope Boniface I (r. Dec 418-Sep. 422) might explain the rise in the popularity of “Bonifatius” later in the fifth century, 35 but fails to explain the name’s sudden burst of popularity, particularly among the laity, in the final period of this study (573-604). Nevertheless, politics appear to have played a more significant role than religion in these names’ commonness. The reign of Pope Boniface II (r. Sep. 530-

Oct. 532) may possibly have influenced use of the name “Bonifatius,” but his failure to be recognized as a saint after his death militates against religious explanations for its popularity. The popularity of “Constantius” may also depend partially on the three emperors who used the name, given the lack of verified cults to saints with this name in

Italy during Late Antiquity.36

The nature of the names in the list that were not shared are perhaps more telling in regard to the differences between laymen and ecclesiastics. For churchmen, the names are almost uniformly unambiguously Christian names. With the exception of

“Florentius,” all the clergy’s names refer either to popular saints, such as “Valentinus” and “Leo,” or to names potentially displaying Christian ideals, like “Gaudentius.” In some cases, the names could be a combination of both factors: “Gaudentius” was concentrated in Central Italy, where the cult of Gaudentius of Ariminum flourished.

Likewise “Stephanus,” which could refer to the biblical Stephen the Protomartyr, or simply to the meaning of the name, “crowned,” referring to the crown of glory attained at

35 Unfortunately, this might also be due to the editors of the PCBE cautiously not combining several ambiguous individuals attending the Roman Councils of 487, 495, and 502; see entries Bonifacius 1007- Bonifatius 1011, PCBE 327-329. 36 However, see my discussion of emperors’ names below, 137-140, which indicates that the dating for this name is rather problematic if we try to associate it with the emperors named Constantius.

75 the Last Judgment.37 “Florentius,” though, appears to have had a non-religious derivation.

According to Kajanto, the name probably comes from the past participle of the verb floreo , and has implicit religious meaning.38 Thus, even this name, with a fairly neutral lexical meaning, may have had associations in several cases with the martyr St.

Florentius of Perusia.

The names of the laity, though, were not always as obviously Christian as those of the ecclesiastics. Five, “Anastasius,” “Theodorus,” “Deusdedit,” “Iohannis,” and

“Ianuarius,” fairly clearly refer to saints or Christian concepts. “Theodorus” and

“Deusdedit” are theophoric, meaning they bear the name of God – theos in Greek, deus in

Latin – and “Anastasius” signifies the Resurrection –anastasis in Greek. Admittedly,

Ianuarius may not reflect St. Ianuarius of Benevento as namesake, since none of the laymen bearing the name hail from Southern Italy. Ianuarius, then, may simply have been viewed as a traditional name, possibly with pagan connotations. The names

“Leontius,” “Romanus,” “Faustinus,” and “Fortunatus” all attest to the popularity of traditional names. The first two especially highlight the importance of traditional names because they have no associated saint’s cult.

Two names, “Basilius” and “Georgius,” may be related to saints. However, the most obvious candidates for both names were primarily Eastern saints – Basil the Great and St. George – and there is limited evidence for their cults in Italy at this time. As we shall see in the fourth chapter, at least some instances of the name “Georgius” likely bear

37 Cf. 1 Peter 5:4: “And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.” (NSV) (the “crown of glory” in Greek is “ η ,” (transliterated “tês dóls stéphanon”)) 38 Kajanto, Latin cognomina , 116.

76 witness to the cultural influence of the Byzantines after their invasion of Italy in 535. 39

“Basilius” is rather more difficult to explain in religious terms. The more likely explanation for this noble name is that it demonstrates continued popularity from earlier times, rather than having adopted Christian associations.

One must note that several of the names on each list may not be as clearly

“religious” in connotation as they might appear. As the first discussion about the ecclesiastics implied, some of the names with Christian associations were also traditional names. For example, “Severus” and “Maximus,” both of which could refer to several different saints, also happened to be fairly common Roman names. Likewise,

“Ianuarius,” although associated with St. Ianuarius of Benevento, also had fairly obvious pagan connotations. The name “Victor,” although conceivably signifying the Christian ideal of triumph over sin and death, probably was viewed as a traditional name, as it is well-attested throughout antiquity. 40 Even the name “Paulus,” clearly associated with St.

Paul of New Testament fame, could in some instances have been related to the old Latin cognomen Paul(l)us, rather than to the saint. Thus, we must exercise caution in categorizing such names; in these instances, a geographic correlation with the relevant saint’s cult is fruitful.

One should not make too much of the fact that laymen, in this instance, made more use of names without overt religious associations. Only four of the twenty one names, “Leontius,” “Romanus,” “Faustinus,” and “Fortunatus,” or just under a fifth, are

39 See below, 135-137. 40 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 98. I disagree with Kajanto’s dismissal of any Christian meaning to the name, since, unlike Kajanto, I believe that names did not have static meanings, and the obvious Christian connotations this name could bear, as well as its associations with a number of minor late antique saints (e.g. Victor the Moor, who died in Milan), could mean some instances were Christian. However, I am in agreement with the main point that, given the great popularity of the name in pagan antiquity, many would have viewed the name as a traditional one without any necessary Christian implication.

77 purely secular. Moreover, the individuals bearing these names made up barely ten percent of the sample. 41 This indicates that, although the laity were more likely to use traditional, non-Christianized names than the ecclesiastics, such names were still not popular among them.

Yet, it is telling that the non-religious names appear solely on the laymen’s list.

The shared names, which are mostly Christian, indicate that there were certain very popular saints and religious ideals which all people, lay and ecclesiastic alike, thought of as worthy namesakes. The differences between the names particular to each class of people demonstrate a shift in the criteria for who or what constitutes a fitting namesake.

While the laymen employed a mixture of Christian and traditionally Roman names, the ecclesiastics chose only religious names. Moreover, the names used seem fairly well- suited to each class. The ecclesiastics seem more apt to have taken names of saints and theological concepts like “Epiphanius.” The laity, conversely, used Christian names with more readily understood meanings – theophoric names, which laymen were about twice as likely to bear as ecclesiastics, perhaps because they were a rather unsubtle means of expressing devotion to the Christian God – or saints well-suited to lay professions, as in the case of Georgius and the soldiers. 42

Why should ecclesiastics, though, bear almost exclusively religious names? Two hypotheses appear likely. The first is that parents were more likely to give Christian names to children who were likely, or even destined, to become churchmen. This possibility makes at least some sense in light of the lack of procreative prohibitions on the secular clergy at this time, which suggests that at least some clerics may have been

41 Individuals with non-religious names comprise thirty four of the 313 individuals in the sample, or 10.86 percent. 42 See below, 135-137.

78 following in their father’s path. That children of clerical fathers could be more likely to bear Christian names seems fairly logical. On the other hand, even given the legal and social pressures on children to follow their fathers’ trades, one might expect to find more non-religious or ambiguously Christian names in the top twenty that might account for the sons of laymen who joined the clergy. Of course, this does not mean that children not destined for the clergy were not given Christian names. Obviously, many of the laymen, as we have already seen, used them. Moreover, some prelates did in fact urge their flock to give children Christian names simply out of piety, and it seems likely that at least some followed this advice. 43 However, the overwhelmingly Christian nature of the most popular ecclesiastical names suggests that, perhaps, the expected future of the child might have played a role in whether or not he received a Christian name.

The second hypothesis is that at least some clerics adopted a new, Christian name upon taking up their religious posts. Such a theory at least accounts for the low number of non- or possibly Christian names in the top twenty. Pope John II did this upon being elected bishop of Rome, as he thought the overtly pagan connotations of his birth name,

Mercurius, were unsuitable for such a high-ranked prelate.44 Indeed, some scholars have claimed that the adoption of a new name at various points in a person’s life was a fairly

43 The best-known example is from a homily of John Chrysostom, the archbishop of Constantinople, who urged parents not to name their children after family members, but after saints: John Chrysostom, Sur la vaine gloire et l'éducation des enfants , ed. and trans. Anne-Marie Malingrey (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1972), 146, ln. 648-651: “ ηε ε ω εω ε ι , η ι , ’ ε ιω , ω , ιω , ω .” [“Therefore, let no one strive to bestow on children (lit. “in childhood”) the names of the ancestors, of the father and the mother and the grandfather and the grandfather’s grandfather, but rather let him strive to give the names of the just, the martyrs, the bishops, and the apostles.”] The English translation is my own. 44 PCBE , “Iohannes 30,” 1081. The editors of the PCBE cite L. Duchesne and C. Vogel, eds., Le Liber Pontificalis , (Paris, 1955), 1:285.

79 common practice in Late Antiquity. 45 However, the nearly complete lack of documentation for such a habit outside of John II’s example underscores the need for caution in this argument. John’s case indicates, at the very least, that such a practice did not occur automatically upon ordination, since he held religious office before becoming pope, and his name had seemed perfectly suitable until then.

A closer look at the available evidence will demonstrate that the latter hypothesis on the later adoption of new names is the more likely of the two. Although the twenty most popular names are useful for making certain comparisons, they are only a portion of the available evidence. In the case of the ecclesiastics, the top twenty names constitute only a quarter of the whole corpus of recorded ecclesiastical names. 46 The laymen’s most popular names also account for about a quarter of the total. 47 As such, it is necessary to compare the entire collections for each category before making definitive conclusions, rather than making them after an incomplete study.

After we account for all the ecclesiastics, their naming patterns initially appear much less Christian than the study of the top twenty names would indicate. Only one- third of the names on the ecclesiastical list can be considered uniquely “Christian,” 48 and even this reckoning is likely over-generous. The name “Achilleus,” for example, appears in this list, since it is possible that it referred to a prominent bishop at the Council of

45 Amory, People and Identity , 87: “People could and did change their names, at marriage, baptism, taking monastic vows, and conversion.” Amory cites no source for this statement nor follows up on it, and the PCBE database, as well as other secondary material, does not generally support it. Kajanto, Early Christian Inscriptions , 118-121, discusses only cases of baptism, but argues that adults receiving baptism, at least, could change their names to more Christian ones. The present study does not have any new evidence to support or refute this argument. 46 624 out of 2,250, or 27.73 percent. 47 313 of 1,369, or 22.86 percent. 48 340 of 967 different names, or 35.16 percent.

Nicaea in 313.49 It is, however, equally likely that the name had more obvious classical connotations. After removing the more ambiguously Christian names, and those with strong pre-Christian histories without saintly associations – e.g. “Severus” – the rate drops to one-quarter of the total. 50 These numbers would appear argue against the theories that ecclesiastics bore names appropriate to their religious stations.

However, the actual number of individual ecclesiastics bearing Christian names, as opposed to the percentage of names in the corpus, is rather more striking. At least half of ecclesiastics used names from the pared down list of Christian names. 51 The expanded list brings the figure up to two-thirds of all ecclesiastics. 52 It is nigh impossible to divine simply from an inscription or passing reference in a narrative text whether an individual bearing a traditional Roman or Greek name thought that his appellation had a Christian connotation,53 and so we cannot claim that a particular sample surely had a specific percentage of Christian names. Nevertheless, it seems safe to say that a significant proportion of ecclesiastics thought of their names as Christian, for the correlation between names and the cults of saints clearly supports the idea that a large number of churchmen viewed their names in this manner. Of the 1,200 individuals with a name that could be associated with a saint, just under half came from regions near saint’s cults. 54

This does not account, though, for individuals bearing otherwise Christian names, such as

“Anastasius,” or New Testament names with weak ties to a particular cultic center. For example, only one-third of individuals named “Iohannes” hailed from an area near a cult

49 BS , “Achilles of Larissa,” 4. 50 245 of the aforementioned 967 names, or 25.34 percent. 51 There are some 1,397 individuals, from 2,550 total, yielding a rate of 54.78 percent. 52 1,657 or 2,550, or 64.98 percent. 53 Wipszycka, “La valeur de l’onomastique,” 173-174; Bagnall, “Conversion and Onomastics: A Reply,” 245-246. 54 570, or 47.5 percent, to be exact.

81 of either St. John, but the name’s close associations with both major New Testament saints and its absence in the pre-Christian name corpus in Italy makes most instances of this name almost undeniably Christian. 55 After adding in individuals with names that were likely Christian, regardless of physical proximity to a saint’s cult, the rate rises to just over sixty percent. 56 Indeed, this collection of names accounts for around one-third of all ecclesiastics. 57 Thus, an examination of saints’ names alone indicates that at least a third of ecclesiastics used Christian names.

In terms of the ratio of Christian to non-Christian names, the laymen reveal similar, although slightly lower, habits. The maximal list of Christian lay names is just over thirty percent of the whole, and the minimal list (with more traditional names removed) is slightly under one-quarter.58 However, the number of lay individuals bearing these Christian and possibly Christian names is somewhat smaller than that of the churchmen. Persons on the conservative list constitute a little over forty percent of the whole, and the rate rises only to about one-half on the less conservative list. 59 An analysis of laypersons with names possibly associated with a saint, analogous to that undertaken for the ecclesiastics, reveals a lower correlation than is seen among their clerical brethren.

These names accounted for just under one-quarter of all laymen’s names.60 This means that laity were moderately less likely than their ecclesiastical counterparts to bear an obviously Christian name.

55 Thirty three out of ninety. 56 746 of the 1,200, or 62.17 percent. The added names were Timotheus, Gregorius, Anastasius, Stephanus, Valentinus, Bonifatius, Iohannes, Petrus, Laurentius, Felix, and Ecclesius, which is a rather conservative list. 57 746 of 2,250, or 33.16% 58 253 and 186 of the total of 783, respectively, yielding rates of 32.31 percent and 23.75 percent. 59 602 and 702 of 1,370, respectively, or 43.94 and 51.24 percent. 60 I used the same list as the ecclesiastics, with the name Diaconus added to the list.

We must recall, though, that all of the names in aggregate obscure trends over time. In the initial periods of the study, as we saw above, Christian names constituted between one-third and two fifths of the Italian naming corpus. Yet, these numbers assume the widest conceivable range of Christian names, and contemporaries would likely not have recognized many of them as having a primarily Christian meaning.

However, as we also noted, those names that were surely Christian, like “Petrus,” made up five to ten percent of names in this period. As we will see below, by the late-sixth century, Christian names became fairly common, with biblical names alone constituting sixteen percent of the extant names. Moreover, names with nearly certain Christian significances overall made up twenty five to thirty percent of the population. This figure does not include names of major saints or otherwise Christian names like “Paschalis;” when taken into account, these names raise the proportion of Christian names to just under forty percent. 61

Additionally, there are hints that the aggregate numbers may not be as representative as one might hope. For example, evidence from the late-fifth and early- sixth centuries indicates that among ecclesiastics the rates of Christian names may well have had much higher rates than first appears. Between 487 and 502, the Roman popes called four synods, for all of which we still have the lists of attendees. 62 The records of these councils provide a much fuller picture of the clergy in Rome than at any other time

61 Some 337 of 846 total names from the final period, or 39.84 percent, are likely to be Christian in connotation. 62 The synods were held in the years 487, 495, 499, and 502. Acta synodorum habitarum Romae , MGH aa 12, 399-455; this is equivalent to Symmachus papa, Epistolae Romanorum pontificum , volume 1, ed. Andreas Thiel (Braunsberg: Nachdr. d. Ausg., 1868; New York: Olms, 1974), ep . 1, 5, and 6, 641-654, 657-696.

83 covered in this study. Thus, one would expect that a case study of these name lists would provide the most accurate sample of clerical naming patterns in this study.

In sum, the lists of those attending the Roman synods provide the names of 336 men. Some 202 persons in this group, or sixty percent, bore names that had an undoubted Christian significance – i.e. biblical names, the names of local saints, theophoric names, or names with clear Christian significances, like “Anastasius.” 63 If we include the less patently Christian names, like “Ianuarius,” the figure rises to 221, or about two-thirds of the total. 64 Some confusion over the identity of persons bearing common names who may have attended several of the councils, and so there may result in an overlap of some sixty two individuals. If we assume maximum overlap, the number of total recorded individuals falls to 274, and those using Christian names to a range of

140 to 159. In other words, even after removing all possibly duplicated entries from our list, between fifty and sixty percent of the council attendees bore Christian names. 65

Clearly, this ecclesiastical sampling far outstrips the minimum overall figure we saw above of one-third of all names being Christian. The numbers are also quite striking in a contemporary context. Among the 179 ecclesiastics from this period not recorded at the

Roman councils, between sixty and seventy nine individuals, a range of thirty four to forty four percent, used a name with a Christian meaning. 66 The rates of this latter group match up fairly well with the aggregate rates that we examined above.

The causes of this vast disparity between the conciliar and non-conciliar ecclesiastics are not entirely clear. The large number of Roman priests and deacons in

63 202 of 366 works out to be 60.12 percent. 64 221 out of 336 works out to be 65.77 percent. 65 A rate of 140 of 274 yields 51.10 percent, and 159 of 274 gives us 58.03 percent. 66 The minimum figure of 60 out of 179 is 33.52 percent; the maximum, seventy nine of 179, constitutes 44.13 percent.

84 these lists could mean that the use of Christian names was perhaps a feature peculiar to the Eternal City. A comparison of all individuals from the different regions in Italy during this period bears this hypothesis out. As fig. 2.2 shows on page 160, Rome had the highest rate of Christian names of all regions with a sample size above fifty. Both the

Eastern Empire and Sardinia and Corsica have higher percentages, but the figures likely result from small sample sizes. Moreover, the few bishops at the councils from outside

Rome show a somewhat lower rate of Christian names than the Romans. 67 This all suggests that, while Rome may have been something of a center for saint-inspired names, the clergy as a whole may have had a higher rate of Christian names than has been previously suggested.

How do all these statistics affect the hypotheses concerning the naming patterns of ecclesiastics? The only moderate differences between ecclesiastics and the laity make firm conclusions difficult to reach. The notion of an optional name change appears more promising than names given at birth. Not only does the case of Pope John II provide slim evidence for this, but the difference in the rate of Christian names between the two groups in aggregate, which is at least partially at the expense of names with pagan significances, 68 also seems to support the theory that ecclesiastical names were at least moderately managed. Moreover, there is little evidence in our sample showing that members of ecclesiastic families shared names. If the Roman conciliar case study is more accurate than an analysis of overall ecclesiastical evidence, the phenomenally high rate of Christian names among this group, compared to all other social groups, would also

67 Some four to seven of fourteen bishops had conceivably Christian names, which is a rate between 28.53 and fifty percent. 68 Only 17 of 2,250 ecclesiastics (or .76 percent) have names with purely pagan connotations. Compare this to the laymen, where 33 of 1,369, or 2.41 percent, have pagan names.

85 seem to lend some weight to this hypothesis. Finally, an examination of the names of the monks in the PCBE provides evidence in favor of the thesis of name changes.

The monastic subset of ecclesiastics is small, and so must be treated with some statistical caution. In total, there are eighty eight monks and 103 abbots in the sample.

All told, the monks do not comprise even ten percent of the entire ecclesiastic population. 69 Such a small sample means that we can draw only tentative conclusions owing to the distinct possibility of the list being unrepresentative of all monastics from this period. Nevertheless, the results are notable enough to be worth mentioning.

The available names indicate that the monks were quite likely to bear a name with a Christian connotation. Over sixty percent of abbatial names were almost surely

Christian – that is, the names of saints near the saints’ cult sites or names with otherwise strong Christian connotations – and the figure for the monks rises slightly to just under seventy percent. 70 Moreover, the number of individuals bearing these names for both groups is around seventy percent. 71 Recall that, for ecclesiastics as a whole, only thirty percent of individuals bore clearly Christian names, and the conciliar case study yielded a rate of around sixty percent. It appears, then, that monks and abbots used names with clear Christian connotations more often than churchmen in general.

There are also some indications that the monks bore names appropriate to their station in life. The name “Antonius” – “Antony” in English – provides the clearest clue to this tendency. Of the seven ecclesiastics with this name, four were monks; this suggests they were more likely, both in absolute terms and on average, to use this name

69 Some 7.49 percent (191 out of 2,550). 70 Fifty two of eighty two abbatial names were considered “Likely Christian,” or 63.41 percent; for monks the figure was fifty five of seventy nine, or 69.62 percent. 71 Seventy one of 103 abbots, or 68.93 percent, used names that likely had a Christian connotation, as did sixty three of eighty eight monks, or 71.59 percent.

86 than other ecclesiastics. 72 To be sure, “Antonius” was a traditional Roman nomen , and it is certainly possible that some or all of the ecclesiastics with this name thought of it as one. On the other hand, it seems likely that the monks took the name in honor of the famous Egyptian ascetic St. Antony. All four Antonii lived within twenty years of the death of the saint and, more importantly, at least that long after the Roman exile of

Athanasius of Alexandria, during which he popularized the cult of the ascetic saint with his Vita Antonii .73 It would indeed be appropriate for monks to bear the name of one of the first and most famous Christian ascetics.

Several other examples also indicate that some names happened to be fitting for monks. One of the two ecclesiastics named “Pastor,” an appropriate name for someone leading a community of believers, was a sixth-century abbot; the other was a sixth- century bishop of Asti.74 We also have a record of one abbot named “Regulus.” 75 This name was a well-attested Roman cognomen , but its meaning, “petty king” – that is, ruler of a small domain – and its connection with regula , the Latin term often applied to monastic codes of living, which began to appear in the early fifth century, make it an appropriate one for an abbot. Although there is no certain evidence that the names were chosen to suit their bearers’ monastic lives, they make, at the very least, striking coincidences.

The much higher than average rate of Christian names among monks, as well as the occasional usage of names befitting a monastic life, suggests that the Christian

72 “Antonius” comprises seven of 2,550 ecclesiastic names, or 0.27 percent of the whole. For monks, the name is four of 191 names, or 2.09 percent. 73 Mayke de Jong, In Samuel’s Image: Child Oblation in the Early Medieval West (Leiden [Netherlands]: E.J. Brill, 1996), 20. Interestingly, one monk also shared the name of the Alexandrian bishop: see “Athanasios,” PCBE I.214. 74 “Pastor 2,” PCBE II.1611-12. 75 PCBE , “Regulus,” II.1886.

87 connotations of their nomenclature may have been intentional. Individuals adopting a new name upon committing to the ascetic life would constitute the simplest explanation.

Monks sought a break from the “world” and their old lives, and taking a new name would be an effective means of indicating this. However, there is little solid evidence of this custom during Late Antiquity.76

One plausible alternate explanation for at least some of the difference between the monks and other ecclesiastics in terms of naming can be found in the practice of child oblation. It is clear that this custom, although commonly associated with later phases of monasticism, had its origins in Late Antiquity. St. Benedict, for example, includes a chapter regulating oblation in his Rule , and this suggests that it must have been occurring at a noticeable level in the mid-sixth century, when he wrote the rule.77 It makes sense that parents planning to give their child to a monastery might have endowed him with a

Christian name, or, particularly if the child were young, that the monks could give him a more religious name befitting his new station. No matter how logical, we cannot know with certainty that this was the case, for contemporary sources were, and therefore more recent studies have also been, generally silent in regard to the names of oblates. 78 In any event, oblation alone likely cannot account for all of the discrepancies in the rates of

76 None of the monks or abbots (or other ascetics, for that matter) in the PCBE left a record of a name change, and primary sources leave little better. None of the major vitae of monks and ascetics, such as Athanasius’s Vita Antonii or Gregory the Great’s Life of Benedict (Book II of his Dialogues ) mention this happening, nor do the major regulae from this period, those of Benedict, the Master, Augustine, and Basil. Most of the research on name changes seems to focus on conversion from one religion to another: see Bagnall, “Religious Conversion and Onomastic Change”; and G.H.R. Horsley, “Name Change as an Indication of Religious Conversion in Antiquity,” Numen 34 (June, 1987): 1-17. 77 Benedict of Nursia, Benedicti Regula, Cum Commentariis , c. 59, in, PL 66, ed. J.P. Minge (Paris: 1847), 839A-840B. English translation Boniface Verheyen, OSB, The Holy Rule of St. Benedict , http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ benedict/ rule.lxi.html 78 Regula Benedicti , c. 59, and Luke Eberle, trans., The Rule of the Master (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1977), c. 91, 267-271, both neglect to mention any change of names. On the other hand, de Jong, In Samuel’s Image , notes in passing that Bishop Donatus of Besançon was a child oblate, and that his name derived from this state. However, this is a late sixth-century example at the earliest, and so it is impossible to claim this example as a witness for the entire period of this study.

Christian names between monks and the rest of the ecclesiastics. Not all, or even a majority, of monks would have been child oblates at this time, and so at least some of the difference has to be due to other factors. Some may be due in part to the comparatively small sample size of the monastic population in the context of this study. If this small selection is representative of the large monastic population at this time, the rate of

Christian names in this group vis-à-vis other ecclesiastics and laymen is still too high to account for through wider onomastic trends in late antique society. One can only conclude, therefore, that that at least some monks did adopt new names upon entering the monastic state.

Finally, what can we conclude from name frequency among ecclesiastics of this period? As a whole, the ecclesiastics have a name-to-individual ratio of .3792, which indicates a fairly low level of name diversity within the group. 79 Several factors can help explain this figure. The most obvious is that the ecclesiastics included a comparatively larger number of individuals using many of their most popular names, than the laymen

(see fig. 2.1 on page 159). If the names had an even distribution between the ecclesiastics and laymen, one would expect the ecclesiastics to have slightly under twice as many individuals per name as their lay counterparts. 80 Yet, the ecclesiastics have more than twice as many individuals named Felix, Laurentius, and Constantius, and at least thrice as many for Petrus and Paulus. Moreover, the ecclesiastics used many fewer names than did the laymen: the churchmen required only ten percent of all the names in the study to name half their respective sample. 81 That so many bore so few names

79 There are 967 names for 2,550 individuals. 80 There are 2,550 ecclesiastics for 1,369 laymen, a ratio of 1.86:1. 81 Of the 967 names, 1,278 individuals bore the top 91 names. This means that just over half of churchmen used 9.41 percent of the names on the list.

89 suggests that many of these names were considered to be “ecclesiastical” and that, one way or another, those taking holy orders chose, or were given, these names. Secondly, remember that, as Kajanto argued, 82 aristocrats tended to compose most of the higher echelons of the church hierarchy, which might also explain a somewhat lower name ratio, given that the higher class laity had a lower ratio than the lower class. 83 Indeed, the bishops and archbishops, who were most likely to come from the highest levels of lay society, have a ratio of .496. 84 Compare this to the upper class lay figure of .6852. 85

Although the number of names borne by half of the bishops was higher, at seventeen percent, than the ecclesiastical average these numbers still suggest a very high level of name management, particularly in comparison to the lay aristocracy.86

Overall, naming patterns demonstrate moderate differences between ecclesiastics and laymen. Certainly, some of the higher ecclesiastical tendency to use Christian names was due to the monks, who had a significantly higher rate of Christian names even than other ecclesiastics. Indeed, monastic naming patterns were so unlike those of the other ecclesiastics in aggregate as to suggest that monks may have deliberately shaped their own naming patterns. Moreover, a study of those churchmen who attended Roman synods and councils in the late fifth century suggest that ecclesiastics may actually have borne Christian names at a higher rate than has been detected hitherto. It is impossible to tell whether these names were given at a young age or adopted in adulthood, but even after taking the monks and council attendees into account, the clergy still bore more

82 Kajanto, Christian Inscriptions , 121. 83 See below, 101-102. 84 492 names to 992 individuals in this sample yields the ratio of .49596. 85 See below, 101 . This is still lower than that of the lower classes. 86 496 bishops, or half of the total, used eighty four names, or 17.07 percent of the 492 total episcopal names.

Christian names than the laity by a wide margin.87 This means that Kajanto’s tendency to combine the ecclesiastics and lay elite when making social comparisons of naming patterns is moderately problematic.

Whatever the differences between their naming patterns, both the ecclesiastical and lay groups had much higher rates of Christian names than previous scholars have argued. Even when examining only “surely Christian” names, we find that they account for twenty-five to thirty percent of the naming corpus. This statistic does not even account for more traditional Roman, Greek, and pagan names like “Theodorus,” which may have been repurposed for Christianity, and this indicates that the amount might well have been higher. One ought to remember, too, that many of the entries in the list of

“surely Christian” names correspond to saints who bore traditional Roman names. Even though both groups used higher rates of Christian names than has been previously noted, this does not preclude their also bearing traditional names.

Names at the End of Late Antiquity, 573-604

Having now examined the effects of saint’s cults on naming, and the

“Christianity” of the names of both the laity and ecclesiastics, it is now necessary to move to the final period of the study. This era should prove useful in checking some of the above assertions, particularly in terms of the popularity of Christian names, as well as in providing a point of contrast for the brief overview of names at the beginning of our timeframe. This analysis will also highlight major changes in the onomastic corpus that occurred over Late Antiquity.

87 Removing the monks and abbots leaves 625 of 2,059 ecclesiastics (30.35 percent) using very likely Christian names.

We wish to note before proceeding that this period’s name corpus is somewhat different from that of earlier times. Most particularly, a significant proportion of the names comes from a single set of sources, the works of Pope Gregory I. There are enough other sources to prevent this final period from simply being a study of Gregory’s network of personal and professional contacts, but one must be aware that a significant portion of the names from these decades are due to the pope’s prolific writings. This can be advantageous, as the fact that many of his letters deal with individuals of middle or low social standing allows for a fuller social analysis during this period and comparisons with earlier ones. At the same time, the weight of Gregory’s evidence distorts the body of evidence in favor of individuals actively involved in the church – both ecclesiastics and laypersons petitioning or otherwise interacting with the church – and therefore under- represents people with a more casual relationship with the formal institution, if not necessarily the religious beliefs, of Christianity.

In this final period, the largest group of names was Latin, at just over two-thirds of the entire name set. 88 Greek came in second, at around sixteen percent. 89 Biblical names tied with Greek ones at sixteen percent, and Germanic names came in a distant fourth at two percent. 90 Latin names of this late date did not decline much relative to the opening periods, unlike Greek names, which halved. 91 That the Latin names remained very common should not be overly surprising, since the language remained the primary spoken language for most of Italy. Yet, why should the Greek names have declined so

88 566 names of the 846 total were Latin, meaning that they comprise some 66.90 percent of the sample. 89 133 of the 846 names were Greek, or 15.72 percent. 90 133 of 846 names, or 15.72 percent, were biblical. A further fourteen, or 1.66 percent, were Germanic. 91 Recall that Latin-stock names increased from 55.75 percent in the first period (313-352) to exactly two- thirds in the second (353-392); Greek names, conversely, decreased slightly from 39.4 percent to 31.83 percent over the first two periods.

92 precipitously when Greek also remained an important language in the south and Sicily, not to mention the largely Greek administration in the Byzantine-controlled areas of the peninsula? Heikki Solin linked this tendency to a decline in slavery, and, as we shall see in a later chapter, the popularity of Greek names also seems to have been tied to the fate of urban centers, 92 but part of the answer may be found in the distribution of Christian biblical names.

Compared to the opening period in the early fourth century, biblical names alone doubled from just under eight percent of the population to slightly less than sixteen percent in the late-sixth century.93 Logically, the proportional growth of biblical names necessitates a decline in other types, but it seems odd that they – and, for that matter,

Germanic names – should increase solely at the expense of Greek names. Distributing the names geographically reveals that the vast majority of biblical names appear in regions in which one would also expect to find the most Greek names. For example, forty of the seventy nine individuals named Iohannes came from Sicily, Southern Italy, or

Rome, all areas with a high concentration of Greek names throughout all periods of the study. 94 A further twelve hailed from Ravenna, the center of Byzantine administration in

Italy, three more from the Byzantine Pentapolis on the Adriatic coast, and finally three more from areas in the Venetia and Istria that had strong cultural ties with the Byzantines.

In total, fifty eight of the Iohannes, or slightly under three-quarters, came from areas in which we would expect to find Greek names. 95 A similar proportion of those named

“Petrus” came from Greek-speaking or Byzantine-controlled areas, as did all but two of

92 See below, 126-127. 93 In 313-352, nine of the 113 names, or 7.96 percent, were biblical; in the final period, 573-604, 133 of 846, or 15.72 percent, were biblical. 94 We shall study the distribution of Greek names more in chapter four. 95 73.41 percent, to be precise.

93 the sixteen remaining individuals with biblical names. 96 It appears, then, that by this late period, populations with a penchant for Greek names also chose biblical names. This relates to a tendency for Greek names as a whole, as two-thirds of them were also

Christian names, compared to barely half of the Latin names from this period being

Christian. 97 Populations likely to bestow Greek names, then, were apparently more likely to use names with a Christian meaning. This preference for Christian names, then, likely contributed to the use biblical names instead of native-language names with Christian significances. Since this happened in areas prone to give Greek names, it follows that biblical names would expand more at the expense of Greek names than of Latin ones.

Latin names, too, were changing in some ways away from the more traditional names that the earlier periods evinced as being in force, largely in the manner described by Kajanto and Wilson. Pagan theophoric names, for example, disappeared nearly entirely, making up barely one percent of Latin names. 98 We also find that traditional

Latin names, especially praenomina , and nomina , all tended to decline. The movement toward a single name came at the expense of nomina and praenomina , as we saw had begun even in the 353-392 period.99 Indeed, such names, gentilicia in particular, if they appeared at all, usually bore an -anus , -inus , or -ius ending. For example, the nomen

Iulius never appears in this period, but we can find one Iulinus and seven Iuliani. Animal

96 Twenty six of thirty three Petri, or 78.79 percent, came from these areas; all but one of the nine people named “Andreas” hailed from these areas, and the exception came to Italy from Thessaloniki, a major city in Greece. Three of four Thomases came from heavily Greek areas (the exception came from Sardinia), and Ioseph 1002, Matheus 1001, and Michahelius 1001 all hailed from such regions. 97 Eighty eight of 133 Greek names, or 66.17 percent, were Christian either in meaning or by association with a saint, compared to 290 of 566 Latin names (51.24 percent). 98 Eight names (two Ianuarii, 2 Iovini, two Saturnini, one Apollonius, and one Iobinus) of the 566 Latin names were Pagan theophoric names. They constituted 1.41 percent of the total Latin names, and 0.95 percent of the total names for this period (846). The two named Iovinus, moreover, may have associated the name with a Saint Iovinus. 99 Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 133-141. See above, 6-7.

94 names, like Leo and Ursus, either fall off the list or generally decline in popularity; in this period, they were not used by one percent of the population. 100 This seems to agree with

Kajanto’s conjecture that animal names carried no particularly Christian meaning. Given that Christian names were so much more common in this final period, as compared to the opening era, 101 one would not expect animal names to have declined so precipitously if they did have Christian connotations. Finally, unlike names at the beginning of Late

Antiquity, we now see names that describe one’s origins or lot in life. For example, this period boasts a Patricius and a Clarissimus, both of which may well refer to official

Roman social ranks; we also find a Servulus, although this name may have a religious significance. Moreover, names like “Urbicus,” “Urbanus,” and “Rusticus,” all of which but the last did not appear in the first period – and even “Rusticus” had but one appearance – may indicate, in a general sense, to a person’s city or country origins. The bulk of Latin names, though, were still augurative names with long histories, even if some of them now bore a Christian sense. All this suggests that even at this late date, there was continuity in naming patterns.

Conclusion

Stephen Wilson, in The Means of Naming , claimed that “Christian names” never made up more than ten percent of the naming corpus in Late Antiquity,102 but the data show that this does not hold true for Italy during this period. The truth of this statistic depends partially upon one’s definition of a “Christian name.” If, like Wilson, one

100 The only people with animal names are two Ursi and a Pardus; together, the three make up 0.53 percent of the Latin name corpus. 101 37 percent of all names in the initial period were Christian; see above, 66, n. 11. Here, 505 of 846 names, or 59.69 percent, were Christian. 102 Wilson, Means of Naming , 61.

95 defines solely as biblical names and those referring to uniquely Christian concepts the ten percent argument can be made for the earliest periods of this study. Yet such a definition is overly restrictive. Names held deep meaning for these people, and arguing that a name should not be considered “Christian” because it had a long pre-Christian history ignores the possibility that a name’s connotation could change over time. When we include names that could reasonably have taken on a Christian meaning, the number of bearers of

Christian names increases dramatically to at least one-quarter of the population.

The samples in this study likely produced a higher rate of Christian names than would an examination of the entire onomastic corpus in Italy in Late Antiquity. This is because the PCBE Italie included only the names of Christians and of those directly affecting, and being affected by, the religion. The large Christian population in this study has allowed us to examine one category of Christian names that has been largely neglected hitherto, that of saint’s names. Earlier scholars such as Kajanto and Wilson have looked at the onomastic effects of saint’s cults. Both concluded, however, that only a few major saints were recognized as namesakes, and even then saints’ names had only a limited popularity. Yet, if we take the cults of minor saints into account too, we find that there was indeed some correlation between the location of a cult and the name of the saint in the local population. The connections between the two suggest a link between religious practice and naming patterns. An examination of all extant names from Italy, then, would probably yield a much lower rate of Christian names, particularly at the opening of Late Antiquity, since non-Christians and nominal Christians have very little representation in the data used in the present study. Nevertheless, when looking at more

96 comprehensive naming corpora, one must account for local saint’s cults, as well as the cults of major saints, when describing the effects of Christianity on naming.

The use of saints’ names among the Italian Christian populace, discussed in the last chapter, seems to follow from pagan ideas about protective supernatural power. This very inference illustrates an important point about Christian names: they were not really

“new” in a Greco-Roman cultural context. Certainly, many biblical and obviously

Christian names – like “Iohannes” or “Paschalis” – were rarely, if ever, attested before

Christianity appeared, but these names served functions similar to more traditional ones.

By the late-sixth century, pagan names referring to a particular deity, like Apollonaris, had nearly disappeared, whereas biblical names had come to constitute a significant proportion of the total names. It would seem that, instead of trying to invoke the protection of, or show devotion to, a particular pagan deity, people were now choosing to use Christian “friends of God,” 103 the saints, as protectors and focuses of devotion.

Continuity in function explains many of the other features of the naming patterns set out above. Greek theophoric names, like “Theodorus,” did not change or disappear after pagan antiquity; rather, the names came to have a Christian meaning and continued in use.

Likewise, many augurative names and names that otherwise, it was hoped, described the nature of a child continued in use, even if the connotations may have changed slightly. 104

Even “new” Christian names often followed older practices; the name “Columbus,” for example, probably had very specific Christian associations, 105 but its appearance fits in

103 This term is used in this context by Peter Brown, The Making of Late Antiquity (Cambridge [MA]: Harvard University Press, 1978), 56 and passim . 104 For example, the name “Felix” classically signified that its bearer was “lucky” or “famous,” according to Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 71. For Christians, though, the significance shifted to one having to do with the happiness they aspired to in heaven (Wilson, Means of Naming , 60). 105 Particularly the dove that descends from heaven during the baptism of Jesus in Mt 3:16, Mk 1:10, and Lk 3:22. The same holds for the Greek name “Palumbus,” which also means “dove.”

97 perfectly well with the older tendency for people to take animal names. Even the striking

Latin theophoric names like “Adeodatus,” which have no obvious antecedent in Latin, were probably adapted from existing Greek or, in North Africa, Punic traditions. 106

This all indicates that one ought not simply ask how Christianity affected naming patterns. To be sure, Christianity is directly responsible for the decline in pagan theophoric names, and may have culpability in the decline in Greek names in Italy by the end of the study. The appearance of new names with Christian significances, like

“Paschalis” and “Anastasius,” attest the religion’s importance in late antique anthroponomy. Examining how Christianity adapted to naming customs, though, is just as important as mapping what changes the religion wrought. The tendency for older names to take on Christian significances, by gaining associations with a saint, bears witness to the flexibility and adaptability of the religion and naming customs. Indeed, many of the “effects” of Christianity show continuity in custom, such as the replacement of pagan theophoric names with Christian theophoric and saints’ names. If the religious meanings of names show great continuity, one might well ask if names show continuity in other areas of culture and society. It is to some of these other areas we now turn.

106 See Conant, Staying Roman , 118-119.

CHAPTER III – Gender and Names

Introduction

We have hitherto focused on one important aspect of names, their possible religious meanings. The data reveal that religion was by no means a factor in all acts of naming in late antique Italy, even amongst the mostly Christian population in this study.

It is our task, then, to tease out other social and cultural effects on the act of naming.

The study of names can be revealing in terms of family and kinship networks.

We know that high-status Romans used names to help denote family legacy; from the third century, the Roman elites tended to bear a large number of names, particularly cognomina , and generally several of these would commemorate other members of his family. 1 Additionally, much literature focuses on the ways in which Germanic kinship patterns appear in their naming practices. 2 One area in which studies of kinship that rely upon anthroponymic evidence tend to fall short, though, is lower classes practices, both in Italy and elsewhere. This lacuna depends partly upon a dearth of evidence, since scholars are lucky to find evidence of filiation in the surviving sources, let alone of wider familial connections. Nevertheless, we shall assay a comparison of naming patterns among different social groups.

Another issue we shall explore is that of gender. It is well known that from at least the third century B.C. women’s names differed from those of men. Rather than receive the tria nomina the men used, women usually bore only the grammatically

1 Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 141-142. Salways gives as a prime example Flavius Areobindus Dagalaiphus Areobindus, the son of Flavius Dagalaiphus, and grandson of Flavius Ariobindus. Ibid. , 141. 2 E.g. Le Jan, “Personal Names and the Transformation of Kinship,” in Personal Names Studies , 31-50. Also Luis A. García Moreno, “Prosopography and Onomastics: the Case of the Goths,” in Prosopography Approaches and Applications: A Handbook , ed. K.S.B. Keats-Rohan (Oxford: Linacre College, 2007): 337- 351.

99 feminine version of their birth families’ gentilicia – thus, for example, the daughter of

Gaius Julius Caesar, who was of the gens Iulia , was called “Julia.” Such names help make obvious their bearers’ kinship ties, as they clearly marked their natal clan.

However, as the trinominal naming system collapsed during Late Antiquity and gentilicia lost their meanings, the pattern of giving girls only gentilicia must have become untenable. This leads us to two topics of investigation. First, we shall examine just what sorts of names women received instead of gentilicia ; and secondly, we shall discuss the roles women and their names played in signaling kinship and descent.

One statistical form of evidence which can illuminate the importance of names to family identity is the ratio of the number of different names in a given population to the total individuals in that sample. If the members of a group used family members as namesakes, the proportion of names relative to the population should be lower because of the repetition of names than if every child bore a random name. We can use this ratio to investigate differences among various groups of people. Here we shall examine two pairs of contrasting social groups, the higher and lower strata of society, and males and females.

An analysis of these names of the former can help determine whether only the elites were interested in maintaining family legacies, or whether the lower classes were similarly interested. The comparison of males and females should reveal any gender gap in naming strategies vis-à-vis family legacy. If females have a higher ratio of names to individuals than the males, this might indicate that Romans were less concerned about women bearing names that would carry on their families’ memories.

The ratio of names to individuals alone does not, however, fully describe the homogeneity of a population’s names, for a population that has one or two very popular

100 names and a few unpopular ones can have a ratio similar to one with a relatively even distribution of names. Consider two hypothetical samples of one hundred names. In one, fifty individuals share the name “Iohannes,” and the other fifty all bear a unique name.

The second sample has fifty different names, each used by two people. Both sets have the same name-to-person ratio of 0.5, yet the first sample is clearly much more homogeneous than the second as so many people have the same name. In order to compensate for this methodological problem, one ought also find the minimum number of names in a given sample that constitute half of the given population. The smaller the number of names required to reach half, the more homogeneous the population. This latter figure helps contextualize the name-to-person ratio and by revealing the extent to which the population relied on a few popular names.3

Finally, a few words need to be said about the composition of various social categories. We shall be looking at two somewhat loosely-defined socio-economic groups, the “higher” and the “lower” class, which we have described above.4 In addition to these large, groups, we also distinguished slaves and known freedmen as a separate category, as these groups were socially distinct from those who never suffered slavery.

Unfortunately, we cannot analyze them here with any certainty because the sample size is much too small. 5 There is a large category of unknowns, whose lack of definite status defies clear social analysis. 6 Many of these unknowns come from epigraphic sources and

3 Pascal Chareille, “Methodological Problems in a Quantitative Approach to Changes in Naming,” in George Beech, Monique Bouring, and Pascal Chareille, eds., Personal Names Studies of Medieval Europe: Social Identity and Familial Structures (Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University Press, 2002): 21-25. 4 See above, 33-34. 5 Only sixteen of the 1,377 laymen were slaves or freedmen. 6 Some 580 individuals fall into this category.

101 are attested only by name; others have only ambiguous modifiers, such as vir religiosus , which could mean the individual was an ecclesiastic or simply a very pious man. 7

Males, Names, and Family

Overall, the ratio of name to individual amongst laymen is 0.5701, meaning that there are about four names for every seven men; in other words, 1.75 men on average share each name. 8 This value indicates a fairly diverse pool of names in late antique Italy.

However, the number is also low enough to indicate that some names were popular enough to occur many times. Figure 3.1, on page 160, which compares the top twenty most popular ecclesiastical and lay male names, corroborates this point. Almost one- quarter of the lay male population share the top twenty three names. 9 Although the minimum number of names used that could account for half of the population is an important statistic to which we shall later return, the overall ratio provides a clear, simple baseline for our look at the different social strata. A higher proportion than the baseline would indicate that the sample tended to have a high diversity of names, and therefore was probably not using names to preserve legacy, whereas a lower diversity of names would open the possibility of the usage of family names.

The ratios for both categories reveal that both high and low members of society had a fairly high diversity of names. The upper class had a ratio of .6852, and the lower a ratio of .7654. The elites, then, had only a marginally higher name frequency than did the

7 I mention this example, as it is the most common ambiguous status; when the meaning of the attribution is clear, I have sorted the individual into the appropriate category. Nevertheless, the bulk of the vires religiosi remain unknown quantities, socially speaking. 8 There are 785 names for 1,377 individuals, yielding this ratio. 4/7 is only a rough approximation (its decimal equivalent being 0.5714). 9 320 of 1,377, or 23.24 percent of the whole.

102 lower. This lower proportion could be indicative of more name management amongst the aristocracy, or simply that they had a smaller pool of acceptable names than their lower- class brethren. Yet the ratios do not necessarily reveal all the pertinent information about names and family. A glance at the most popular names in each category reveals some differences in name choices between the two groups (see fig. 3.1, p. 160). Although both share Christian names, the elites also have a penchant for choosing more traditional names. Both “Romanus” and “Faustus,” for example, are fairly well-attested during the imperial period. 10 The frequency of “Symmachus,” the cognomen of a very famous and influential late Roman senatorial family, is related to the prominence of the family. The unique names among the lower classes, conversely, are more likely to be of a political or religious character: “Anastasius” and “Bonifatius” are both very likely to be Christian names, and, since many of the Hilari came from Rome, “Hilarus” quite likely refers to

Pope Hilary. 11 Only “Severus” is a traditional Latin name, but it may have had a religious connotation in some cases, since it could also refer to one of several saints by this name.

Comparing the concentration of popular names between socio-economic groups further highlights the differences in anthroponymic practices at different social levels.

Among the aristocracy, half of the individuals bear roughly one-quarter of the names in the sample,12 whereas the half of all lower classes individuals used one-third of their

10 Romanus: Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 51. Faustus: Ibid ., 29, which indicates this was one of the most common Latin names in Antiquity. 11 PCBE I.988-999, which indicates seven of the fifteen, or 46.67 percent, come from Rome. As discussed in Chapter 1, the names of popes were at least as much political as religious, particularly for popesnot recognized as saints. See above, 48-49. 12 It requires only the top ninety six of the 357 total names to name half of the 521 upper class individuals, or 26.89 percent.

103 names.13 This alone implies that the elites were more selective in choosing names than the lower classes. Moreover, many of the more popular aristocratic names tend to cluster in one particular region, such as Rome or Ravenna. The grouping of names in one area, especially over time, suggests that they may well have belonged to one or a few elite families. The name “Symmachus” provides an excellent illustration of this principle. Of the five Symmachi in this sample, four of them originated at Rome, and three are known to have been related. 14 Thus, we have a concrete example of one name belonging to a family living in one particular region. This all suggests that the upper classes tended to restrict their naming pool, and that family tradition had a strong influence on name choice.

The use of one name, particularly a final cognomen , among the Roman upper classes naturally followed from traditional Roman anthroponymic practices. The cognomen first developed in the Republican period as a means of denoting from which branch, or stirps , of a particular gens an individual came, and cognomina continued to be used to help show kinship well into the second century. 15 The continuation of this custom, particularly among the old aristocracy like the Symmachi, demonstrates the persistence of this long-standing custom and the cultural conservatism of the upper classes.

Yet the final cognomen is not the only clue to family relations in names. Many members of the upper class bore multiple cognomina , particularly the new aristocracy of court functionaries that developed in the Late Empire. Moreover, elites often bore one or

13 We need sixty nine of the 201 names to reach half of the 260 individuals. 14 PCBE ii.2142-2143 and ii.2146-2147: Symmachus 1006 was a direct descendent of Symmachus 1001, the famous orator and letter writer. PLRE i.1043-1044 claims that Symmachus 1002 (also in PCBE ii.2143- 2144) was also a close relative (quite possibly a nephew) of Symmachus 1001. The fourth Roman Symmachus (S. 1009) lived three-quarters of a century after Symmachus 1006, and the letter citing him does not discuss his heritage, so it is difficult to say if and how he would have been related to the other three. See also fig. 3.5 for the stemma of the Symmachi. 15 Wilson, Means of Naming , 9-10.

104 more non-final cognomina as memorials of their kin, but they would not have employed them on a regular basis. 16 For example, the praenomen of Volusanius 1001 derived from one of his father’s cognomina , which itself came from the cognomina of several more remote ancestors (see figs. 3.3 and 3.4, pp. 161-162). Likewise, all elements of

Symmachus 1006’s name actually comes from his paternal grandfather. Two of the philosopher Boethius’s cognomina , “Severinus” and “Manlius,” commemorated his maternal grandfather and his father, respectively. 17 Yet, neither necessarily used these names regularly. We shall treat of this theme briefly later, but here we need only say that the rate of homonymy amongst the elite cause the case for name management among the elite to appear artificially low.

Women’s Names and Kinship

Let us not neglect the names of females. Unfortunately, the analysis of women’s names cannot be quite as clear or complete as that of males for several reasons. First and foremost, the female sample size is much smaller than that of the male, and therefore perhaps less representative of the whole of society. Additionally, social comparisons are more difficult here, too, as most of the females are either from the upper classes or of unknown social rank. Finally, as we mentioned in the introduction, 18 the distinctions between different grades of female ecclesiastics are less clear-cut than among the males because the most common terms for these women, ancilla Dei and sacra virgo , leave some ambiguity both as to whether they were ecclesiastics at all, as well as whether they were members of a monastery or if they dwelt as ascetics among their families, a

16 Salway, “What’s in a Name,” 141-143. 17 PLRE II.1322. 18 See above, 29.

105 common practice in Late Antiquity. Nevertheless, we shall attempt as thoroughgoing a study as possible.

The 343 non-ecclesiastic women in the sample do not provide much evidence of name management. Overall, the women have a ratio of names to individuals of .7638, which in itself reveals a fairly high rate of diversity. 19 Likewise, the percentage of names borne by half the sample, about thirty five percent, demonstrates a moderately low rate of homonymy. 20 Aristocratic women, analogously to the lay male group with the lowest rates of name diversity, had a much more diverse set of names than did the females as a whole. The upper class women had a name-to-individual ratio of .8608, and it required over forty percent of the names to constitute half of the individuals in this sample. 21 In other words, 1.15 women on average used each name in this sample.

An examination of female homonymy over time proves difficult and provides no clear indication of change during our period. Amongst the women in the ecclesiastical sphere, the ratio of names to individuals remains one to one in every period except the final (573-604), in which there are thirty one names distributed among thirty-two women.22 The small sample sizes may in part account for this striking picture, as fully half the periods studied have fewer than ten women, and all but two fewer than twenty.

The low number of Christian names amongst these women before the mid-fifth century, though, matches well with Christian male names, 23 and consequently militates against

19 The laywomen have 262 names for 343 individuals, a ratio of .763848. 20 Half of the women, 172 individuals, used ninety two of the 262 names, or 35.145 percent. 21 There were sixty nine names for seventy nine individuals, a ratio of .860759; half of the women used twenty nine names, out of the sixty nine total, or 42.03 percent. 22 This last figure yields a ratio of .9688, and means that fifteen is the minimum number sufficient to account for half of the population. 23 See above, 81.

106 religious explanations for the diversity of names. It would appear that ecclesiastical women simply bore a wide variety of names.

The trend of laywomen’s names over time proves similar in most regards.

Although these women demonstrate fewer instances of a one-to-one name-to-individual ratio, the figures remain above 0.90 until the final two periods of our study. The largest sample of names comes from the very final period, and here the rate falls to sixty three names for seventy one women, or 0.89.24 Moreover, the women who cannot be dated more precisely than the sixth century also demonstrate a lower rate of diversity with nine names for twelve women, a ratio of 0.75. Again, small samples and the lack of a clear trend make defensible results difficult, but it appears that women’s names were becoming slightly less varied toward the end of Late Antiquity.

This multiplicity of names among women indicates a logical break from traditional Roman naming customs. Recall that, in antiquity, Roman women, especially aristocratic ones, generally had only one name, the feminine version of her family’s gentilicium .25 By Late Antiquity, however, the use of the gentilicium had declined in most segments of the population. 26 When people did bear a gentilicium , it constituted either one name among many – as among the elite – or, more commonly, a cognomen , rather than a nomen , and so its value as a marker of kinship was severely reduced. 27 The drop in use of the gentilicium means that it was commensurately more difficult to give a

24 0.8873, to be exact. 25 Wilson, Means of Naming , 15-18; Mika Krajava, Roman Female Praenomina: Studies in Nomenclature of Roman Women , 19-26 indicates a slightly more complicated picture, in that women would often take an associated name along with their gentilicium , usually either a patronymic or, if married, a gamonymic name. 26 Wilson, Means of Naming , 48-49. 27 Ibid ., 48-49.

107 daughter a version of the name, and so it makes logical sense that parents would choose other names.

In the PCBE , we find that female gentilicia had already largely disappeared by the early fourth century. Only two women from the fourth century, or 2.56 percent of the total from this period, bore gentilicia , a Claudia and a Fabiola, the latter a diminutive of the classical “Fabia.” 28 The fifth century demonstrates a similar proportion of 2.52 percent of female gentilicia ; all four instances, however, “Fabiola,” “Antonina,” and two

Livianae , are in fact derivatives from classical forms. 29 “Antonina” comes from the classical “Antonia,” and “Liviana” from “Livia.” The sixth century demonstrated something of an upswing in possible gentilicia , as twelve, or 7.5 percent of the whole, bore this type of name. 30 Yet several of these names probably would not have indicated family connections. Two of the Iulianae , for example, came from Southern Italy, where devotion to St. Iuliana of Nicomedia offers an explanation for these names.31 Likewise, the sixth-century Roman abbess Caecilia’s name may derive from the Roman saint of the same name. 32 Removing these possibly religiously-motivated names from consideration drops the figure down to about five and a half percent, still twice as high as in the

28 PCBE , “Claudia ,” i.445;“Fabiola 1,” i.734-735. Two out of seventy eight yields 2.564 percent. 29 PCBE , “Antonina 1,” i.152; “Fabiola 2,” i.735-736; “Liviana 1,” ii.1308-1309; “Liviana 2,” ii.1309. These four come from a total corpus of 159, and comprise 2.516 percent of the total. “Liviana” comes from “Livia,” and “Antonina” from “Antonia.” A “Valeria” constitutes a possible fifth gentilicium (PCBE , “Valeria 3,” ii.2236), but her proximity to the province of Valeria makes it difficult to rule out the possibility that this was a name denoting geographic origin, not family. 30 Twelve out of 160 total is 7.5 percent. 31 PCBE , “Iuliana 7,” i.1172; “Iuliana 9,” i.1172. Both came from Capua. 32 PCBE , “Caecilia,” i.353. Marcianus 1007, a priest of the titular church of St. Caecilia in 499, gives evidence that St. Cecilia likely had a small following in Rome in the late fifth and early sixth centuries (PCBE , “Marcianus 7,” ii.1383; the editors here cite Acta synodorum habitarum Romae , MGH aa 12, 1.1- 7).

108 preceding centuries. 33 Once again, the majority of these names are derivatives from classical female nomina, like “Antonina” and “Aureliana.”

Indeed, the most obvious point about female gentilicia is that most are adjectival derivatives of the classical forms. Scholars like Kajanto generally treat such derivatives as cognomina , and argue that by Late Antiquity they do not represent any sort of kinship with the classical gentes .34 Assuming this is true, and we have no cause to argue against

Kajanto’s conclusions on the subject, it appears that late antique Italians accepted gentilicia as a part of the wide variety of names women could be given. Other than the already-mentioned religious reasons and the possibility that these names did, on occasion, commemorate an honored ancestor, the best explanation for the continued usage of these names is a parallel with male gentilicia . Just as men started freely to use gentilicia and their adjectival derivatives after these names had lost their relation to kinship, so too did women. Combined with the very high name-to-individual ratios in most female populations, care-free use of gentilicia appears to indicate that female names did not matter much to kinship.

That the decline in gentilicia could represent a shift in the role of women in kinship makes a certain sense. When women had only gentilicia as their names, the name actually had meaning, their familial origins were quite clear, and so ties of kinship could be traced through the gentilicia of both the male and female line. Thus, the names of women provided an important link in shaping narratives of kinship. As the gentilicium fell from use, however, the role of women as transmitters of kinship ties had to change.

33 Removing those possibly named after saints drops the figure to nine out of 160, or 5.625 percent. 34 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 31-39.

109

The best means for them to do so, in terms of names, was for a woman to give a daughter her own, or a female ancestor’s, name, or give a son the names of one of her relatives.

Two intertwined senatorial families in the fourth and early fifth centuries provide evidence of the transmission of family names (see figs. 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4, on pages 161-

162). These were two prominent families who counted several consuls and urban praetors among their members. Moreover, several of the women in the families, including both Melaniae and Paula 1003, gained a wide reputation thanks to Jerome’s praise of their sanctity and eventually received recognition as saints. Within these families, there was a clear tendency to recycle names. Melania the Younger was namesake of her paternal grandmother, and Paula 1001 acted as the namesake of both her daughter Paulina 1001 and only granddaughter Paula 1003. The former Paula also named her eldest daughter after her own mother, Blesilla.35 In both cases, it is significant that females used names from both the paternal and maternal lines, whilst the related males received names almost exclusively the male line. 36 This indicates that, assuming the naming patterns are typical of the Roman upper aristocracy from the fourth century, that families managed male names to show only one line of descent, whereas the women had more choices available to them. Moreover, the masculine names passed on tended to use the most successful family members as namesakes. For example, Petronius Probianus, consul in 322, passed both of his names to his son and grandson, and at least three of his

35 See in PCBE Blesilla 1, Melania 1, Melania 3, Paula 1, Paula 3, and Paulina 1. The entries for Melania 2 and Paula 3 indicate that they were cousins, but vigorous cross-referencing does not indicate how. 36 Fig. 3.4, which is adapted from “Stemma 13” in PLRE I (PLRE i.1138), indicates that Paula 1003’s grandfather, Publilius Caeionius Caecina Albinus (364/367-401?) drew his third name from his mother, Caecinia Lolliana (fl. fourth century). Note that “Caecina” was originally a nomen , as Caecina Lolliana’s grandfather Antonius Caecina Sabinus (consul in 316) and her uncle Caecina Sabinus both demonstrate; By P.C. Caecina Albinus’s time, though, the nomen appears to have become a cognomen in function.

110 five great-grandchildren bore forms of his second cognomen .37 The women here still placed a premium on preserving family heritage, but it appears that it was less incumbent upon them to do so, as many of the women in these families had names not obviously related to family members.

A perusal of the stemmata in the PLRE , which provides fuller genealogies than the PCBE , indicates that the matter was not always so clear-cut. Younger sons often, and eldest sons more occasionally, received a name from their mothers’ families. Note, from the previous example, that Paula 1003’s maternal grandfather took his first cognomen ,

Caecina, from his mother Caecinia Lolliana (see figs. 3.2 and 3.4), and his brother

Lollius’s also name came from the maternal side. 38 Likewise, Olybrius 1001 transmitted his cognomina to his grandson through his daughter Proba, and several sons among the

Symmachi also drew names from the maternal side. 39 Later periods also occasionally demonstrate this phenomenon. Boethius, for example, gave his younger son the cognomen “Symmachus,” which came from his wife’s family. Nevertheless, the majority of males, even in the fuller records of the PLRE , bore names only from the paternal side, whereas the women’s names again showed more varied derivations.

Moreover, even in cases where women did transmit their families’ names to their male

37 PLRE , “Stemma 24,” i.1144. See also PLRE , “Petronius Probianus 3,” i.733. His son was Petronius Probiuns, and his grandson was Sextus Claudius Petronius Probus; three great-grandchildren used the cognomen Probus, and the name of a fourth (a male) is completely lost. The only one of the five not to use his name was the second male child, who bore the names of his maternal grandfather Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius ( PCBE , “Olybrius 1,” ii.1551). As the maternal grandfather was also successful, the fact that three of the five children used the cognomen of their paternal great-grandfather rather than those of their maternal grandfather demonstrates both the tendency to propagate the names of successful ancestors and to emphasize the paternal lineage. 38 PLRE I.1138 39 PLRE I.1144, I.1146, and II.1322. Quintus Claudius Hermogenianus Olybrius 1001 was the namesake of his grandson Anicius Hermogenianus Olybrius ( PLRE I.1144). For the Symmachi, see fig. 3.5. Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus 1006 (in PLRE II.1322) was the grandson of Q. Fabius Memmius Symmachus, who derived the “Memmius” from his maternal grandfather Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus (PLRE I.1146). One of Symmachus 1001’s elder brothers, Celsinus Titianus, derived his cognomen from his maternal grandfather, Fabius Titianus ( PLRE I.1146)

111 offspring, it was almost always the younger sons, not the eldest, who received names from the maternal line. This demonstrates that, for the males, names were generally purposefully chosen to carry on the paternal lineage, although the mother’s family could also gain recognition were it illustrious enough. Women’s names could come equally from either or both sides of the family, indicating that they might have been seen as carrying on both lineages. The higher number of females without any clear namesakes, combined with the names from both sides of the family, suggests that parents were perhaps less invested in displaying kinship ties through their daughters. The wider variety of names for females than for males in the raw data generally confirm this tendency at least among the upper class, and quite possibly for all laywomen.

The ability of women to pass on partial or entire names of their ancestors to their children represents a shift from Antiquity, when children’s names almost always came from the father’s family. This is, perhaps, a sign of a shift in conceptions of kinship. In

Classical Rome, the trinominal system supposes that individuals could locate themselves within a wide network of gentes and stirpes , as all members of a gens had the same nomen , and everyone belonging to a stirps the same cognomen . In Late Antiquity, however, kinship ties as shown by names contracted to families rather than wide clans, as individuals began to take particular ancestors as namesakes instead of taking names that designated their clan. That is not to say that people, particularly members of the upper classes, were not aware of their places within a large web of family alliances. Yet the fact remains that names had lost their connection to large kinship constructs like clans, and instead most often demonstrated lines of descent from particular individuals.

112

We can say little about the lower classes of women, statistically speaking, because the present study records only eight female names from this part of society. The five who were slaves or freedwomen display slightly more traditional names than the remaining three. “Dulcitia,” for example, is a name describing the hoped-for disposition of its bearer, and was a fairly common type of servile name. 40 “Siricia” serves as an example of locative name, since the name probably denotes a Syrian origin; slaves often bore this kind of name.41 The freedwomen have one Christian name, “Iohanna,” and two non- traditional names, “Mulia” and “Domna.” These names, if they are at all representative, indicate that slave naming practices continued in a traditional manner, whereas the lower- class women may have borne a wider variety of names. This would show that women of lower classes were apt to be less invested in family names and identity than upper class women. Yet without any records of lower-class families that span multiple generations, one can do no more than speculate on this subject.

Senatorial Cultural Conservatism: A Case Study

We have often in this chapter touched upon the theme of senatorial cultural practices, and before concluding it seems fitting to treat of them in an anthroponymic context. Scholarship has firmly established that many old senatorial families continued to live, and often to play a significant political role, in late antique Italy, to the extent that

T.S. Brown could trace their decline and subsequent replacement by newer Byzantine

40 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 67-68 pertains to this name. 41 Ibid ., 51.

113 administrators in the seventh and eighth centuries.42 One facet of senatorial culture upon which several scholars have remarked is the aristocratic tendency to use names as a marker of status, particularly their use of polyonomy in the face of the general trend toward mononomy. Indeed, we have already mentioned this several times in the present study. However, one case study from outside the PCBE nuances this very general view about the aristocratic use of names.

In Le Sénat romain sous le règne d'Odoacre , André Chastagnol discusses a number of inscriptions from the Colosseum that were thitherto something of a mystery in terms of dating and function. He convincingly argued that these inscriptions were the names of the Roman senatorial elite roughly during the reign of Odovacer, and that they marked the seats reserved for these illustrious personages. 43 In one of the appendices to this work, Chastagnol listed all 198 inscriptions; while many of these are highly damaged, enough full and reconstructed examples remain for us to make a few further points about the onomastic practices of the male, Roman, senatorial elite under Odovacer.

The most easily noticeable pattern in this sample of names is the distribution of polyonomy amongst the recorded individuals. While the common use of multiple names does not surprise, it reveals that individuals at the highest formal rank, the viri illustres , had retained a somewhat higher rate of polyonomy than men of lower ranks. As chart 3.6 on page 163 demonstrates, the illustres generally employed more names than men of lower grades. At least fifty percent of the individuals in those groups that are confirmed

42 T.S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers , particularly 21-38. For more general references to the role of the old senatorial elite, see e.g. Wickham, Early Medieval Italy , 18-20, 24-27, and idem , Framing the Early Middle Ages , 204-208. 43 For the dates, see Chastagnol, Le Sénat romain , 41-42; essentially, it appears that most of the seats were inscribed in 483, but there were some modifications and additions until around 490

114 as illustres or likely to be so bore multiple names. 44 Among the viri clarissimi , significantly fewer than half had more than one name.45 These figures are admittedly a bit uncertain, as many seats, arranged in pairs, bear inscriptions with the same name – e.g. seats fifteen and sixteen are dedicated to the “Constantii” – and it is unclear in these instances whether the corresponding individuals used one or two names. Moreover, all groups contain many fragmentary inscriptions, where the full names are impossible to determine; as this is particularly prevalent amongst the confirmed clarissimi , it may be that their actual rate of polyonomy is somewhat higher than recorded but, if the possible clarissimi provide a representative model, the increase would not be significantly large.

The fact remains, though, that the clarissimi had many fewer members with confirmed multiple names than did the illustres . We can say little for certain about the spectabiles in the study, the small sample number of men from this grade make any conclusions about them suspect.46

The senators named in the Colosseum inscriptions not only retained polyonomy but also used names of great antiquity. Among the illustres alone appear several gentilicia dating from the Republican period, including Memmius, Fabius, Caecina, and

Aemelius. In most cases, these gentilicia appear in the first position, as was standard in

Late Antiquity. The appearance of these old names suggests that the elite continued to use the names to show their links to Rome’s ancient past. Some names came from newer gentilicia : for example, no fewer than fourteen senators bore the gentilicium “Rufius,”

44 Chastagnol, Le Sénat romain , 74, 76. The remaining seven names are damaged, and so it is difficult to tell whether the individuals were polynomous or not; one of the seven, listed as number 27 ([…]t[…]inus) might indicate multiple names. In other words, some 67.86 percent bore multiple names, 7.14 percent used one, and 25 percent were indeterminate. 45 Ibid ., 75-77. 46 Ibid ., 75. The sixth inscription is too damaged to determine the number of names.

115 and all but one used it as their initial name. However, a quick check of the PLRE shows that most men bearing this gentilicium were unrelated to each other, although the editors do occasionally mention the existence of a family of “Rufii,” and more general historians refer to the Rufii as a senatorial family. 47 Other gentilicia , rather than demonstrate familial connections, appear to have denoted status. The name “Flavius,” more common in other sources, remains the best-attested example of this phenomenon. 48 We also find cases of “binary nomenclature,” in which an individual bore the nomina of two gentes ;49 among the illustres , these individuals are the Memmius Aemilius Probus and Memmius

Aemilius Trygetius.

The weak evidence of actual familial connection between similarly-named individuals and the retention of old names and forms suggests a culturally conservative character for these senators. The confluence of these two trends would seem to indicate that some of the senatorial families used their names to demonstrate their links to the past, although a dearth of evidence on the ancestry of most of these individuals makes it difficult to determine whether the connections are real or adopted. Those bearing old nomina do, however, demonstrate slight qualitative differences in names when compared to the other polyonomous individuals. In general, those with ancient nomina tended to use traditional names for all their cognomina as well, such as the vir illustris Memmius

Aemilius Probus, or the vir clarissimus Caecina Aurelius. Those with “status names” like “Flavius” tended to use names of more recent coinage. The vir illustris Flavius

Synesius Gennadius Paulus, for example, has two adjectival cognomina , a category of

47 E.g. PLRE II , “Fl. Turcius Rufius Apronianus Asterius 11,” ii.173. Wickham, Framing the Middle Ages , 159 treats the Rufii as a family. 48 Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 137-140. 49 Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 131-133. As Salway notes, this practice was most common and most fully developed during the high imperial period.

116 cognomen well associated with Late Antiquity. 50 His final name, “Paulus,” has a long history as a cognomen of the gens Aemilia , but, particularly considering his lack of connections with the Aemilii , it is just as likely that the name refers to the Christian saint. 51 The differences between the groups suggest that the differences between the old

Roman families and the newer, post-Constantinian aristocracy, extended to naming patterns.

Conclusion

In many ways, this chapter has confirmed for Italy as a whole the trends in Latin naming that others have drawn primarily from the City of Rome alone. 52 In particular, we have examined such patterns as the decline of and changes in the gentilicium , patterns of female naming, polyonomy among the aristocracy, and the persistence of names of illustrious family members in successive generations. Given the preponderance of elites within the samples, particularly among females, and the aristocratic tendency to have strong ties with Rome, it is perhaps unsurprising that the onomastic patterns in the Italian provinces should follow those in the City.

The names of women bring up some more intriguing points. On the one hand, women could now, on occasion, pass names from their relatives to their children, a fairly rare occurrence in earlier periods. This could suggest that women’s status vis-à-vis family and kinship had improved somewhat in Late Antiquity. On the other hand, we find that the names of women themselves often had little to do with family, and varied so

50 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 100-105. 51 PLRE II , “Fl. Synesius Gennadius Paulus 36,” ii.855, provides a rough picture of his family relationships. 52 E.g. Kajanto, Latin Cognomina ; Kajanto, Christian Inscriptions ; Llewellyn, “Names of the Roman Clergy;” and even, to a lesser degree, Salway, “What’s in a Name?”

117 widely as to imply that parents did not much care whether their daughters’ names had any connection to family traditions. If parents did not care if their daughters bore a family name or not, this would indicate that women had become even less important to kinship than they had been previously. After all, in antiquity, female gentilicia recalled a woman’s prestige and place in society, and this somewhat reflected on her husband and children; the wider, more random variety of names women took in Late Antiquity, though, could not fill this function as easily or as well as the old gentilicia . Such contradictory conclusions do not make much sense until we consider them in the context of both genders.

Amongst males, and particularly aristocrats, we find that names did persist over generations. Overall, men show a higher rate of homonymy than women, which suggests that parents took care to ensure their sons’ names conformed with traditional patterns, one of which was using ancestors as namesakes. These facts, combined with the stemmata and case studies we have examined, suggest that the focus of kinship was the perpetuation of the male line. This trend is most evident among eldest children, who were most likely to receive names from their father’s, not the mother’s, families. This evidence all suggests that, especially among the elite, the Roman patriarchal kinship system continued to dominate onomastic practice in Italy in Late Antiquity. The largest difference between Late Antiquity and the Republican and High Imperial eras was that younger children could receive names from their mothers’ families. Yet given that this happened most commonly among younger sons and that these names then persisted in subsequent male lines, indicates that, once again, the matter of importance was the preservation of the male heritage. The females thus appear, as often as not, to have been

118 unheralded conductors of the male lineage. The lack of evidence for the passage of women’s names down the female line, outside of a few isolated cases, further strengthens the case for the overwhelming patriarchal nature of late antique Italian onomastic practice.

In this way, we again find that naming patterns, despite cosmetic changes, still largely conformed to general Roman anthroponymic customs that had been in practice for centuries.

119

CHAPTER IV – Greek Names in Italy

Introduction

Another anthroponymic topic related to the many cultural changes witnessed in

Italy during Late Antiquity is that of the linguistic derivation of names. For centuries,

Italy had been a polyglot peninsula, but Latin and Greek had long been established in the region as the two dominant languages by Late Antiquity. In general, there was a geographic divide; Latin dominated the northern and central Italian regions, while the south and Sicily had a much greater penchant for Greek. That most names we have examined come from these two tongues is but further witness to their dominance in Italy.

Moreover, the languages had coexisted for so long that Greek names like “Leo” were thought of as Latin names, and many inscriptions bear Hellenized Latin names.1 Other names, “Theodorus,” “Stephanus,” or “Anastasius”, had a fairly obvious Greek etymology and, given their generally short and sparse attestation in Latin documents before Late Antiquity, would have been thought of as Greek. Given the magnitude of social and cultural transformations in so many areas of Italian life during this period, it is worth asking whether the co-dominance of Greek and Latin names persisted, or whether one increased at the expense of the other.

Particularly, we wish to examine whether areas with a significant Greek-speaking population – namely Southern Italy and Sicily – during Late Antiquity had higher concentrations of Greek names and whether the proportions of such names changed over

1 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 11. PCBE , “Bikt rinos,” i.302, for example, bears a Hellenized version of the Latin “Victorinus;” it is written in the Greek script as “ ιω .” There remains the possibility that at least some of the Latin names recorded in Greek were apprehended as Latin and simply happened to be written in Greek, but it is clear that, at least in the Greek East, some Latin names, such as “Flavius” and “Constantinus,” became Greek in much the same way that “Leo” became Latin (“ ω ” in Greek): Salway, “What’s in a Name?” 144.

120 time. The impetus for this question partly lies in political circumstances. The greatest trauma for late antique Italy was the Byzantine-Gothic War that ravaged the entire peninsula for decades in the mid-sixth century. What we wish to investigate is whether there was a change in the rates of Greek names in Italy from the sixth century, particularly in those areas that the Greek-speaking Byzantines managed to keep after the

Lombard invasion in 567/568. If there was indeed a rise in Greek names in these areas, that would be evidence for the cultural influence of the Byzantine administration.

Another reason to examine Greek names lies in social circumstances. Ever since

Heikki Solin’s magisterial study on Greek names in Rome, it has been the consensus that, in more Latin-dominated areas, Greek names appeared most commonly in two social groups: the elite and the slaves. 2 Yet Solin’s work covered only Classical Antiquity, and there are causes to suspect that the trends he described changed during Late Antiquity.

Among the elites, the influx of “new men,” who did not necessarily have the same fascination with Hellenistic culture as their older counterparts, under the Constantinian dynasty may well have weakened the aristocratic affinity for Greek names. 3 At the other end of society, the decline in the practice of slavery may have weakened associations of servility with Greek names. 4 For these reasons, it is imperative that we reexamine Greek names across social groups in order to determine whether the social and cultural connotations of Greek names may have shifted.

Another theme to which the study of Italian Greek names relates is that of the integration of Italy within a larger “Mediterranean world,” a subject of some interest to

2 For a fuller discussion of this work, see above, 14-15. 3 Wilson, Means of Naming , 51-55. 4 Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages , 259-265 gives a basic overview of the history of slavery in Late Antiquity.

121 those studying Late Antiquity. One of the main differences between the classical and medieval worlds, one could argue, is that the Mediterranean Basin was united politically, economically, and – at least to a certain degree – culturally, under the Roman Empire, whereas these unities had fragmented by the Middle Ages. Late Antiquity serves in part as a liminal period in which these features would have had to change. In the West, at least, political unity shattered, and several successor states resisted, with varying levels of success, the attempted re-imposition of imperial authority which the Eastern Empire claimed over the entirety of the Roman Empire.

The use of Greek names in Italy speaks most clearly to the topic of culture. We would expect that Southern Italy and Sicily would have a relatively high rate of Greek names because of its significant Greek speaking population, but the use of Greek names in the northern parts of the peninsula, where the Latin language dominated, is much more difficult to explain outside of continual cultural contact with Greek-speaking areas, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean. In fact, the aristocracy’s fascination and interaction with Greek culture spurred the popularity of such names among this class in

Antiquity, and the importation of Greek slaves from the East associated slaves and freedmen with Greek names as well. In Antiquity, then, the spread of Greek names in

Italy was a sign of cultural interconnectivity between the Eastern and Western

Mediterranean basin. As political and economic contact waned during Late Antiquity, however, such exposure would have declined. By looking at the evidence of names in those areas that the Byzantines conquered and subsequently held against the Lombards, and comparing them to the rest of Italy, we argue that higher rates of Greek names

122 indicate higher levels of contact with the Greek-speaking East than in other regions of

Italy.

It bears reiterating here that the linguistic derivation of a name does not imply ethnic identity. Among the senatorial class in particular, there is no reason to believe that individuals using Greek names had any Greek ancestry. Even among slaves, where their importation from the Greek-speaking East in Antiquity sparked the fashion of Greek slave names in Rome, there is evidence that people of every ethnic identity, including

Italians of many and varied extractions, were given Greek names. 5 In these cases, at least, a Greek name was a matter of fashion. That said, a predominance of Greek names in

Greek-speaking areas would point to a preference for using names drawn from one’s mother-tongue, but this still does not, in any case, mean that the bearers of such names identified ethnically as Greek.

Greek Names in Social Contexts

In Republican and Early Imperial Rome, scholars often associate the use of Greek names in Central and Northern Italy with slaves and freedmen. 6 Many slaves came to

Italy from the Eastern Mediterranean, often as war booty or as poor men seeking to escape penury by selling themselves into slavery. Poor scholars who sold themselves helped fill the demand of the Roman aristocracy for Greek slaves to educate their children. 7 Freed slaves with Greek names also tended to pass their names on to their descendants, thus causing a notable percentage of the freedman population to bear such names. By Late Antiquity, these associations began to wane, largely owing to a

5 Solin, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der griechischen personennamen , 39-47 6 Ibid ., 39-47; Kajanto, Early Christian Inscription , 58-59. 7 Kajanto, Early Christian Inscriptions , 59.

123 reduction in the flow of slaves into Italy from the East, and the general decline of the institution of slavery. The present study has only a very small servile sample of twenty individuals, and this makes definite conclusions difficult to reach. Of the slaves and freedmen and -women, only three had Greek names, which is actually slightly below the average usage of Greek names for the entire population. 8 Moreover, all three came from sixth-century Southern Italy or Sicily, where one would expect to find Greek names anyway. The remaining slaves and freedpersons all bore Latin names. Thus, the associations between Greek names and servility seem to have been severely curtailed by

Late Antiquity.

There is the possibility, of course, that undocumented freedmen and perhaps slaves are mixed in with other social categories. However, this does not add much weight to the associations of Greek names with freedmen, either. Among lowborn men, the rate of Greek names is slightly under nineteen percent, slightly lower than the average of around twenty percent for the population as a whole. 9 The rate of Greek names among men of unknown rank, at least a few of whom were presumably freedmen, is also decidedly average at just below twenty percent. 10 That the groups in which undetectable freemen were most likely to number also do not have unusually high rates of Greek name usage suggests two possibilities. First, that the undocumented freedmen had a very high rate of Greek name usage undetected by the present tiny, unrepresentative sample of known slaves and freedmen and that this balanced out a lower rate among other segments

8 Four names out of twenty one total constitute fifteen percent of the whole. Overall, there are 873 Greek names for 4,440 individuals, meaning that Greek names made up 19.66 percent of the total corpus. 9 Forty eight out of 260 lowborn men, or 18.46 percent, have Greek names 10 115 of 580 men without a known social rank, or 19.83 percent, bore Greek names.

124 of the population. Secondly, that freedmen were as likely, but not more likely, to use

Greek names as men of other social classes.

The other group sometimes associated with Greek names, the lay elites, do not show any especial connection to Greek names in Late Antiquity. At an overall rate of nineteen percent, the aristocrats conform to the average Italian affinity for Greek names. 11

The data also demonstrate that Greek names lost popularity between the beginning and the end of the period (see figs. 4.1-4.2 on page 164): in the fourth century, over one- quarter of the elites bore a Greek name, compared to under a fifth in the sixth century. 12

To be sure, the real nadir for Greek names came in the fifth century, when barely fifteen percent of aristocrats used them. 13 Consequently, there was, in fact, a slight increase in

Greek names toward the end of the period. There are several reasons for these changes.

Two, urban decline and Byzantine influence, shall be covered in subsequent sections.

Yet, several other possible influences remain.

First, as was discussed in chapter two, Greek names in general appear to have declined at the expense of Christian names. Particularly in the sixth century, the elites began to bear more Christian names. The rise in names like “Cumquodeus,” for example, seem to have replaced Greek names in some areas. Moreover, the increase in Greek names with unmistakable Christian meanings, like “Petrus,” and Semitic, biblical names that came to Latin via Greek, like “Iohannes,” also came at the expense of classical Greek names. Although these names do bear witness to the importance of the Greek language to early Christianity, the fact that these names gained popularity roughly in stride with

11 Of 586 total elites, some 112 used Greek names. 12 Some fifteen of fifty four fourth-century elites, or 27.77 percent, had Greek names, compared to sixty four of 343, or 18.66 percent, sixth-century aristocrats. This represents a decline of about a third 13 Twenty five of 161 fifth century elites had Greek names, yielding a rate of 15.53 percent. Between 453 and 512, the figure drops to twelve of ninety-six, or 12.50 percent.

125 other, more generally Christian names, suggests that they were viewed less as Greek than as Christian names. Thus, the increase in rates of Christian names partially explains the reduced use of Greek names amongst the elite.

Another possible cause for the changing use of Greek names amongst the aristocracy may be related to its changing composition. In the fifth century, which had the lowest rate of Greek names, we find a significant increase in Germanic names amongst the elites. The adoption of Germanic warriors into the highest ranks of imperial government in the fifth century contributed to the decline in elite Greek names: not only do we find more Germanic names amongst the elite – e.g. “Burco,” “Sigisuultus,” and

“Ricimer” – it also appears that Germanic persons, when Romanizing, tended to adopt

Latin names, at least in the West. 14 The influx of Germanic persons bearing Germanic and Latin names into the elite during the final decades of the Western Empire and during

Odovacer’s and Theodoric’s administrations would have reduced the rate of Greek names.

Finally, the replacement in the late sixth century of the native elites with Lombards, many of whom bore Germanic names, may have blunted the slight resurgence in Greek names toward the end of that century. 15

14 E.g. Flavius Aetius, son of the “Scythian” Flavius Gaudentius. Wilson, Means of Naming , 65-66 gives a very brief treatment of this process.. 15 For the destruction of the old Roman nobility during the “Anarchy of the Dukes,” see Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum II.32, trans Foulke, 86-93. Christie, The Lombards , 82-84, and Wickham, Early Medieval Italy , 31-32 both give brief critical overviews of Paul’s testimony. The PCBE lists many Lombards with Germanic names holding positions of authority in the final decades of its timeframe, e.g. the dux or magister militum Ansfrid and the dux Ariulfus ( PCBE , “Ansfrid,” i.143, and “Ariulfus,” i.188- 189. Related to the influx of Lombards is the fact that, as we shall see below, the increase of Greek names may have been tied to Byzantine influence, and the removal of said influence in Lombard-controlled areas would have removed many of the reasons for the remaining native elites to adopt Greek names.

126

Greek Names in an Urban Context

In some regions, the use of Greek names appears linked with the fate of urban centers in the region. In Northeastern Italy, for example, over half the Greek names that can be precisely dated occur before 452, when Attila sacked Aquileia, a major population center, and nearly two-thirds of those come from that city,16 even though the city only accounted for three in ten names from this region. 17 Even after adding those names with less precise dates, most of the Greek names before the sixth century came from with

Aquileia or one of its suburbs, Udine. 18 To put this in context, over half of all names from Aquileia from before 452 were Greek, compared to a little under half for the entire region. 19 This means that a disproportionate number of Greek names were coming from

Aquileia. After Aquileia’s sacking, though, the number of Greek names declined, and the names were distributed between smaller urban centers, including the now-reduced

Aquileia; Grado, whither many Aquileians fled after the destruction of their city; and

Parentium. None of these cities contained the remarkable proportion of Greek names that

Aquileia had before the sack. 20 One should note that Grado, thanks to inscriptions in the cathedral of late sixth-century St. Eufimia provided forty five percent of names in this period, but only forty percent of Greek names. 21 This suggests that Greek names

16 Some twenty of the thirty-five datable names, or 57.14 percent, are from before 452. Thirteen of the twenty, or sixty five percent, are from Aquileia. 17 Twenty three of the seventy four names, or 31.08 percent, from before 452 came from Aquileia 18 Some thirty one of the forty nine names with dates before the sixth century, or 63.27 percent, come from Aquileia or Udine. 19 Thirteen of twenty three, or 56.52 percent, of all pre-452 Aquileian names were Greek, compared to thirty five of seventy four (47.3 percent) for the entire region. 20 There were fifteen post-452 Greek names. Two came from Aquileia itself, six from Grado, and two from Parentium. 21 Of the 133 datable post-452 names, sixty one, or 45.86 percent, came from Grado; six of the fifteen Greek names, or forty percent, came from the city.

127 flourished in the vibrant urban culture of Aquileia, but lost popularity once the city started to decline.

A forthcoming work on this history of names in Venice provides us with a fuller look at the names found at Grado and the Venetia in the late-sixth and early-seventh centuries.22 These names strongly suggest that, one century after the sack of Aquileia,

Greek names had fallen from favor. Of the 122 names on the list, only twenty two were

Greek. 23 As we shall see in the next section, this is similar to the rates of Greek names in many other regions of Italy at this time. Nevertheless, the fall in Aquileia from over half to under one fifth in Grado in just over a century represents a significant decline. Part of the change may be due to the ecclesiastical subset of the population; only three of the twenty two total churchmen bore Greek names. Although we cannot be certain, it may be that ecclesiastics especially rejected Greek names after the beginning of the Schism of the

Three Chapters in 553, which witnessed the breach between the bishops of much of

Northern Italy, including the bishop of Aquileia, the most significant bishop in the

Venetia, break with the orthodox church. As the provocations for the schism stemmed mostly from the Byzantine church, it may be that many Christians, particularly ecclesiastics, eschewed Greek names in protest. 24

22 I would like to thank Dr. Luigi Andrea Berto, my thesis advisor and the author of the as-yet-untitled study, for allowing me access to this list of names. Many of these names can also be found in Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien , 201-257, which discusses the Cathedral of St. Eufimia at Grado in some detail. 23 This yields a rate of 18.03 percent of all names being Greek. 24 For a background on the schism, see Herrin, Formation of Christendom , 119-122. It should be noted that the schism stemmed from interpretations of the Council of Chalcedon. The churchmen of Grado, at least, were so keenly aware of symbols pertaining to the Council that they consecrated their new cathedral to St. Eufimia, the same patron saint as the cathedral in which the Council of Chalcedon convened in 451. Such hyper-awareness of the schism in this matter means that the practice of eschewing Greek names because of religious matters is an overly-ridiculous idea.

128

More broadly, economics may have had a great impact on urban anthroponomy.

Aquileia had been, before the sack, a major trading center with a vibrant cosmopolitan culture, and so a notable proportion of alien names is only to be expected. 25 As trade dropped off, the number of visiting Greek merchants declined, and so exposure to Greek language and culture must have dropped off; this would cause the commensurate decline in Greek names make sense. Northwestern Italy, too, similarly links urban centers and

Greek names. Mediolanum, the major urban center in the northwest for most of the period, only provided about forty percent of the total names in the region, but accounted for sixty percent of the Greek names there.26

Byzantine Influence

But what of regions in which the Byzantine presence lasted through to the end of this period, rather than being overtaken by the Lombards? In the region of Central Italy, where the Exarchate of Ravenna lasted beyond the initial Lombard invasion, the amount of Greek names decreased slightly during the Byzantine period, from about fifteen percent of the population under the Ostrogoths to thirteen percent. 27 Given the small sample sizes available for these periods, the slight decrease does not mean much; rather, the number of Greek names probably stayed roughly steady between the two periods. If we restrict ourselves to individuals only found in the Exarchate of Ravenna, since the

Lombards conquered much of the Central Italian region, we find a tiny increase in the

25 Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages , 209. 26 Some 132 of the 310 names – 42.58 percent – from the northwest were from Mediolanum but forty two of the seventy Greek names, or sixty percent, were from that city. 27 The two time periods covering the years 483-542, or roughly the Ostrogothic period, had 235 precisely datable names, of which thirty five, or 14.89 percent, were Greek. In the final two periods, 543-604, thirty six of the 275 names, or 13.09 percent, were Greek.

129 proportion of Greek names, from fourteen to fifteen percent. 28 Again, though, the small sample sizes mean the change between the periods has little statistical significance.

Despite the insignificant change in overall proportions both in the Exarchate and all of Central Italy, the type of individual having a Greek name changed between the two periods. During the Gothic period, all but five of the people with Greek names were ecclesiastics. Of the thirty churchmen, fifteen were bishops. The three upper-class laymen, out of a total of five, bore Greek names, which indicates that Greek names were used about equally between the upper and lower classes. In the Byzantine period, though, laymen had two-thirds of the recorded Greek names in Central Italy, and in the Exarchate, this proportion increased to eighty-one percent of the total. 29 Additionally, over half of the Greek-named laymen in the Exarchate were either of senatorial rank or part of the

Byzantine administration. 30 To put this in perspective, this means that a little over a quarter of administrators and senators under the Byzantines had Greek names, compared to one in ten under the Ostrogoths. 31 This significant shift, both in relative and absolute terms, of Greek names from the ecclesiastics to the laity, combined with the affinity of these laymen for joining the Byzantine government, suggests that a Greek name may have been desirable amongst the elite and governing classes under the Byzantines.

Other areas that the Byzantines held, like Southern Italy and Sicily, follow similar patterns. In the South, the proportion of Greek names increased slightly from the

28 Some eighteen of the 131 individuals from what would become the Exarchate, or 13.74 percent, bore Greek names between 483 and 542, whereas twenty one of 139, or 15.11 percent, did from 543 to 604 29 Twenty four of the thirty six Central Italians from 543-604 using Greek names, or two-thirds, were laymen. In the Exarchate, this increases to seventeen out of twenty one, or 80.95 percent. 30 Ten of seventeen laymen from the Exarchate, or 58.82 percent, held a senatorial rank (e.g. Theodulus 1001, a vir clarissimus ) or held office in the administration (e.g. Theodosius 1002, a vir devotus holding the post magister litterarum ) 31 Some ten out of thirty seven of the senatorial class and administrators, or 27.03 percent, had Greek names during the Byzantine period, whereas three of thirty, or ten percent, had them in the Ostrogothic period.

130

Ostrogothic period to the Byzantine one, both in the entire region and in those areas that the Byzantines controlled after the Lombard invasion. 32 Comparisons are more difficult for Sicily, where we have only six individuals positively datable to the Ostrogothic period.

If the tiny sample for this period is representative – an admittedly unlikely scenario – then the rate of Greek names remained pretty well the same between the Ostrogothic and

Byzantine eras, at around seventeen percent. 33 The main difference between these areas and Central Italy is that ecclesiastics remained the largest group using Greek names here. 34 Additionally, the proportion of administrators and upper-class individuals with

Greek names was much lower in the South than in the Exarchate. For example, fewer than one in ten administrators or senators in Byzantine Sicily used Greek names, compared to one in four in Ravenna. 35 The nature of the surviving sources for these regions partially explains this. In Ravenna, both a small collection of charters from this era and a local chronicle, the Liber Pontificalis Ravennatis , witness this period, and the charters especially record many governmental officials and upper class individuals. The main source for this period in Southern Italy and Sicily, however, is the letter register of

Gregory the Great, who tended to write more to ecclesiastics and a few high ranking laymen than to bureaucrats in the Byzantine administration. To be sure, many of

Gregory’s letters dealt with matters in central Italy, but we are much less reliant upon them for information in this region than we are in the south, and so we can better

32 For the entire region, the proportion of Greek names increased from 14.62 percent to 16.52 percent (twenty five of 171 to thirty seven of 224); for Apulia, Lucania, Neapolis, and southern Latium, the rate increased from seven out of thirty eight total (18.42 percent) to twenty out of ninety three (21.51 percent). 33 Of the six Ostrogothic-era individuals, one (or 16.67 percent) used a Greek name; under the Byzantines, thirty one of 183 individuals (or 16.94 percent) used them. 34 For all southern Italy, we have records of thirteen ecclesiastics and three lay members of the senatorial class during the Ostrogothic period, compared to twenty one ecclesiastics and seven lay administrators or senatorial types during the Byzantine period. 35 Four of forty six administrators and senatorial rank individuals in Byzantine Sicily, or 8.7 percent, used Greek names.

131 overcome their biases in the Exarchate. Additionally, Ravenna was a great center of

Byzantine patronage in Italy, and so it would have attracted many individuals seeking to join the administration or attach themselves to the exarchical court.

In Rome, the much-contended prize of the Gothic War, the rate of Greek names actually declined between the Ostrogothic and Byzantine periods. Under the Ostrogoths, nearly a quarter of all attested names were of Greek origin, whereas such names constituted less than fifteen percent under the Byzantines. 36 Two factors seemingly influenced these changes. The first factor is again the available sources: three synodal acta and one letter of Pope Felix II (III), which describes another church synod – all of these datable to the Ostrogothic period – survive, and they give us a full picture of the

Roman clergy at this time, since these sources list all clergymen in attendance.

Information on the Byzantine period, by comparison, relies on the works of Gregory the

Great, and a few letters of earlier popes, which, taken together, give us many fewer ecclesiastical names for Rome. Moreover, it is difficult to differentiate individuals between the various acta from the Ostrogothic period, and so ecclesiastics in general may be over-represented owing to repetition, which could inflate the number of Greek names.

Urban decline, the second reason, also likely played a role in the decline of Greek names.

We must recall that, over the course of the Gothic War, armies besieged and damaged

Rome thrice, which led to a significant decrease in population. 37 Indeed, some of the same forces that caused the decline in Greek names at Aquileia and Mediolanum also affected Rome. We should note, however, that among the senatorial and administrative classes, the rate of Greek names remained roughly the same, around twenty-five

36 Eighty eight of the 379 names from the Ostrogothic period, or 23.22 percent, were Greek, compared to forty one of 281 Byzantine-era names (14.59 percent). 37 Wickham, Early Medieval Italy , 25.

132 percent. 38 Such stability in Greek names among these groups suggests that Byzantine rule and the decline of the City did not overly affect the propensity of the upper classes to choose Greek names, which fact again emphasizes the social conservatism, at least vis-à- vis names, of the late antique Roman elites. Thus, despite an overall decline in Greek names in the City, certain sections of society, particularly the lay elite, retained their

Greek naming tendencies.

The affinity between Greek names and the lay aristocracy appears to have been a phenomenon that persisted throughout the Byzantine presence in Italy, and partially tied to it. Gentlemen and Officers , a study of the Byzantine administration and administrators in Italy, T.S. Brown appended a prosopographical index documenting the aristocrats of the Byzantine period, roughly 554 to 800. 39 As one might expect, Brown’s corpus of individuals overlaps rather heavily with the PCBE ’s; in most cases, the new names from the index largely confirm the data we have already seen. The proportion of aristocrats bearing Greek names in Rome remained relatively stable at around twenty-five percent between the late Ostrogothic and early Byzantine periods, according to Brown; this matches well with our analysis of Roman aristocrats from the PCBE .40 Similarly, a little under a quarter of the senators and administrators from Ravenna in the early Byzantine period, recorded only in Brown’s work, used Greek names. 41

38 Ten of the forty four Ostrogothic period upper classes bore Greek names, or some 22.73 percent, compared to the twelve of forty five, or 26.67 percent, during the Byzantine period. 39 T.S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers , 247-282. Henceforth, I shall only include citations for specific names drawn from the index, lest I overwhelm the reader with vague, identical citations to the index as a whole. 40 One of the four aristocrats from the Ostrogothic period used a Greek name, compared to ten of the forty two (or 23.81 percent) in the period between 543 and 604, compared to the PCBE ’s rates of 22.73 and 26.67 percent for the same periods. 41 Seventeen of seventy aristocrats, or 24.29 percent, between 543 and 604 used Greek names. Compare this to those from the PCBE , where the rate was 27.03 percent.

133

More importantly, though, Brown’s index allows us a glance at the development of aristocratic anthroponomy heading into the Middle Ages, at least in areas controlled or influenced by the Byzantines. Although names after 604 are technically outside the purview of this study, a few brief comparisons with trends in later periods may prove useful. Perhaps most striking is the correlation of Greek names with Byzantine influence.

For as long as the Byzantines had political dominance in a region, the rates of Greek names amongst the elites remained stable; after the removal of Byzantine influence, however, Greek names tended to decline, and fairly rapidly in some areas. The general pattern that we find is that aristocrats actually increased their use of Greek names until around 750, at which point they again begin to decrease. (See fig. 4.3 on page 165) This coincides well with the final fall of Ravenna to the Lombards in 751. So, for example, in

Ravenna itself, Greek names peaked in proportion at over sixty percent of the names in the early eighth century, but declined to around forty percent in the late eighth century.

Byzantine practices of administration may have some influence these figures;

Brown demonstrates that at least some members of the imperial administration in

Ravenna came from the Eastern Empire, although he argues that many of these men likely had only temporary postings in Italy and that aristocratic immigration to the peninsula was limited at best.42 At least some of the pre-751 individuals may have been born in the East, where Greek names were more common, and the end of the Byzantine presence in Central Italy after 751 would have limited further migration of officials from the east. Brown also notes, though, that the immigration of Eastern officials largely disappeared over the course of the seventh century, and so by the eighth century, the

42 T.S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers , 64-69.

134 effect of immigration on naming patterns, at least in Ravenna, would have been negligible. 43

The figures elsewhere in Byzantine Italy depended on other factors. The exceptionally high rates of Greek names in Southern Italy and Sicily likely result from the native Greek-speaking population. Moreover, the maintenance of these high rates in the late-eighth century may be due in part to the lingering political control the Byzantines kept in at least some enclaves in these regions. Alternately, in Rome, we find a significant decline in Greek names at the end of the eighth century. Although the general loss of Byzantine power in Central Italy after 751 may partly explain this, the magnitude of the decline suggests other factors may be involved. One likely explanation is the growing friction between Rome and the Byzantine administration in the decades before the fall of the Exarchate. The heavy-handed attitude of the Byzantines in their relations with Rome, best illustrated by the Emperor Leo’s abortive attempt to kidnap Pope

Gregory II in 727 and the resultant occupation of Rome by Byzantine troops in the following year, is known to have caused resentment amongst the city’s elite. 44 It may be that such disgruntlement may have led to a reaction amongst the aristocracy against using names that smacked of Byzantine culture, which would have precluded many Greek names. If this were the case, many children named in the mid-eighth century would have first appeared in the records after 750, and this might help account for the rapid decline in

Greek names in this period.

All these data suggest that the slight rise in aristocratic usage of Greek names at the end of the sixth century may have been part of a larger trend linking naming patterns

43 Ibid ., 67-69. 44 T.S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers , 51.

135 to Byzantine influence. When and where Byzantine political control remained significant,

Greek names increased among the aristocratic naming corpus. After the removal of direct Byzantine administration, particularly in Central Italy and Rome, Greek name usage declined. The possibility that Greek names were simply a trend among the aristocracy matches well with the sixth-century tendency of an overall decline in Greek names. If it were a trend, dependent upon constant contact with the Greek East, it seems natural that, as soon as those contacts withered and the impetus for Greek names dissolved, the tendency to use “native” Latin names would reassert itself. 45

Finally, whatever the reason for the aristocratic adoption of Greek names under the Byzantines, it would appear that religious practices from the East may have influenced onomastic practice during the Byzantine period. Greek names were moderately popular amongst Italians throughout Late Antiquity, but several names suggest links with Eastern saint cults.46 The name “Georgius” is provides one prominent example of a name related to Eastern religion appearing in Italy. In the PCBE , only one ecclesiastic, a sixth or seventh century acolyte, bears the name. Otherwise, all other

45 T.S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers , 69, argues, based on documentary evidence, such as the surviving papyri and Agnellus of Ravenna’s Liber Pontificalis Ravennatis , that there was a “local culture which remained firmly Latin.” I hesitate to endorse this view, as it reduces culture as a whole to linguistic affinity. A better anthroponymic argument would be to survey the names of all levels of society to determine whether the popularity of Greek names in Italy (particularly in the Exarchate) was restricted only to the aristocratic class, or if it permeated all levels of society. If the latter, it would be more difficult to defend the idea of a “Latin culture,” that simply reasserted itself after the fall of Ravenna in 751. Aside from the fact that such a massive undertaking is well beyond the scope of the present study, the best resource for this, Salvatore Cosentino’s Prosopografia dell'Italia bizantina (493-804) remains unfinished and, given the large proportion of Greek names that begin with letters after ‘O’ (where Cosentino left off), any conclusions based on this work would be highly tentative at best. André Guillou, in his Régionalisme et indépendance dans l'empire byzantin au VIIe siècle: L'exemple de l'exarchant et de la pentapole d'Italie (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 1969), did attempt such a study but, as Brown rightly points out, his methodology is somewhat questionable and, at any rate, he strays very near to equating the linguistic origin of an individual’s name with his ethnicity (T.S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, 67-68). 46 Brown, Gentlemen and Officers , 67-68. If we discount Biblical names transmitted through Greek, like “Iohannes,” saints’ names were generally less common than theophoric names and those denoting Christian concepts (e.g. “Anastasius”).

136 individuals with the name were laymen. Of those whose professions we know, half of the Georgii were military men, an interesting fact in light of St. George’s military associations. Significantly, they all post-date the Gothic War, which suggests Byzantine influence. For example, the Porta San Sebastiano in Rome bears an inscription dating from the Byzantine period that calls upon the protection of Ss. Conon and George. 47 Two of the soldiers bearing the name originated in Rome, and so their names, together with the inscription, bear witness to devotion to the saint in this period. The third soldier came from Ravenna, the center of Byzantine power in the peninsula. The association of the name with people connected to these areas of strong Byzantine influence may reflect familiarity with a saint popularized by the Byzantines. The two silk merchants named

“Georgius” also make sense; interaction with Easterners may have made the adoption of this name more likely, and their trade would have required contacts with the Eastern

Mediterranean to acquire the goods. These Georgii , then, may demonstrate the influence of the Byzantines and their saints, especially after the Gothic Wars. Brown’s prosopographical index seems to confirm the relationship of the name “Georgius” with the military and Eastern culture, as six of the ten Georgii he records belonged to the

Byzantine military hierarchy, and one other was an agent of the imperial court. 48

Additionally, Brown records one name not found in the PCBE that might also be linked with Byzantine military saint cults, that of “Sergius.” Sergius, one-half of the paired cult of Sergius and Bacchus, was a saint whose veneration, particularly amongst the military, is well-attested in the East. Given the popularity of a St. Sergius as a military saint in the

47 Thomas Ashby and S. Rowland Pierce, “The Piazza Del Popolo: Rome. Its History and Development,” The Town Planning Review 11, no. 2 (Dec. 1924): 79. 48 T.S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers , 261.

137

Eastern Empire, 49 and that more than half of those named “Sergius” served in the

Byzantine military, 50 it is possible that this name had associations with imported

Byzantine religious practices.

Another set of names one might reasonably expect to be linked with the

Byzantine occupation would be those of the names of emperors. We have seen that, in

Rome, the political importance of the popes appears to have influenced naming patterns in periods around their reigns. 51 It might seem natural, then, that emperors, the most powerful political figures in the empire, might have had a similar effect, particularly before the end of the Western line of emperors in 476 and that likewise the names of

Byzantine emperors would also appear with some frequency in Byzantine-controlled Italy.

However, there appears very little correlation between names and the reigns of emperors, either before 476 or during the Byzantine era.

In some cases, the problem with imperial names is that the name of an emperor happened to be relatively common. 52 “Constantius” is one such name. Three emperors used the name; they ruled from 293 to 306, from 337 to 361, and in 421, respectively.

However, of the thirty six Constantii listed in the PCBE , only seven could conceivably have been named after the first two emperors of that name, and three of those only

49 Brian Croke, “Justinian, Theodora, and the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers , vol. 60 (2006): 52. Moreover, Croke argues that Justinian consciously supported the cult of Sergius and Bacchus for political reasons ( ibid ., 53-62), although his argument revolves mostly around the construction of churches in Constantinople. 50 T.S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers , 275. 51 See above, 48-49. 52 The names “Valens” and “Valentinanus,” which belonged to two several notable emperors of the late fourth century, are a case in point. Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 65-66 demonstrates both names were very common in Antiquity, and the temporal correlations of both names with emperors, according to the names in the PCBE , are weak at best, meaning that the more likely explanation is that these names were popular independent of imperial associations.

138 because they can be dated to some time in the fourth century. 53 The reign of Constantius

III was so short that it is impossible to tell if any persons, aside from one priest, might have been named him. 54 The other seventy-eight percent of the Constantii in the PCBE were named well after the deaths of the three emperors, which makes the rulers unlikely namesakes.

The name of “Constantinus” provides a similar case. In the PCBE ’s timeframe, there were two emperors named “Constantine,” who reigned consecutively from 306 until

340. Of the eleven Constantini attested in the prosopography, however, only two lived in a time that suggests they may have been named after one of the emperors. 55 That means over eighty percent of the Constantini were born late enough that it is unlikely they received their names for political reasons. To be sure, seven of the nine, all ecclesiastics, were born too late and it is not inconceivable that at least some of them may have adopted the name as a religious commemoration of Constantine I, who was instrumental in the rise of Christianity. However, there is no evidence that any of them changed their names, and so the religious aspect must remain speculative at best.

Brown’s prosopographical index does allow us to look at the later development of the name “Constantinus.” What is undoubtedly clear is that it constituted a fairly popular name, providing nearly two percent of the corpus and appearing throughout the entire period of the study. What is less clear is the relationship between the names and emperors, as four emperors with the name, and an emperor named Constans who was

53 The individuals are Constantius 1002, 1003, and 1005-1009. Constantius 1001 was a bishop in 313, and so probably too old to have been named after Constantius I (unless he was born in or after 293 and was twenty years old at the most, an unlikely, if not entirely unheard of, age for Late Antique bishops), and Constantius 1004 was born either in 386 or 407, the former of which dates is possibly too late, and the latter of which is probably too late. 54 Constantius 1013, attested on a funerary inscription in May 448 ( PCBE , “Constantius 13,” i.476). His date of birth is unknown. 55 Constantinus 1001 is dated to the fourth century, and Constantinus 1002 to the fourth or fifth century.

139 also known as “Constantine,” reigned after 641, the year of Constantine III’s accession

Five of the fifteen men named “Constantinus” were born before 641, and so could not have had political motivations behind their names, unless they were named after the first two emperors Constantine, who ruled over two centuries prior to the births of these men. 56 Indeed, given that the name “Constantinus” did not become much more popular after 641, and the fact that the name was fairly regularly attested without any need for political meanings to the name for the two and a half centuries before these emperors, it seems likely that many of the post-641 Constantini were not named after any of the emperors.

One other imperial name that was popular apparently independently of political motivations was “Theodosius.” The three emperors with this name ruled from 378 until

395, 402 until 450, and 715 until 717. Only one of nine individuals in the PCBE with the name was of the right age to have been named after any of these emperors. 57 The other eight date from at least one hundred years after the death of Theodosius II, making political motivations unlikely. Of the six Theodosii attested only in Brown’s prosopography, five pre-date the reign of Theodosius III, again making political meanings for their naming only a remote possibility in most cases. 58

In general, Brown’s prosopography indicates that the Byzantine emperors had little impact on Italian naming customs. The names of the emperors Justin, Justinian,

56 T.S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, 256. Brown lists sixteen men named “Constantinus,” but one is identical with an individual from the PCBE , and so I did not count him. 57 That individual is “Theodosius 1001,” who was a bishop attested in 490 and so could have been named after Theodosius II ( PCBE , “Theodosius 1,” ii.2181). One should also remember that Theodosius II was actually the eastern emperor and never ruled in the West (and therefore Italy); although it might seem odd that a Western Roman be named after the eastern emperor, one ought also recall that the official political line was that the two halves of the empire still constituted one political unit, simply administrated separately. Therefore, it should not be too odd that an Italian could be named after one of the two emperors of the empire to which he belonged. 58 T.S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers , 278.

140

Heraclius, and Tiberius are all rare, if attested at all, and show little correlation between reigns and names. Only the name of the Emperor Maurice (r. 582-602) – “Mauricius” in

Latin – gained any sort of popularity. The name appears in the PCBE once before the emperor’s reign, once during it, and once roughly around it, 59 but it is much more common in Brown. The problem is that only two of the eight he lists were of the right age to have been named after the emperor; one is presumably too old to have been named after him, and the rest were born too long after his reign. 60 Perhaps a better explanation for the name’s popularity lies in the military saint Mauricius, who was the primicerius of the Theban Legion martyred at Agaunum in what is now Switzerland. 61 Although the nearest cultic center for the saint was in Agaunum,62 we have seen that other military saints like George and Sergius had popularity, particularly amongst military men, without the need for documented cult sites. Indeed, at least five of the eight Mauricii recorded in

Brown’s prosopography, including the one of those possibly born in Maurice’s reign, belonged to the military, and so it is quite possible that the saint contributed to the names popularity. 63 If it were indeed the saint who was mostly responsible for the name’s popularity, this once again underscores how small an impact the Byzantine emperors had on Italian naming customs.

59 Mauricius 1001 is attested in the fourth century, Mauricius 1002 in 600, and Mauricius 1003 in the sixth or seventh centuries. PCBE , ii.1435. 60 Brown’s Mauricius 1 is attested in 591-592 and, unless the Byzantines employed a magister militum who was nine years old, he was therefore probably not named for the emperor. Mauricius 2 and Mauricius 6 are both attested in about 640, meaning that they could have been old enough where it is conceivable they were named for Emperor Maurice. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers , 269. 61 BS , “Theban Legion,” 551. 62 Ibid . 63 Given that the lexical meaning of “Mauricius” is something like “the Moor,” it is not impossible that the name indicated its bearer came from, or had ancestors from, Mauritania, but there is no evidence for this hypothesis for those attested either in Brown or in the PCBE .

141

Conclusion

In some ways, Greek names act as a barometer for the pressures and progress of cultural and social transformation in Late Antiquity. The most facile observation concerning Greek names, of course, is that they declined in popularity overall during the course of Late Antiquity, although this in itself does not say much. Contextualizing the decline, though, provides us with at least two insights into late Roman society and culture.

One change we have observed through Greek names is the flux in the social order.

Amongst the lowest classes, slaves and freedmen, we find little especial association with

Greek names. This is in contrast to classical Rome, where Greek names had a servile stigma attached to them. At the other end of the social scale, it appears that the aristocrats also ceased favoring Greek names quite so highly; this tendency may be related to the rise of Christian names and, in the Ostrogothic and Lombard kingdoms, the injection of Germanic elites into the Italian aristocracy.

The other two major themes in this chapter, the association of Greek names with urban centers and the onomastic influence of the Byzantines, relates to our other interest, trans-Mediterranean cultural contact. The link of urban centers to Greek names speaks to the economic changes in Late Antiquity. Aquileia again serves as a case-in-point. This city was, in Antiquity, a center of trade, where merchants from around the Empire came to buy and sell. The presence of Eastern merchants in the city and the exposure to Greek culture that they provided its citizens may have at least partially driven the concentration of Greek names in the city, and there is also some evidence of migration to Aquileia from the East. 64 As the city declined, both trade and migration lessened, and so too did rates of

64 Ioseph 1001 and Ioulianos 1001 –both of whose names are recorded in the Greek script – moved to the city from the East, possibly from Syria. PCBE , “Ioseph,” i.1147, and “Ioulianos,” i.1155.

142

Greek names. There is not, to be sure, any necessary causal link between trends, but the fact that all declined precipitously in Northeastern Italy after the sack of Aquileia in 452 at least suggests that they all depended on a vibrant urban center to thrive. Moreover, it makes some logical sense that a Latin-speaking population would not give non-Latin names to their children if they did not have much exposure to non-Latin names, which exposure would have declined after the collapse of trade with and migration from the

East.

The Byzantine association with Greek names much more easily demonstrates the importance of interconnectivity to onomastic trends. As T.S. Brown points out, in the late-sixth and early-seventh centuries, at least, Byzantine Italy had strong ties to the

Eastern Empire, and there was a regular flow of men between them. We find that the aristocrats, who would most easily have benefitted from these contacts, began to use

Greek names more frequently during the same period, which suggests a link between onomastic practice and cultural and economic ties with the East. Likewise, in those areas controlled by the Lombards, which lacked the cultural and economic ties to the East that

Byzantine Italy had, Greek name usage remained low. Finally, the use of Greek names also declined in late Byzantine Italy, as the flow of men from the East declined and many

Byzantine holdings fell to the Lombards. Thus, it appears that Greek names remained popular for as long as ties with the East were maintained.

Perhaps more important than the cultural ties themselves, or even the names, are the longer-lasting results of this sustained East-West contact that we find within the anthroponymic data. For example, the rise of the names of Eastern military saints, such as “Georgius” and “Sergius,” reflect the influence Eastern religious practice still had on

143

Western Christianity. Likewise, the possibility that the denizens of Northwestern Italy rejected Greek names as a result of the Three Chapters Schism also speaks to the influence of Eastern Christianity. Yet, it appears that much of the Eastern cultural influence was restricted to the elite. The lack of Greek names amongst the lower classes suggests that commoners had either little contact with Greek culture or little reason to adopt it. 65 Moreover, the decline in Greek names that we find late in the Byzantine period suggests the Eastern cultural contact was somewhat shallow and that Greek names were, to the elite, more of an ephemeral trend than a defining feature of their status.

65 Members of the Byzantine military perhaps provide the main exception to this generalization, as it is amongst the military men that we most often found the names of military saints; however, the number of recorded non-officers is quite low, so it is very difficult to determine how widespread Greek culture was in the military as a whole.

144

CONCLUSION

“Melius est nomen bonum quam divitiae multae.” 1 Jerome’s translation of this passage from the Book of Proverbs seems readily to sum up late antique attitudes towards names. At the most basic level, people tried to choose suitable names for their children.

In some cases, this involved bestowing names that may have been politically expedient, like taking a name from the ruling class’s language, as may have happened in Byzantine

Italy, or naming a child after a local leader, like the popes in Rome. In other cases, giving a name rich in religious associations, which had apotropaic powers, seemed fitting, as appears to be the case with many saintly and biblical names. At the higher levels of society, bearing a “good name” – that is, a name weighted with history and associated with notable ancestors – carried great social prestige, and the aristocratic families of the late empire tried to perpetuate and collect such names. The choice of a name, then, could be of great importance to its bearer.

Yet the men and women of Late Antiquity did not entirely have free rein in choosing any names they desired. Rather, as the many continuities with earlier anthroponymic patterns which we have noted demonstrate, custom constrained these people. Many of the most popular names, particularly among males, had an ancient lineage and were well attested from the Republican era or before (see fig. c.1, an page

165). Such names include Felix, Maximus, Leo, and Severus. Other popular names, while of a more recent coinage, were but derivatives and diminutives of classical names, like Iulianus. Still more names, such as Theodorus or Ianuarius, had pagan pasts but gained new popularity upon adopting new Christian meanings. Amongst females (see fig.

1 Proverbs 22:1 (Vulgate). The RSV renders the passage “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches.” The latter follows the Septuagint’s sense more closely: “ εε .”

145 c.2, p. 166), where the loss of the gentilicium allowed for the creation of many new names, custom also reigned; instead of using the feminine version of the gentilicium , now women largely used female variations of male names. Of the top five women’s names, for example, only “Maria” did not have a masculine cognate, if we assume that this name is of biblical origin, and not simply the feminine form of the nomen “Marius.”

I hope this study has amply shown that the continuities extended beyond just the names used, and also included their uses. Taken together, the first two chapters argued that Christianity, a new, significant cultural force in Late Antiquity, adapted itself to existing anthroponymic patterns in several ways. First, the moderate correlations between saint’s cults and local names and the general decline of pagan theophoric names suggests that the new Christian saints filled the onomastic void in apotropaic names left by the decline of paganism. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, we must note the relative paucity of genuinely new names. Rather than coining names unique to their religious world-view, Christian instead chose to use old names and simply imbue them with a new Christian meaning. Thus, “Theodorus” now referred to the Christian God, instead of one of the members of the Greek pantheon, and “Victor” could now refer to

Christ’s victory over sin and death, rather than success in the mundane world.2 What names Christians did invent tended to fit older trends, such as “Columbus,” which refers to the Holy Spirit while simultaneously being one of a host of popular animal names.

This all indicates that, in regards to names, Christianity tended to fit in with existing customs, rather than replace old trends with new ones.

2 Wilson, Means of Naming , 60. However, Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 98 disagrees about Victor. See also my comments on this, above, 76, n. 40.

146

Chapter three also suggested some continuities in the functions of names in the family sphere. This was clearest amongst the senatorial aristocracy, where members of the old blood used archaic names, including some gentilicia , well into the fifth and, to a lesser extent, sixth centuries. Moreover, the senators clung to polyonomy for much longer than the general population, partially, it seems, as a mark of status. More generally, it appears that men continued to use names as a means of marking ancestry and kinship. The decline of the gentilicium , common in the Republic and Early Empire, helped shift the focus of naming from clan relations among the gentes to creating links to particular notable ancestors. In this we find one of the most obvious novelties in naming customs, that women could now transmit their own forbearers’ names as well. Despite this change, the status of women vis-à-vis naming was not otherwise elevated, as the ratio of individuals to names suggests that women were named much more carelessly than men, and the continued derivation of female names from male ones indicates a continued dependence on masculine nomenclature.

Conversely, the final chapter on Greek names generally focuses on discontinuity.

After all, many topics of discussion focused on change and the drop in Greek name usage over Late Antiquity. For example, it seems that the decline of urban centers and the tendency to abandon slavery weakened traditional bastions of Greek nomenclature.

Christianity, too, through the advancement of saints’ names, which in Italy tended to be in Latin, and other names with a Christian meaning, seems to have edged out Greek names to a certain degree. Finally, the seeming revival of Greek names at the end of our period of study and beyond appears due in large part to the influence of the Byzantines, whose attempts to reclaim the peninsula in the mid-sixth century created significant

147 disruptions in every part of Italian society. Yet, the revival of Greek names under the

Byzantines perhaps underscores a small amount of continuity: for the aristocrats,

Byzantine rule brought renewed contact with the East and with Greek culture, and they continued to give their children Greek names as long as these connections lasted. Indeed,

Greek names as a urban phenomenon likely has a similar explanation: the large number of Greek names in trading centers like Aquileia, for example, probably has as much to do with links with the Greek East through trade and the importation of slaves, as any other reason. So, as long as the old status quo continued, the aristocrats, at least, still had reasons to adopt Greek names. Once the continuity of regular contact with the East disappeared, as it did at different times throughout the peninsula, the impetus to use these names waned in all regions without a significant Greek-speaking population. Thus, in a way, Greek names displayed some continuity with older onomastic patterns.

All of these continuities confirm the view that, at least in Italy, anthroponomy was yet another facet of the Roman socio-cultural edifice that slowly mutated over the course of Late Antiquity, rather than suddenly collapsing in a Gibbon-esque “fall of the Roman

Empire.” The lay elites, with their attempts to perpetuate bloodlines and their insistence on using old names, most clearly demonstrate this. The ecclesiastics, too, tended toward continuing old Roman onomastic practices, as among them that we find many old names repurposed for Christianity. However, particularly toward the end of Late Antiquity, as we saw among the conciliar ecclesiastics at Rome and, to a lesser extent, among monks, there was a tendency among churchmen to favor Christian names. To be sure, many of these names were identical – or nearly so – to older Latin names, but the rise in names likely to be Christian among them suggests that, by the sixth century, ecclesiastics valued

148 these names for their religious values, not their links with the past. This means that there ended up being a divergence between the laity and the prelates. The lay elites, at least, used old names as a sign of prestige and a link to their ancestors, whilst the ecclesiastics used old names for their Christianity. Thus, even as we find continuity in the names used, it seems that the reasons for adopting these names changed.

149

APPENDIX I: The Foreigners

As the introduction indicated, one of the groups that did not make it into the main study was that of individuals with origins outside Italy. The peregrini , by nature of their foreign origins, do not reflect Italian naming customs in their own appellations, and so did not warrant inclusion in the above discussions. Nevertheless, an examination of these persons provides a very rough comparison with Italy and helps create a context for

Italian onomastic change within the Roman Empire as a whole.

To facilitate the study, the foreigners are divided into two groups: those from the

East, and those from the West. The Westerners comprise those individuals from

Hispania, Gaul, Britannia, the Province of Africa, Numidia and Mauretania, Noricum, and Illyria. The Easterners hail from Greece, Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine, Egypt, and

Cyrenaica, as well as from all nations to the East of the Empire. Illyria is admittedly a bit of a contentious point, since both halves of the Empire claimed jurisdiction over the diocese, and it served as something of a transitional region between the Latin and Greek cultural spheres. I have included it in the West because most of the individuals from the region appear to have come from the Latin areas of the region, as well as the fact that the

Eastern Empire had little functional control over it until after the Gothic War, meaning that it was de facto in the Western Empire’s orbit – and that of the Gothic Kingdom, for that matter – for most of this study’s time frame.

The most basic observation one can make is that the names of those from the

West tended to have Latin names, whereas the Easterners tended to bear Greek ones. A little over one-quarter of Westerners had names with a Greek origin, whereas over half of

150 the Easterners had Greek names. 1 The fact that barely half of Eastern names counted as

Greek may seem a bit surprising, at least on the surface. However, this is partially due to the anthroponymic conservatism of the aristocracy in Constantinople, the Eastern capital.

One must recall that much of the Byzantine elite first came to the East from Rome, when

Constantine attempted to transplant the old Roman senate in his “New Rome.” This old elite appears to have followed the same patterns as their Western counterparts in attempting to preserve names of long lineage, since half of the Eastern senatorial rank individuals in the PCBE used Latin names, 2 and a further two bore Latin nomina , even if their cognomina were Greek. 3 Those with only Latin names comprise about sixteen percent of the name corpus in the East. 4 Additionally, those bearing non-Greek biblical names had a small impact, accounting for an additional seven percent of names. 5

The rate of Christianity among the names of these two groups were also strikingly different. Recall that we estimated that, between the names of saints and names with strong Christian connotations, at least thirty percent of Italians bore names they would have deemed “Christian.” Those individuals from the West tend to fall below this number; barely fifteen percent of the population bore names that could reasonably be correlated with saint’s cults, 6 and after adding in names with clear Christian connotations,

1 Some thirteen of the forty five Westerners had Greek names, which works out to be 28.89 percent. The Eastern name corpus was 56.47 percent Greek (forty eight Greek names out of a total of eighty five). However, this last figure is if we include names like “Leo,” which we did not count as Greek in the West since they had been long assimilated into the Latin corpus; we included them here since native Greek speakers (as many in the East were) would have recognized them as being Greek. Were we to remove them, the rate would fall to forty three of eighty five, or 50.59 percent. 2 Some fourteen of twenty eight, or exactly half. 3 Attalus 1001 and Eudoxia 1001, who bore the full names “Priscus Attalus” and “Licinia Eudoxia,” respectively. PCBE , “Attalus,” I.215-216; PCBE , “Eudoxia,” I.667-668. 4 Forteen out of eighty five works out to be 16.47 percent. 5 Some six of eighty five, or 7.06 percent. 6 Seven of forty five, or 15.56 percent.

151 the rate rises to a little under a quarter. 7 Among the Easterners, the number of individual names correlated with saint’s cults is slightly over thirty percent. 8 A further ten percent bore other names that likely had a Christian connotations. 9 Adding these together, the

Easterners appear to have adopted a rate of Christian names that exceeded that of Italy.

Both of these figures, though, are probably higher than in actuality, since in many cases we only know the province whence an individual came. As Italy repeatedly demonstrates, the fact that a saint had a cult in a particular province does not mean he was venerated throughout all of it.

All of the above figures can only be preliminary, and call for further studies. The main reason for this is that the present analysis is predicated upon very small samples, and so may be wildly unrepresentative of the actual situation. However, the situation is not entirely without remedy. The PCBE series has several other volumes upon which one could base comparable studies. As of the writing of this paper, the PCBE has published volumes for the Province of Africa, Gaul, and the Diocese of Asia. The former two would be most useful for checking the woefully small sample of Westerners, and the latter would provide at least a case study for the East. Additionally, a close study of the

PLRE could provide a much fuller comparison of the naming patterns between the aristocracies of the Eastern and Western Empires.

7 Adding in the extra four Christian names brings the total up to eleven of forty five, or 24.44 percent. 8 Twenty eight of the eighty five names, or 32.94 percent, correlated with saint’s cults. 9 Nine of eighty five, or 10.59 percent.

152

APPENDIX II: The Constitutum Silvestri

At the turn of the sixth century, the Roman see was in turmoil. A contested episcopal election left the clergy and laity in the Eternal City split between two contenders, the ultimately vindicated Symmachus, and Laurentius. The schism, although initially a political dispute, quickly developed into a doctrinal argument, with the opposing bishops holding different views on a number of points, most famously over the date of when Easter should be celebrated. During the course of the dispute, Symmachus and his followers found documents from earlier papacies that happened to support

Symmachus’s theological positions. Later scholarship has proven that the documents all originated during the period of the schism, and so they are known collectively as the

“Symmachian forgeries.” 1

One of the documents in the collection was the Constitutum Silvestri . The

Constitutum purports to be the record of a church council held at Rome under Pope

Sylvester. One of the most important aspects of this document, in terms of the present study, is that it records 284 names of clergymen from the year 324. The PCBE records

131 of these individuals. An examination of these names should provide some interesting contrasts with the previous discussion about the names from the opening period of the study, and will perhaps provide some insight into the minds of the authors of these forgeries.

The rate of biblical names from the Constitutum outstrips that of the opening period of this study. Some eight of the names from the document come from the Bible, compared to four non-spurious names doing so. Common between the two samples are

1 W.T. Townsend, “The so-called Symmachian Forgeries,” The Journal of Religion 13, no. 2 (April 1933): 165-174 provides the most recent discussion of these documents as a collection.

153 the names “Petrus” and “Paulus,” which suggests a common reverence for the figures both by early forth century Italians and the early sixth-century authors of the Constitutum .

The Constitutum , though, is otherwise mostly concerned with figures from the Gospels:

Andreas, Iacobus, Iohannes, and Philippus were all Apostles, and Lucas was the author of two New Testament texts. This is curious, none of these names except “Iohannes,” appear in Italy before 393, and only one “Iohannes” did so in any event. 2 The name

“Lucas” is rather curious, since it appears only in the Constitutum . The fact that this name also appears with two “Marcuses” an anachronistic “Iohannes” leads one to wonder if the author of the document was thinking of the evangelists as he composed the list of names. This would be decidedly odd for, as we have seen, Italians generally did not favor the names of these particular saints. 3 Moreover, as we have seen, the use of saint’s names, including biblical ones, did not become popular until the mid-fifth century, and so the remarkable number of biblical names alone is cause for suspicion. The Constitutum thus may not only have used more biblical names, but also used them with different emphases than the actual Italians from that time.

Another difference between the two name corpora is the amount of traditional nomina and praenomina among them. In the non-spurious sample, these names constituted about ten percent of the whole. 4 The Constitutum , though, only has about half that rate of traditional names. 5 Yet, the rate of names derived from the more traditional ones was about the same for both groups at around seven percent. 6 This may in part be

2 PCBE , “Iohannes 1,” I.1058. “Iacobus” may prove a further exception, as Iacobus 1001 may be dated to 378, but since he hailed from the Persian Gulf region, his name is not indicative of Italian naming customs. 3 See above, 43-44. 4 Eleven of 113 is 9.73 percent. 5 Six of the 131 total names, or 4.58 percent, were nomina or praenomina . 6 Eight of the 113 non-spurious names, or 7.08 percent, had the adjectival endings, compared to nine of the 131 names only from the Constitutum , or 6.87 percent.

154 happenstance, since the Constitutum has more of these non-traditional adjectival names on the whole, which suggests, following Kajanto’s studies, a later provenance for the

Constitutum .7 Given that the recognition of distinctions between different classes of

Latin names collapsed in Late Antiquity, it makes sense that many of the adjectival names from the Constitutum came from praenomina and nomina rather than cognomina .

Another feature of the Constitutum ’s sample is the number of names that do not appear elsewhere in this study. Indeed, one-third of the names in this sample appear only in this document (see fig. A.1). 8 Moreover, about two-fifths of these had a fairly

Christian connotation. 9 Most, like “Renovatus” or “Caritosus” referred to Christian concepts. Unlike the verified names from the first period of the study, most of these names do not correspond to ones attested in pagan Antiquity that may have taken on a

Christian significance. Rather, these names are blatantly new, and do not follow the historical custom of taking names that fit into existing onomastic practice. Two names,

“Hirenaeus” and “Sylvestrianus” appear to refer to major post-biblical Christian figures.

The former recalls the second-century martyr Irenaeus. The second name derives from

“Sylvester,” and most obviously recalls the pope of that name. The latter, then, might point to the later composition of the Constitutum , since it makes little sense that a bishop contemporary with a saint would use that saint’s name in his own.

Overall, the names in the Constitutum do not fit into the anthroponymic practices of the times when they ostensibly originated. As we noted in the main text, Christians in the early period tended to bear names that fit in well with traditional Roman and Greek naming patterns. Yet here the names, in many cases, flout those traditions. The high rate

7 Kajanto, Latin Cognomina , 100-130, and particularly 100-105. 8 Some forty four of 131 names, or 33.59 percent, are unique to the Constitutum . 9 Eighteen of forty four, or 40.91 percent.

155 of biblical names in the Constitutum , for example, would have seemed odd to Pope

Sylvester’s contemporaries. Moreover, the number of names unique to the document cause one to wonder if the author was just making up names. The significant number of name-types of later origin, particularly adjectival names and the number of biblical and saints’ names, suggests a much later origin for the document, as many scholars on other grounds have suggested.

156

APPENDIX III: Tables and Figures

Unless otherwise noted, all data is drawn from the PCBE .

Figure 0.1: Map of Italy, divided into regions. Based on Richard J.A. Talbert et al., Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton [NJ]: Princeton University Press, 2000), nos. 1 and 101.

157

Regions Total Percent Petrus (Minimum Overlap) Petrus (Maximum Overlap) Persons in of Total Region Names Number Percent Percent Number Percent Percent of Total in of Total in for Name Region for Name Region Rome 1320 34.51% 51 49.51% 3.86% 40 43.48% 3.06% Central 677 17.70% 17 16.50% 2.51% 17 18.47% 2.51% Italy Northeast 398 10.41% 6 5.83% 1.51% 6 6.52% 1.51% Italy Northwest 245 6.41% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Italy South Italy 498 13.02% 12 11.65% 2.41% 12 13.04% 2.41% Sicily 217 5.67% 7 6.80% 3.23% 7 7.61% 3.23% Corsica and 77 2.01% 5 4.85% 6.49% 5 5.43% 6.49% Sardinia Western 46 1.20% 1 0.97% 2.17% 1 1.09% 2.17% Empire Eastern 81 2.12% 2 1.94% 2.47% 2 2.17% 2.47% Empire Unknown 154 4.03% 2 1.94% 1.30% 2 2.17% 1.30% (Italy) Unknown 112 2.93% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% (Elsewhere) Total 3825 100.01 103 99.99% 92 99.98% % Region Paulus Iohannes Number Percent of Percent in Number Percent of Total Percent Total for Name Region for Name in Region Rome 19 41.30% 1.44% 45 30.41% 3.41% Central 10 21.74% 1.48% 37 25.00% 5.47% Italy Northeast 5 10.87% 1.26% 15 10.14% 3.78% Italy Northwest 0 0.00% 0.00% 6 4.05% 2.45% Italy South Italy 6 13.04% 1.20% 17 11.49% 3.41% Sicily 1 2.17% 0.46% 10 6.76% 4.61% Corsica and 2 4.35% 2.60% 2 1.35% 2.60% Sardinia Western 0 0.00% 0.00% 2 1.35% 4.35% Empire Eastern 1 2.17% 1.23% 3 2.03% 3.70% Empire Unknown 2 4.35% 1.30% 8 5.41% 5.19% (Italy) Unknown 0 0.00% 0.00% 3 2.03% 2.68% (Elsewhere) Total 46 99.99% 148 100.02% Figure 1.1: The regional frequencies of the names “Petrus,” “Paulus,” and “Iohannes” according to the PCBE Italie . Please note that the percentage totals do not add up to 100.00 percent due to rounding errors

158

Laurentius Region Number Percent of Total for Name Percent in Region Rome 25 39.06% 1.89% Central Italy 15 23.44% 2.21% NE Italy 8 12.50% 2.01% NW Italy 3 4.69% 1.22% Southern 3 4.69% 0.60% Italy Sicily 1 1.56% 0.46% Corsica & 0 0.00% 0.00% Sardinia Western 0 0.00% 0.00% Empire Eastern 0 0.00% 0.00% Empire Unknown 3 4.69% 1.95% (Italy) Unknown 6 9.38% 5.36% (Empire) Total 64 100.01% Figure 1.2: The popularity of the name “Laurentius” according to region. The names do not add up to exactly one hundred percent due to rounding errors. See fig. 1.1 for the total number of persons in each region.

Central Italy Southern Italy Name Number Name Number 1. Iohannes 37 1. Felix 20 2. (tied) Petrus 17 2. Iohannes 17 2. (tied) Stephanus 17 3. (tied) Petrus 11 4. Laurentius 15 3. (tied) Stephanus 11 5. Constantius 13 5. (tied) Adeodatus 6 6. Gaudentius 12 5. (tied) Agnellus 6 7. Felix 10 5. (tied) Andreas 6 8. Paulus 10 5. (tied) Constantius 6 9. Severus 8 5. (tied) Leo 6 10. Romanus 7 5. (tied) Paulus 6 Figure 1.3: The ten most popular male names in Central and Southern Italy, from the PCBE Italie .

159

Upper Class Lower Class Name Number Name Number 1. Iohannes 31 1. Iohannes 10 2. Felix 10 2. Stephanus 7 3. Petrus 9 3. Felix 6 4. (tied) Laurentius 8 4. (tied) Petrus 5 4. (tied) Stephan us 8 4. (tied) Laurentius 5 4. (tied) Theodorus 8 4. (tied) Anastasius 5 7. Romanus 7 7. (tied) Severus 4 8. Faustus 6 7. (tied) Hilarus 4 9. (tied) Basilius 5 9. (tied) Theodorus 3 9. (tied) Iulianus 5 9. (tied) Iulianus 3 9. (tied) Symmachus 5 9. ( tied) Bonifatius 3 Figure 1.4: The ten most popular lay male names according to class, all periods inclusive. Note that this chart does not include men whose social rank is unknown.

Ecclesiastics Laity Name Number Name Number 1. Iohannes 90 1. Iohannes 58 2. Petrus 77 2. (tied) Felix 26 3. Felix 53 2. (tied) Petrus 26 4. Laurentius 46 4. Stephanus/Stefanus 21 5. Paulus 36 5. Laurentius 18 6. Stephanus/Stefanus 33 6. Theodorus 16 7. Bonifatius/ -facius 29 7. Iulianus 14 8. Constantius 24 8. Constantius 12 9. (tied) Andreas 22 9. Bonifatius/ -facius 11 9. (tied) Epiphanius 22 10. (tied) Anastasius 10 9. (tied) Gaudentius 22 10. (tied) Leontius 10 9. (tied) Leo 22 10. (tied) Maximus 10 13. Iulianus 21 10. (tied) Paulus 10 14. Victor 20 10. (tied) Romanus 10 15. Severus 19 10. (tied) Severus 10 16. (tied) Florentius 18 16. (tied) Basilius 8 16. (tied) Maximus 18 16. (tied) Georgius 8 16. (tied) Paulinus 18 18. (tied) Deusdedit 7 19. (tied) Adeodatus 17 18. (tied) Faustinus 7 19. (tied) Valentinus 17 18. (tied) Fortunatus 7 18. (tied) Ianuarius 7

18. (tied) Iohannis 7

Figure 2.1: The twenty most popular lay and ecclesiastical male names in the PCBE Italie .

160

Region Total Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Individuals in Number of Percentage Number of Percentage Region Individuals Individuals Rome 270 156 57.77% 165 61.11% Central Italy 125 38 30.40% 46 36.80% NE Italy 13 5 38.46% 6 46.15% NW Italy 51 10 19.61% 15 29.41% Southern 136 41 30.15% 46 33.82% Italy Sicily 5 0 0.00% 1 20.00% Sardina & 7 2 28.57% 4 57.14% Corsica Western 3 0 0.00% 1 33.33% Empire Eastern 7 4 57.14% 6 85.71% Empire Total 617 256 41.49% 290 47.00% Figure 2.2: The number of individuals in the PCBE bearing Christian names in Italy during the period 483-512, the era of the Roman synods.

Upper Class Lower Class Name Number of Name Number of Individuals Individuals 1. Iohannes 31 1. Iohannes 10 2. Felix 10 2. Stephanus 7 3. Petrus 9 3. Felix 6 4.(Tie) Laurentius 8 4. (Tie) P etrus 5 4. (Tie) Stephanus 8 4. (Tie) Laurentius 5 4. (Tie) Theodorus 8 4. (Tie) Anastasius 5 7. Romanus 7 7. (Tie) Severus 4 8. Faustus 6 7. (Tie) Hilarus 4 9. (Tie) Basilius 5 9. (Tie) Theodorus 3 9. (Tie) Iulianus 5 9. (Tie) Iulianus 3 9. (Tie) S ymmachus 5 9. (Tie) Bonifatius 3 Figure 3.1: The ten most popular lay male names according to class, all periods inclusive. Note that this chart does not include men whose social rank is unknown.

161

162

163

Rank Polyonomous Mononomous Unknown Total Vir illustris 19 2 7 28 Vir spectabilis 2 3 1 6 Vir clarissimus 13 13 32 58 Either v.i. or v.s. 3 0 1 4 Likely v.i. or v.s. 9 4 5 18 Possibly v.c. 9 7 6 22 Unknown 32 12 19 63 Figure 3.6 Polyonomy in names inscribed on seats in the Colosseum (adapted from Chastagnol, Le Sénat romain , 74-78)

164

Period Total Greek Percentage Names Names Greek Names 313 -352 5 1 20.00% 353 -392 48 14 29.17% 4th/5th 9 3 33.33% c 5th c 8 2 25.00% 393 -422 36 6 16.67% 423 -452 21 5 23.81% 453 -482 21 3 14.29% 5th/6th 10 1 10.00% c 483 -512 75 9 12.00% 6th c 13 4 30.77% 513 -542 45 10 22.22% 543 -572 70 12 17.14% 573 -604 215 38 17.67% 6th/7th 3 0 0.00% c 7th c 6 4 66.67% Figure 4.1: The rate of Greek names among lay, male elites from the PCBE over time

Century Total Greek Percentage Names Names Greek Names Fourth 53 15 28.30 % Fifth 161 25 15.53% Sixth 343 64 18.66% Figure 4.2: Rate of Greek names among lay, male elites by century in the PCBE Italie

165

Region Sixth Century Seventh Century Total Greek Percentage Total Greek Percentage Names Names Names Names Ravenna 76 15 19.73% 36 13 36.11% Rome 56 12 21.42% 30 13 43.33% Southern Italy 26 4 15.38% 18 8 44.44% Sicily 19 6 31.58% 17 10 58.82% North-eastern Italy 22 3 13.63% 4 1 25.00% Region 701-750 751-800 Total Greek Percentage Total Greek Percentage Names Names Names Names Ravenna 16 10 62.50% 32 13 40.63% Rome 39 18 46.15% 30 5 16.67% Southern Italy 9 7 77.77% 10 7 70.00% Sicily 5 5 100.00% 6 9 66.67% North-eastern Italy 9 0 0.00% 10 3 30.00% Figure 4.3: Percentage of Greek names among the lay elite over time from T.S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers , 247-282.

Name Number Name Number 1. Iohannes 148 11. (tied) Leo 29 2. Petrus 10 3 11. (tied) Severus 29 3. Felix 79 13. (tied) Maximus 28 4. Laurentius 64 13. (tied) Gaudentius 28 5. Stephanus/Stefanus 51 15. (tied) Andreas 26 6. Paulus 46 15. (tied) Romanus 26 7. Bonifatius 41 17. Epiphanius 25 8. Constantius 35 18. Paulinus 24 9. I ulianus 34 19. Fortunatus 23 10. Theodorus 30 20. Ianuarius 22 Figure C.1: The twenty overall most popular male names in the PCBE , all social groups inclusive

166

Name Number Name Number 1. Iuliana 9 10. (tied) Anastasia 4 2. Laurentia 8 10. (tied) Flora 4 3. (tied) Antonina 6 10. (tied) Honorata 4 3. (tied) Theodora 6 10. (tied) Italica 4 5. (tied) Felicitas 5 10. (tied) Lea 4 5. (tied) Maria 5 10. (tied) Marcella 4 5. (tied) Paula 5 10. (tied) Matrona 4 5. (tied) Proba 5 10. (tied) Maxima 4 5. (tied) Valeria 5 10. (tied) Severa 4 10. (tied) Adeodata 4 10. (tied) Sirica 4 Figure C.2.: The twenty overall most popular female names in the PCBE Italie , all social groups inclusive

167

APPENDIX IV: List of Names

Appended herein is the list of names from the PCBE upon which this entire study was based. In order to conserve space, I can include only part of the information that is contained in the complete database. However, I have striven to include as much as much of the information relevant to my thesis as possible. To that end, I include the main name, the dates, the occupation or office held, the social rank, the location code, and the PCBE cross-reference for each entry. The key to the location codes is as follows:

Location Codes Roma 1 Central Italy 2 NE Italy 3 NW Italy 4 S Italy 5 Sicily 6 Corsica & Sardinia 7 Outside Italy, West 8 Outside Italy, East 9 Unknown 0 Italy *

Main name entries followed by an asterisk (*) indicate that the name is spurious.

I have split the appendix into four parts, based on the main categories into which I sorted all individuals. Thus, the numbering of entries with the same name in each section will not always be continuous, because, following the PCBE , the numbering is based on the chronology of all individuals with the same name, not just identically-named individuals in the same category.

Part 1: Ecclesiastical Males

Name Dates Ecclesiastic Office Rank Location Page in Code PCBE Abundantius 1001 368 to 373?-381 episcopus Tridentinus ? 3 pp.1-2 Abundantius 1002 485?-495?-499-6 presbyter tituli Sabinae ? 1 pp.2-3 Nov. 502?

168

Abundantius 1003 6th c. acolitus regionis quarte titutli ? 1 4 Vestine Abundantius 1004 6th C.? episcopus ? 2 4 * Abundantius 1005 324 ? ? 0 4 * Abundius 1001 450-451 episcopus Comensis ? 4 pp.5-7 Abundius 1002 1 March 499 presbyter tituli Marci ? 1 8 Abundius 1003 * btw 432 and 440 episcopus ? * 8 Abundius 1004 * 324 episcopus ? 0 pp.8-9 Accilo 1001 4th/5th c. fossor ? 1 9 Acelus 1001 3rd/4th c. presbiter ? 1 9 Achilleus 1001 march 419 episcopus Spolitinae civitatis ? 2 pp.10-11 Acindynus 1001 20 June 431 episcopus ? 5 11 Acio 1001 6th/7th C. presbyter ? 3 11 Acontius 1001 495?-499 presbyter ? 1 12 Adelbertus 1001 6th/7th C. sacerdos ? 2 14 Adelfius 1002 btw. 425-458 antistes (=episcopus) ? 3 15 Adeodatus 1002 after 401/417, episcopus ? 2 17 before 465† Adeodatus 1003 440-525† presbiter ? 4 17 Adeodatus 1004 before 440- after sedis apostolica levites ? 1 18 Mar 458?-474† primus (archidiaconus) Adeodatus 1005 19 Nov 465 episcopus Cumanus ? 5 18 Adeodatus 1006 19 Nov 465 episcopus Veliternus ? 5 18 Adeodatus 1007 495-499?-6 Nov presbyter ? 1 19 502? Adeodatus 1008 495-499?-6 Nov presbiter Tituli Aequiti ? 1 19-20 502?-btw 507 and 512? Adeodatus 1009 495?-499?-6 Nov presbyter ? 1 21 502 Adeodatus 1010 495?-499?-6 Nov presbyter ? 1 21 502 Adeodatus 1011 499-before 31 Dec episcopus eccl. Formiae ? 5 22-23 502 Adeodatus 1012 499-502 episc. eccl. Carrensis, episc. ? 2 23-24 Lorensis Adeodatus 1013 late 5th/6th C. archipresbiter ? 5 24 Adeodatus 1014 5th/6th c presbiter tituli Priscae ? 1 24 Adeodatus 1015 before 536/539 abbas ? 2 24 Adeodatus 1016 aft. 3 Sep. 590-bef. diaconus ? 2 25 Oct 594† Adeodatus 1020 600-602 abbas Neapolim ? 5 26 Adeodatus 1021 Sept 602 servus Dei (monachus) ? 6 26 Adeodatus 1022 * ? episcopus ? 3 27 Adiectus 1001 371 clericus ? 1 27 Adrianus 1001 btw 557 and 586- episcopus Polensis ? 3 28 before Jun 591

169

Adrianus 1002 Feb 599-Mar 604 notarius, cartularius, rector ? 6 28-30 Adrian[us] 1003 7th/8th c? clerecus ? 1 30 Adtalus 1001 381 presbyter ? 3 30-31 Aelianus 1001 4th/6th c.? arcediaconus ? 2 31 Aemilianus 1001 1 Mar 499 notarius ? 1 32-33 Aemilianus 1002 6 Nov 502-btw. 507 episc eccl Vercellensis ? 4 33 and 511? Aemilianus 1004 590/91-Sep 600 notarius ? 1 34 Aemilius 1001 406-407 Episcopus Beneventi Vir supei 5 34-35 luminis Aetherius 1001 450-451 episcopus Capuensis ? 5 36-38 Afrodisius 1001 3rd/4th c. presbiter ? 1 39 Agabius 1001 * 4th/5th c episcopus ? 4 40 Agapetos 1001 3rd/4th c. εε ? 1 40 Agapetos 1002 362 ι ? 7 40-41 Agapios ( ι ) 4th/5th c (ε ) ? 6 41 1001 Agapitus 1001 after 314-before episcopus ? 3 41 342 Agapitus 1002 1st half of 4th c episcopus ? 2 41-42 Agapitus 1003 2nd half of 4th c episcopus ? 3 42 Agapitus 1004 btw. 401-417 episcopus Apulus ? 5 42 Agapitus 1005 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 43 Agapitus 1006 487?-495-499? presbyter ? 1 43-44 Agapitus 1007 487?-495-499? presbyter ? 1 44 Agapitus 1008 487?-495?-499 presbyter tituli Apostolorum ? 1 44-45 Agapitus 1009 487?-495?-499 presbyter ? 1 45 Agapitus 1011 before 502-536 archidiaconus Rom. Eccl.; ? 1 45-46 episcopus Romae Agapitus 1012 6 Nov 502 diaconus ? 1 46 Agapitus 1015 7-9 Dec. 531 diaconus ? 1 48-49 Agapitus 1016 536-537/538? subdiaconus ? 5 49 Agapitus 1017 Dec 590 abbas mon. s. Georgii ? 2 49 Agapitus 1018 595-600 presbyter ? 1 49-50 Agapitus 1019 July 601 abbas ? 5 50 Agapitus 1020 * 324 episcopus ? 1 51 Agapitus 1021 * ? episcopus ? 3 51 Agatho 1002 495?-499-6 Nov presbyter tituli Vizantis ? 1 52-53 502? Agatho 1003 586/587-before 591 Panormitanus episcopus ? 6 53 Agatho 1004 bef. Feb 592-July epis. in eccl. Liparitana ? 6 53 593 Agatho 1005 aft. Feb 595-July clericus? ? 6 53-54 595 Agatho 1007 July 599 episcopus Sardiniae ? 7 54 Agathon 1001 1 Aug 314 diaconus Aquilegentium ? 3 55

170

Agatius 1001 6th c. subd(iaconus) ? 1 55 Agilis 1001 summer 395- frater ? 5 55-56 summer 397 Agnellus 1001 btw 440 and 461 presbyter ? 1 58 Agnellus 1002 13 March 487 episcopus Telesinus ? 5 59 Agnellus 1003 487-1 Aug 570† archiepi. Ravennatis eccl. ex nobili 2 59-63 ortus prolle Agnellus 1004 btw 492 and 496 diaconus ? 5 63 Agnellus 1006 26 April 528† episcopus ? 4 64 Agnellus 1007 544-18 Juy 556† famulus Christi ? 4 64 Agnellus 1008 577-591 episcopus Tridentinus ? 3 64-66 Agnellus 1009 583/584† frater de monasterio Gregorii ? 1 66 Agnellus 1010 588/89-after Jan episc. Acelinensis ? 3 66-67 591 Agnellus 1011 btw Sept/Oct 591 Episc. de Fundis; also episc. ? 5 67-69 and Aug 592- Oct de Terracina 598 Agnellus 1012 before Sept 593† episcopus ? 5 69 Agnellus 1013 Sept 593 notarius (Romanae) eccl. ? 5 69 Agnellus 1014 oct 596 abbas de Arimino ? 2 70 Agnellus 1016 6th/7th C. abb(as) monasterii vir 5 70 venerabilis Agnellus 1017 * 554? episcopus ? 4 70 Agrepinus 1001 1 Aug 314 diaconus… de civitate ? 5 71 Cap[u]ensium Agrippinus 1001 before 381 episcopus ? 0 72 Agrippinus 1002 before May 599 presbyter eccl. Fesulanae ? 2 72 A[gu]stin[us] 1001 6th/7th C. presb(yter) ? 1 72 Ailianos (ι ) 4th/5th C ε ι ? 9 72 1001 Aiutus 1001 5th/6th c [ca]tholicae ecclesiae ? 1 73 Alamud 1001 before mid-6th c (?) diaconus vir 2 73 venerabi lis Albanios btw 388 and 399 notarius, later eremetic ? 1 74 (ι ) 1001 ascetic Albinus 1001 aft Sept 418 acolythus eccl. Romanae ? 1 77-78 Albinus 1004 5th/6th c pr(esbyter?) ? 4 79 Albinus 1005 9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 79 Albinus 1006 btw 559 and 561 in officio… clericatus ? 2 79-80 Albinus 1007 bef 593/94 Reatinae antistes eccl. ? 2 80 Albinus 1009 5 July 595 presb. Tituli ss. Marc. Et ? 1 80-81 Petri Albinus 1010 * ? episcopus ? 4 81 Albnus 1001 5th/6th c lector ? 4 82 Alexander 1002 392/393 presbyter ? 1 83

171

Alexander 1003 29 May 398† ostiarius ? 3 83-84 Alexander 1004 13 Mar 487 presbyter ? 1 84 Alexander 1005 btw 492 and 496 clericus ? 2 85 Alexander 1006 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 0 85 Alexander 1007 5th c ep(iscopus) Orget(anus) ? 1 85 Alexander 1009 14 May 553 episcopus eccl Meletensis ? 6 85-87 Alexander 1012 * 324 episcopus ? 1 87 Alexander 1013 * ? episcopus ? 5 87 Alexius 1001 4th c lector de Fullonices ? 1 90 Almachius 1001 381 episcopus ? 3 90-91 Almachius 1002 * 324 episcopus ? 1 91 Alvinus 1001 After Apr 597-Oct episcopus Formiae ? 5 91 598 Alypios ( ι ) 5th/6th c εε ? 1 92 1001 Amabilis 1001 398-before episcopus ? * 93 408/410† Amabilis 1002 5th/6th c D(e)I s(e)rb(us) ? 7 93 Amabilis 1003 Mar 599 episcopus ? * 93 Amabilis 1004 * 324 episcopus ? 1 94 Amalatheus 1001 551 spodeus ? 2 94 Amandinus 1001 btw 573 and Apr presbyter, abbas ? 4 95 593-Nov 594 Amandus 1001 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Potentinae ? 5 96-97 502 Amandus 1003 Mar 600-13 April presbyter, episcopus eccl. ? 5 97 617† Sorrentini Amantius 1001 aft 24 Sept 366-21 diaconus, servus Dei ? 1 97-98 Aug 377 Amantius 1003 413† sacerdos, episcopus (?) ? 3 98 Amantius 1004 btw 501 and 513 presbyter ? 0 98 Amantius 1006 bef 541/543-aft presbiter, Dei famulus ? 2 99 593/4† Amantius 1007 * 5th c episcopus ? 4 100 Amara 1002 btw 571/2 and lector ? 3 100 586/7 Amasius 1001 403/4-23 July 489† ep(iscopus) ? 2 100-101 Amasius 1002 * 4th C episcopus ? 5 101 Ambrosiaster 1001 btw 366 and 384 writer ? 0 102-104 Ambrosius 1003 30 Nov 423† diac(onus) ? 3 105 Ambrosius 1005 mid-6th c episcopus ? 4 105 Ambrosius 1006 324 episcopus ? 0 106 Ammonius 1001 1 Aug 314 presbyter ? 7 106 Ammonius 1002 343 episcopus ? 7 106 Ammonius 1004 571-before 593/4 monachus ? 1 107 Ampliatus 1001 Nov 545-bef. presbyter, vice dominus ? 1 109-110 Sep/Oct 558

172

Anastasius 1002 399-401 Pope ? 1 112 Anastasius 1003 487-495?-btw 496 diaconus, episcopus Romae ? 1 112-113 and 498?† Anastasius 1004 487?-495?-499-6 diaconus ? 1 113-114 Nov 502? Anastasius 1006 495?-499-6 Nov presbyter tituli Anastasiae ? 1 115 502? Anastasius 1007 5th c. ? praepositus ? 1 116 Anastasius 1009 before 540?-557 notarius, abbas ? 1 116 Anastasius 1011 Jan-Apr 559 minor orders ? 6 117 Anastasius 1012 Feb 559 Lucerinae civitatis sacerdos ? 5 117 Anastasius 1014 July-Aug 592 religiosus ? 6 118 Anastasius 1016 5 July 595 episcopus civ. Tyburtinae ? 1 118-119 Anastasius 1020 6th/7th C. p(res)b(yter) ? 1 120 Anas[tasius] 1022 6th/7th C. subd(iaconus) ? 1 120 Anastasius 1023 * 324 episcopus ? 1 120-121 Anatolios 4th/5th c (ε )(ε ) ? 3 121 (ι ) 1001 Anatolius 1002 533?-548 diaconus ? 1 121-122 Anatolius 1003 btw Sept and Dec diaconus, apocrisarius ? 5 122-125 590- bef. Jan 602† Ancitala 1001 7th/8th C pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 125 Andreas 1000 after 398? monk ? 7 126 Andreas 1001 459-484† or 482- notar(ius) ? 1 126 507?† Andreas 1002 13 Mar 487 episcopus Gabinatis ? 1 126 Andreas 1004 459-529† presb(yter) romanus, ? 5 127-128 praesul… in episcopatu Andreas 1005 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 128-129 Andreas 1006 btw 526 and 530 acolitus ? 2 129 Andreas 1007 btw 526 and 530 lector ? 2 129 Andreas 1008 7-9 Dec. 531 presbyter ? 1 130 Andreas 1009 9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 130 Andreas 1010 btw 538 and 545 praesbyter ? 1 130-131 Andreas 1011 16 April 556 presbyer de Hostis ? 1 131 Andreas 1013 after 561/574- episcopus Aquini ? 5 131 before 577/590† Andreas 1015 bef Sep/Oct 591 episcopus Fundanae civitatis ? 5 132 and Aug 592† Andreas 1016 bef Nov 592- Jun episcopus Tarentinus ? 5 132-133 593 Andreas 1017 bef Mar 593† abbas mon. s. Martini. ? 5 133 Andreas 1018 5 July 595 presbyter tituli s. Marcelli ? 1 133-134 Andreas 1020 6th C antistes (=episcopus) ? 5 135 Andreas 1021 6th C presbyter ? 2 135 Andreas 1022 Jul 601 monachus, ad s. Paulum ? 9 135 inclausus Andreas 1023 bef Feb 603† presbyter ? 1 135-136

173

Andreas 1024 6th/7th C. pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 136 Andreas 1025 6th/7th C. cleri[cus] ? 3 136 Andreas 1026 * 324 episcopus ? 1 136-137 Andromachus 1002 595-600 presbyter ti. Ss. Apostolorum ? 1 137-138 Anictianus 1001 451-520† v(ir) r(eligiosus), ? 4 139 pr(es)b(it)s(ter) s(an)c(t)ae Com(ensis) aecl(esiae) Annianus 1001 415-419 pseudodiaconus Celedensis ? 3 141-142 Anthemius 1001 Feb 591-Mar 603 subdiaconus, defensor per ? 1 143-149 Campaniam Anthimus 1002 * 324 episcopus ? 1 150 Anthynus 1001 * ? diaconus ? 2 150 Antiochus 1003 btw 492 and 496 presbyter slave, 5 151 later freeman Antiocus 1001 5th C archidiaconus ? 3 152 Antipatros 3rd/4th c. εε ? 1 152 ( ) 1001 Antoninus 1001 343 ? 9 155 Antoninus 1006 592-594 subdiaconus, rector ? 8 157-159 patrimonii in Dalmatia Antoninus 1007 5 July 595 presb. Tit. S. Balbinae ? 1 159 Anton[ios] btw 4th and 7th c (ε )()(ε ) ? 6 159 ( [ι ]) 1001 Antonius 1001 btw 306 and 324† exceptor, lector, levita, ? 8 160 sacerdos Antonius 1002 375 monachus Haemonae ? 3 160 Antonius 1005 before 482-after monachus ? 2 161 521† Antonius 1007 btw 507 and 511 episcopus Polensis ? 3 162 Antonius 1008 btw 526 and 530 cantor ? 2 162 Antonius 1009 bef 590† monachus mon. S. Andreae ? 1 162 ad Clivum Scauri Antonius 1011 Nov/Dec 598 subdiaconus, praepositus ? 1 163 xenodochii quod Valerii nuncupatur Antonius 1012 * 4th C episcopus ? 3 163 Apellio 1001 13 Mar 495 presbyter ? 1 164 Aper 1001 392/3 presbyter ? 3 164 Aper 1002 6th C? deacon, dignus Chr(ist)o ? 8 164 levita Apollonius 1002* 4th C episcopus ? 3 167 Appianus 1001 343 episcopus ? 9 167 Appianus 1002 412-448† subdiaconus ? 1 167 Apponius 1001 early 5th c ? ? 1 168-9 Aprianus 1001 343 episcopus ? 9 169 Aprilis 1001 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 5 169-170 Aprilis 1002 23 Oct 502 episcopus eccl. Laterianae ? 5 170 Aprilis 1003 6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl. Nucerinae ? 5 170-171

174

Apronianus 1003* 324 episcopus ? 1 173 Apronianus 1004* ? lector ? 2 174 Apuleius 1001 19 Nov 465 episcopus Tarquiniensis ? 2 174-175 Arator 1001 aft 489-544 comes domesticorum, then vir 4 176-177 subdiaconus illustris Arcadius 1001 431-432 episcopus, legatus ? 9 178-182 apostolicae sedis Archelaus 1001 bef 369 presb[yter] ? 1 182 Archidamus 1001 343 presbyter ? 9 183 Archidamus 1002 22 Mar 414-3 Oct presbyter ? 1 184 418 Archidamus 1003* 324 episcopus ? 1 184 Archidamus 1004* 5th C presbyter ? * 184-185 Archidamus 1005* 4th c diaconus ? 1 185 Aristo 1001 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episc. Eccl. Ostiensis ? 1 187-188 502 Ariston 1001* 324 episcopus ? 1 188 Armatus 1001 600 schol(aris) et coll(ectarius) a ? 2 189 s(an)c(t)a eccl(esia) Armenius 1001 early 5th c presbyter, sanctus abbas ? 0 190 Armenius 1005 598-603 episcopus ? 2 191 Armenius 1006 * 4th/5th c vir Dei ? 0 191 Arminu[s] 1001 515-Aug 571† pr(es)b(yter) ? 3 192 Arnobius 1001 mid-5th C monk ? 8 192-195 Arrasius 1001 7th C? peccator umilis p(res)b(yte)r ? 1 196 Arsenius btw 384 and Jan ι , monk family of 9 196 (ι ) 1001 395-450† senatoria l rank Arte[…] 1001 4th/5th c [pr]esbiter ? 1 197 Artemius 1002 381 episcopus ? 3 197 Artemius 1003 aft 18 Dec 437 presbyter ? 1 197-198 Arthemius 1001 359 episcopus ? * 198-199 Asellus 1001 4th c serb[us Dei] ? 1 200 Asellus ( ) after 9 Jun 404- ? * 201 1003 before summer 407 Asellus 1004 bef Dec 418-May presbyter, legatus eccl. ? 1 201-202 419 Romanae Asellus 1006 487?-499 presbyter tit. Vizantis ? 1 202-203 Asellus 1007 btw 492 and 496 archidiaconus ? 5 203 Asellus 1008 495?-6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl Populoniensis ? 2 204 Asellus 1009 6 Nov 502 episcopus ? 1 205 Asellus 1010 * 324 episcopus ? 1 205 Aspidius 1001 * late 4th/early 5th c episcopus ? 3 206 Asterius 1001 bef 399/400?-407 monk ? 1 206 Asterius 1002 4th/5th c diaco(nus) ? 1 206 Asterius 1004 19 Nov 465 episcopus Foroclaudiensis ? 2 207 Asterius 1005 19 Nov 465 episcopus Gabinatus ? 1 207

175

Asterius 1006 13 Mar 487 episcopus Forumnovanus ? 2 207 Asterius 1007 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 208 Asterius 1008 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 208 Asterius 1009 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 208 Asterius 1010 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 209 Asterius 1011 487?-495-499? presbyter ? 1 209 Asterius 1012 487?-495?-499 presbyter tituli Pudentis ? 1 209-210 Asterius 1014 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus Aquinatis ? 5 210-211 502 Asterius 1016 btw 526 and 530 lector ? 2 211 Asterius 1017 Oct 535?-May-Jun episcopus s. eccl. ? 5 212-213 536-btw 556 and Salernitanae 561 Asterius 1018 * 4th/5th c episcopus ? 3 213 Athanasios 6th/8th c? [ ] ? 1 214 (ι ) 1001 Athanasius 1001 13 Mar 487 episcopus Albanensis ? 5 214 Athanasius 1002 bef Jul 593-596 presbyter mon. s. Mile ? 9 214-215 Athanasius 1003 * ? ? Bishop ? 5 215 Atticanus 1001 3rd/4th c. lector ? 1 216 Aucupius 1001 495?-499 episcopus eccl Puteolanae ? 5 217-218 Aucustus 1001 aft 461 or 482 lector de Bel[a]bru ? 1 218 Audacius 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 218 Aventinus 1001 449-526† v(ir) r(eligiosus) pr(esbyter) ? 4 219 Aventinus 1002 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. S. Quiriaci ? 1 219 Aventius 1001 547 episcopus civitatis ? 2 220 Asisinatium Aventius 1002 5 Jul 595 presb. Tit. S. Praxedis ? 1 220 Aventius 1003* ? episcopus ? 2 221 Aufidius 1001 at 368 and bef 373 episcopus ? 1 221 Augustinus 1001 4th c subdiac(onus) ? 3 222 Augu[s]tinu[s] 5th/6th c diac[onus] ? 3 222 1002 Augustinus 1003 596-26 May 604† monasterii mei praepositus ? 1 222-223 Augustinus 1005 * 5th c episcopus ? 3 223 Augustus 1001 5th/6th c? presbiteri officium… gerens ? 1 224 Augustus 1002 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Liparitanae ? 6 224 502 Augustus 1003 Mar 559 sedis (nostrae) notarius ? 1 225 Augustus 1004 aft Jan 591 episcopus Concordiensis ? 3 225 Augustus 1006 * 324 episcopus ? 1 226 Avitus 1001 Oct 455- bef. Late Augustus, episcopus civitatis senatoria 8 229-230 Dec 456 Placentiae l Aurelianus 1001 aft 519-26 May 521 episcopus s. eccl. Catolicae ? 2 232-233 Ravennatis Aurelianus 1002 7th/8th c? d(o)m(i)n(us) episc(opus) ? 5 233 Aurelianus 1003 * ? episcopus ? 2 234

176

Aurelius 1001 aft 366-bef 383- episcopus ? 1 234 384† Aurelius 1003 btw 401 and 417 priest or monk? (called ? 0 234 'frater') Aurelius 1004 475† civitatis Riditionis episcopus ? 4 234 Aurigenes 1001 btw 507 and 511 episcopus ? * 235-236 Ausanius 1001 5th c diaconus ? 6 236 Avus 1001 btw 492 and 496 defensor Romane ecclesie, ? 5 236 clericus Auxanius 1001 371 clericus ? 1 236-237 Auxano 1001 371 clericus ? 1 237 Auxanon 4th/5th c ( ε) ? 6 237 ( ) 1002 Auxanus 1001 Feb 559-Mar 559 episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 237-238 Auxentius 1001 bef Jun 345-374† episcopus ecclesiae ? 9 238-241 Mediolanensium Auxentius 1003 383-386 episcopus (of Durostorum) ? 9 241-242 Auxentius 1004 392/393 ascetic ? 1 243 Auxentius 1005 5th c ep(iscopus) Rotdon(ensis) ? 8 243 Auxibus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 244 B[…]tius 1001 6th C r(e)l(igiosus) ? 7 245 Bacauda 1001 7-9 Dec. 531 presbyter ? 1 246 Bacauda 1004 Oct 590-bef Apr episcopus Formiensis ? 5 247 597† Bacauda 1005 Oct 590 episcopus ? 9 248 Bacauda 1006* 324 episcopus ? 1 248 Bacchillus 1001 447 episcopus ? 6 248 Bacchilus 1001 * bef 325 bish. Of Messina ? 6 249 Bachulus 1001 * ? bish. Of Sorrento ? 5 249 Balbinus 1001 591-595 episcopus civitatis ? 2 250-251 Rosellensis Balentinus 1001 6th c presbyter ? 1 251 Balerius 1001 4th c diaconus ? 1 251 Baleson 1001 5th c praepositus ? 1 251 Barbarus 1001 7-9 Dec. 531 presbyter ? 1 254 Barbar[us] 1002 6th c clericus? ? 1 254 Barbarus 1003 Nov 602 episcopus Carinensis ? 6 255 Barbarus 1004 * 324 episcopus ? 1 255 Barbatianus 1001 bef 396? monk ? 4 255-256 Barbatianus 1002 Oct 598-Apr 600 abbas ? 5 256 Basiliscus 1001 Nov 417 subdiaconus ? 1 257 Basilius 1001 early 4th c episc(opus) ? 1 257 Basilius 1002 397/8-399 presbyter ? 5 258 Basilius 1004 450-451 presbyter Neapolitanus ? 5 258-260 Basilius 1005 451 presbyter, legate ? 1 260-262 Basilius 1006 Jun 451 presbyter ? 9 262

177

Basilius 1008 487-6 Nov 502 episc. eccl. Tolentinatis ? 2 263-264 Basilius 1009 495?-499 episcopus Matellicatis ? 2 265 Basilius 1010 5th/6th c [presb]yter… tituli Sabine ? 1 265 Basilius 1012 aft 13 Dec 519 p(res)b(yte)r ? 4 266 Basilius 1015 aft 559?† ac(o)l(unthus) ? 3 267 Basilius 1017 Nov/Dec 598-Sept Capuanae civitatis episcopus ? 5 267-268 602 Basilius 1020 6th c d(o)m(inus) ? 3 269 s(an)c(t)is(si)m(us) ep(iscopus) Basilius 1021 6th c presbyter ? 1 269 Bassianus 1001 381-397 episcopus Laudensis ? 4 269-270 Bassilianus 1001 3rd/4th c. aessorcista (exorcista) ? 1 270 Bassinus 1001 5th c diaconus ? 3 271 Bassos 1001 4th c ι ? 9 271 Bassus 1004 487-499 episcopus ecclesiae Ferentini ? 5 272-273 novi Bassus 1005 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus ecclesiae ? 3 273-274 23 Oct 502-6 Nov Multinensis 502 Bassus 1006 bef 509† monachus ? 2 274-275 Bassus 1008 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. s. Pudentis ? 1 275 Beatus 1001 5th/6th c servus Dei ? 1 277 Bedandulus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 278 Bellator 1001 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus ecclesiae Ostiensis ? 1 281-282 499 Bellator 1002 aft 550 presbyter ? 5 282 Benedictus 1001 495?-499-6 Nov presbyter tituli Gai ? 1 283-284 502? Benedictus 1002 7-9 Dec. 531 presbyter ? 1 284-285 Benedictus 1003 bef 541-aft Dec abbas ‘liberiori 2 285-290 546-549? genere’ Benedictus 1004 541/2 monachus ? 5 290 Benedictus 1005 Mar/Apr 559 cleric? ? 1 290 Benedictus 1006 575-579† Pope ? 1 291 Benedictus 1008 7th/8th c? pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 291 Benedictus 1009* ? episcopus ? 3 291 Benedictus 1010* late 6th/early 7th c episcopus ? 2 291 Benegestus 1001 btw 556 and 561 defensor ? 0 292 Benenatus 1001 459† pre(s)b(iter) ? 1 292 Benenatus 1003 5th c? diaconus ? 1 292 Benenatus 1005 551 ustiarius basilica Gothorum ? 2 293 Benenatus 1006 Mar 592-May/Jun episcopus Misenatis ? 5 293-294 599 Benenatus 1007 Jul/Aug 592-Apr notarius, rector patrimonii ? 1 294-295 593 partis Panormitanae Benenatus 1008 bef Aug 593 - Jul episcopus Tundaritanus ? 7 295 599

178

Benenatus 1009 * ? episcopus ? 3 295 Beniamin 6th/8th c? ε ? 1 296 (ει ) 1001 Benignus 1001 aft 451 episcopus ? 4 296 Benignus 1002 487-502 episcopus ecclesiae ? 5 297-298 Aquaevivensis Berardus 1001 * ? bish. Of Vercelli ? 4 299 Bereuulfus 1001 5th/6th c vir venerabilis presbyter ? 4 299 Bergulus 1001 btw 577 and 586 episcopus Patavinensis ? 3 299 B(er)inus 1001 6th/7th C. pra(esbyter?) ? 1 300 Bibianus 1001 * ? episcopus ? 3 301 B[i]ctorinus 1002 5th/6th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 2 301 Bikt rinos 4th/5th c ε ι ( ) ? 6 302 (ιω ) 1001 Biturianus 1001 487-547† pr(es)b(yter) ? 5 302 Bitus 1001 314-340 presbyter, legatus ? 8 302-303 Blandus 1001 518-520 presbyter ? 1 304-309 Blandus 1002 bef Feb 591-bef Hortonensis civitatis ? 1 309-310 Aug 594† episcopus Bonager 1001 19 Nov 475 presbyter ? 2 317 Bonifacius 1003 406-422†? presbyter, Pope (r. 418-422) ? 1 318-319 Bonifatius 1004 24 Jun 451- aft Jan presbyter sanctae eccl ? 1 319-325 452 Romanae, legate Bonifatius 1005 484 episcopus de Sanafer ? 7 325 Bonifatius 1006 487-499 episcopus eccl. Veliternensis ? 5 326-327 Bonifacius 1007 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 327 Bonifacius 1008 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 327 Bonifacius 1009 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 327-328 Bonifatius 1010 487?-495-499? presbyter ? 1 328 Bonifatius 1011 487?-495?-499 presbyter tit. Caeciliae ? 1 328-329 [Boni]fatius 1012 5th c? dia(conus) ? 1 329 Bonifatius 1013 5th/6th c episcopus ? 7 329 Bonifatius 1014 23 Oct 502 episcopus eccl. Cameritanae ? 2 329-330 Bonifatius 1015 6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl. ? 2 330 Foroflaminiensis Bonifacius 1017 3 Apr 517 notarius sanctae eccl. ? 1 330-331 Romanae Bonifatius 1018 bef or aft 521/2 priest ? 1 331 Bonifacius 1019 bef Easter 526 primicerius notariorum ? 1 331 Bonifatius 1020 530-532† archidiaconus, pope (r. 530- ? 1 331-332 532) Bonifatius 1021 aft 545 acolotus reg(ionis) prim(ae) ? 1 332 Bonifatius 1023 aft 561/574† episcopus ? 2 332-333 Bonifacius 1025 Dec 587 lector tit. S. Mariae ? 1 333-334 Bonifatius 1026 589/90-593/4 monachus ? 2 334 Bonifatius 1028 btw Sep 590 and episcopus Reginatus ? 5 335 Sep 592-Apr 599

179

Bonifatius 1029 Feb 591-Nov 603 defensor, diaconus ? 9 336-338 Bonifatius 1030 Jun 591-Apr 596 diaconus ? 1 338-339 Bonifatius 1031 Sep 592 frater; praepositus ? 6 339 Bonifatius 1033 Jun 593-Jul 599 sedis nostrae notarius ? 5 340 Bonifatius 1037 593/4?-Nov/Dec diaconus ? 1 341-342 598 Bonifatius 1039 5 Oct 600 presbyter tit. S. Xisti ? 1 342-343 Bonifatius 1040 Feb 603 notarius ? 9 343 Bonifacius 1041* 324 episcopus ? 1 343 Bonitus 1001 bef 593/4 abbas ? 5 344 Bonosus 1001 363-377 monachus ? * 345 Bonosus 1002 btw 446 and 466 presbyter noble 8 345 (non- specific) Bonosus 1003 btw 476 and 482- monachus beati Severini ? 9 345 btw 516 and 522† Bonosus 1005 * ? episcopus ? 5 345 Bonosus 1006 * ? episcopus ? 4 346 Bonus 1001 13 Mar 487 episcopus Ostiensis ? 1 346 Bonus 1002 487?-495?-499 presbyter tit. Crescentianae ? 1 346-347 Bonus 1003 bef Easter 526 secundicerius notariorum ? 1 347 Bonus 1004 7-9 Dec. 531 presbyter ? 1 348 Bonus 1005 16 April 556 (episcopus) de Ferentino ? 5 348 Bonus 1006 bef 21 Mar 559 episcopus Gavinatus ? 1 348-9 Bonus 1009 Oct 598 monachus ? 6 349-350 Bonus 1011 6th/7th C. presbyter b(ir) 5 350 b(enerab ilis) Botudorus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 350 Brunculus 1001 6th/7th C. famulus d(omi)ni Ih(es)u ? 0 351 Chri(sti) Buchchulos 4th c ιω ? 6 351 ( ) 1001 Butila 1001 btw 507 and 511 presbyter ? 3 352 C[…] 1001 4th/5th c []ι [] ? 1 353 C[…] 1003 5th c? famulus Dei ? 5 353 Caecilianus 1001 355?-bef summer episcopus Spolitinus ? 2 353-354 356 Caecilius 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 354 Caelestinus 1001 19 Mar 416 diaconus ? 2 354-355 Caelestinus 1002 418-432† diaconus, Pope (r. 422-432) ? 1 355 Caelestinus 1003 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 2 355 Caelestinus 1004 btw 492 and 496 presbyter ? 5 355-356 Caelestinus 1005 btw 492 and 496 presbyter ? 2 356 Caelestinus 1006 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 356-7 Caelestius bef 410-431 presbyter ? 1 357-375 (ει ) 1001

180

Caesarius 1001 bef 590-Jul 597 abbas mon. s. Petri ? 1 376 Calbulus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 376-377 Calchedonius 1001 aft 550 abbas ? 5 377 Calepodius 343 a Campania (episcopus) ? 5 377-378 (ε ) 1001 Calepodius 1002 4th/5th c Chr(ist)i famulus ? 1 378 Calistus 1001 * btw 366 and 384 diaconus ? 1 378-379 Calixtus 1001 487-495? presbyter ? 1 379 Calopodius 1001 6th c notar[ius eccl(esiae) ? 1 384 Rom(anae)] Calumn(iosus?) 5th/6th c fam(ulus) Chr(isti) ? 1 384 1001 Calumniosus 1002 Dec 591 clericus ? 2 384 Calumniosus 1003 Aft Aug 594-Jul episcopus ? 2 385 599 Calunnios 1001 btw 526 and 530 lector ? 2 385 Camillus 1001 aft 28 Aug 430 presbyter ? 4 386 Campanus 1001 5th/6th c abbas ? 1 387 Candidianus 1002 421 frater et presbyter ? 5 388 Candidianus 1003 5th/6th c p(res)b(ite)r ? 4 388 Candidianus 1004 5th/6th c p(res)b(yte)r ? 4 Candidus 1001 3rd/4th c. presb(yter) ? 4 388 Candidus 1003 4th/5th c exp(rae)p(ositus) et clericus vir 4 389 laudabili s Candidus 1004 465-502 episcopus eccl. Tibertinae ? 1 389-391 Candidus 1005 btw 492 and 492 diaconus ? 5 391 Candidus 1006 Dec 591-Mar 596 episcopus (multiple sees) ? 2 391-392 Candidus 1008 Sept 595-22 Jun presbyter noster ? 1 393 601 Candidus 1009 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. s. Clementis ? 1 393 Candidus 1011 Feb 598 abbas mon. s. Andreae ad ? 1 394 Clivum Scauri Candidus 1012 Feb 601 abbas ? 2 394 Canusius 1001 487-495? presbyter ? 1 395 Canusius 1002 487-495? presbyter ? 1 395 Canusius 1003 487?-495 presbyter ? 1 395-396 Capax 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 396 Capito ( ω ) bef 3 Feb 356 ... ιε ? 6 396 1001 Capreus 1001 355 episcopus ? * 397 Caprarius 1001 19 Nov 465 episcopus Casinatus ? 5 397 Cardelus 1001 Mar 559 episcopus ? 6 398 Carito 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 399 Caritosus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 399 Carosus 1001 Aug 502 episcopus ? * 399 Carosus 1002 7-9 Dec. 531 episcopus Centumcellensis ? 2 399-400

181

civitatis Carpilio 1002 * 324 episcopus ? 1 400-401 Carterius 1001 bef 383 frater (monachus?) ? 0 401 Casianus 1001 btw 526 and 530 acolitus ? 2 401 Cassianus 1001 aft 24 Feb 303-bef diaconus ? 8 402 28 Oct 312 Cassianus 1002 381 episcopus ? * 402 Cassianus 1003 * ? episcopus ? 2 403 Cassiodorus 1001 492-496 episcopus ? 0 403 Cassius 1001 13 Mar 487 presbyter ? 1 410 Cassius 1002 13 Mar 487 presbyter ? 1 410 Cassius 1003 21 Sept 536-30 Jun Narniensis urbis episcopus ? 2 410-411 558 Castinus 1001 13 Mar 487-495 presbyter ? 1 411-412 Castorius 1002 510/11-bef 559† Amiternae civitatis ? 2 412-413 episcopus Castorius 1003 btw 590 and 604 notarius, rector Histriani ? 1 413 Castorius 1004 btw Sep 590 and episcopus Ariminensis ? 2 413-415 Jan 592-May 599 Castorius 1007 bef Jul 593-Aug notarius/cartularius eccl. ? 1 415-419 599 Romanae ac responsalis Castulus 1001 27 Mar-2 Apr 386 quem presbyterum dicerent ? 4 419 Arriani Castus 1001 bef 397-412/13 diaconus ? 4 419 Castus 1003 23 Oct-6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl. Portuensis ? 1 420 Castus 1005* btw 432 and 440 episcopus ? * 421 Castus 1006 * 324 episcopus ? 1 421-422 Catellus 1001 bef 3 Jul 521 presbyter tertius tit. s. ? 1 422 Crisogoni Catellus 1002 Mar/Apr 559 episcopus Reatinus ? 2 423 Catellus 1005 Oct 598 monachus ? 6 424 Catellus 1006* 324 episcopus ? 1 424 Catio 1001 aft 395-bef 4 Apr clericus? ? 3-4 424-425 397 Cedvaldus 1001 6th/7th C. diac(onus) ? 1 425 Celer 1001 4th c? exorc(ista) ? 1 426 Celer 1002 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? * 426 Celerinus 1001 381† praesbyter ? 1 426 Celsius 1001 * 6th/7th C. episcopus ? 2 426-427 Celsus 1001 btw 404 and 405 frater ? 5 427 Centerus 1001 6th/7th C. pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 427 Cerbonius 1001 546-571/74 Populonii episcopus ? 2 427 Ceteus 1001 * 6th/7th C. episcopus ? 2 430-431 Chreseimos 4th c η (sic) (lector), ? 9 431 (ηει /ι then (?) ) 1001 Chrestus 1001 1 Aug 314 episcopus ex civitate ? 6 431-432 Syracusaenorum

182

Chromatius 371/2-bef 407 episcopus Aquileiensis ? 3 432-436 (ωι ) 1001 Chrysantus 1001 597-603 episcopus Spolitanus ? 2 437-438 Chrysocomas 1001 aft 373 and bef monachus Aquileiae ? 3 438 375/6 Chrysogonus 1001 400 monk? ? 3 439 Chrysogonus 1002 495?-Nov 502 episcopus ecclesiae ? 1 439-440 Albanensis Chrysogonus 1003 6 Nov 502 presbyter ? 1 440 Chrysogonus 1004 6 Nov 502 presbyter ? 1 440 Cicerio 1001 592/3-Mar 595 monachus slave 5 441 Ciprianus 1001 5th/6th c prep[ositus] ? 1 441 Citonatus 1001 1 Mar 499 diaconus regionis… ? 1 442 Citonatus 1003 * 324 episcopus ? 1 442-443 Clarissimus 1001 577/86-bef Jan episcopus Concordiensis ? 3 444 591† Clarus 1001 495?-499 episcopus eccl. Allifanae ? 5 444-445 Clatheus 1001 * ? episcopus ? 3 445 Claudianus 1001 1 Aug 314 presbyter… missus ab ? 8 446 Silvestro episcopo Claudianus 1002 btw 373 and 378- episcopus ? 8 446-447 aft 385 Claudianus 1004 * 5th c episcopus ? 3 447 Claudianus 1005 * 4th/5th c ? ? 3 448 Claudius 1001 359 episcopus Piceni ? 2 448 Claudius 1003 19 Nov 465 episcopus Pausilanus ? 2 449 Claudius 1005 543? arc(hidaiconus) ? 3 449 Claudius 1006 Jul 592-bef Jan abbas mon. b. Iohannis et ? 1 450-452 602† Stephani in Classitana civitate Clemens 1001 btw 526 and 530 diaconus ? 2 453 Clemens 1002 * ? episcopus ? 3 453 Clemens 1003 * ? episcopus ? 3 453 Clementinus 1001 29 May 508† masuna(rius) fossor ? 1 455 Colonicus 1001 27 Dec 480 diaconus v(ir) 2 457 r(everen d-us) Colonicus 1002 495?-499-502 episcopus eccl. ? 2 457-458 Foroclodiensis Colos 1001 btw 526 and 530 acolitus ? 2 458-459 Columbus 1001 Nov 594 presbyter ? 0 459 Columbus 1002 Oct 600 presbyter ? 1 459 Comitiolus 1002 6th-7th c arhc[ipresbyter] (sic) ? 5 460-461 Commilito 1001 427/428 diaconus ? * 461 Concess[us] 1001 6th c? ep(iscopu)s ? 3 461 Concessus 1002 * 6th c? episcopus ? 3 461 Concordius 1001 19 Nov 465 episcopus Barinus ? 5 462

183

Concordius 1002 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Misenatium ? 5 462-463 502 Concordius 1004 Oct 603 episcopus ? 2 463-464 Concordius 1005 * 366-384 diaconus ? 1 464 Concordius 1006 * 324 episcopus ? 1 464 Constantinos 1001 5th/6th c servus (Dei), pr(es)b(yter) ? 3 467 [Cons]tantinus 4th c acolitus ? 1 467 1001 Constantinus 1003 465-487-495? episcopus Aquinatis ? 5 467-468 Constantinus 1004 487-499 episcopus Capuanus ? 5 468-469 Constantinus 1005 495?-499 episcopus ecc. Utriculanae ? 2 470 Constantinus 1006 btw 529 and 530 presbiter ? 2 470-471 Constantinus 1007 541-aft 546-549 abbas monasterii Casinensis ? 5 471 Constantinu[s] 6th/7th C. serbu(s) D(e)i ? 1 472 1010 Constantinus 1011 492-496 episcopus ? 3 472 * Constantius 1001 30 Sept 313-2 Oct episcopus a Faventia ? 2 473 313 Constantius 1004 386-461† or 407- p(res)b(yte)r ? 4 473 482† Constantius 1005 aft 378?-392/3? episcopus ? 3 473-474 [C]onstantius 1006 4th c diaconus ? 1 474 Constantius 1010 aft 405?-bef 417 episcopus ? * 475 Constantius 1013 3 May 448 presb[yter] ? 1 476 Constantius 1015 487-495? episcopus Sutrinus ? 2 476-477 Constantius 1016 487-495? episcopus Triventis ? 2 477 Constantius 1017 btw 492 and 496- sacerdos eccl. Camiscanae ? 2 478 495? Constantius 1018 btw 492 and 496- episcopus eccl. Venefranae ? 5 478-479 499 Const[antius?] 5th/6th c [l]ector ? 2 479 1021 Constantius 1022 btw 501 and 513 antistes (=episcopus) ? 4 479-480 Constantius 1023 btw 507 and 511 episcopus ? * 480 Constantius 1025 546-btw 561 and episcopus Aquinensis eccl. ? 5 480 574† Constantius 1027 Sept 558/Feb 559 episcopus Misenus ? 5 481 Constantius 1028 bef 561/574-bfe presbyter ? 2 481-482 593-594† Constantius 1029 btw 579/582-600† episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 482-486 Constantius 1032 bef 593-594† in eccl. Beati martyris ? 2 487 Stephani… mansionarii functus officio (called 'sacristain' by editors) Constantius 1033 595-Nov 598 episcopus civitatis ? 2 487-488 Narniensis Constantius 1034 bef Jun/Jul 599† presbyter ? 5 488 Constantius 1035 Oct 600 episcopus Numentanus ? 2 488-489

184

Constantius 1036 Jan 602 monachus monasterii ? 2 489 quondam abbatis Claudii Constantius 1037 * 324 episcopus ? 1 489 Constitutus 1001 Sep/Dec 558† praesbyter ? 2 490 Consul 1001 * mid/late 5th c episcopus ? 4 490 Contentus 1001* 324 episcopus ? 1 490-491 Coricosus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 491 Cornelius 1001 bef Jul 448 episcopus (of Imola?) ? 3 492 Corvinus 1001 btw 492 and 496 diaconus Romanae sedis ? 1 492 Cosmas 1002 Bef Nov 594-Mar monachus, then presbyter ? 6 493 603 Costila 1001 551 ustiarius basilicae Gothorum ? 2 494 Crescens 1001 1 Aug 314 diaconus Salpiensium ex ? 5 494 provincia Apulia Crescens 1002 392/393 presbyter ? 1 494-495 Crescens 1003 bef 395† diac(onus) reg(ionis) V ? 1 495 Crescens 1004 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. S. Laurentii ? 1 495-496 Crescens 1005 bef Nov 602 diaconus ? 6 496 Crescentio 1001 495?-499-6 Nov presbyter tit. Apostolorum ? 1 497-498 502? Crescentio 1002 7-9 Dec. 531 presbyter ? 1 498 Crescentius 1001 4th c? diaconus ? 1 498 Crescentius 1002 Aug 591 clericus ? 5 499 Crescentius 1004 7th c? indignus pr(es)b(y)t(er) ? 1 499 Cresces 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 500 Cresciturus 1001 Mar 559 diaconus, abbot ? 6 500 Cresconius 1002 487-Nov 502 episcopus eccl. Tudertinae ? 2 501-504 Cresconius 1004 * 324 episcopus ? 1 504 Cresimus 1001 4th c episcopus ? 1 504 Criscentius 1001 5th c famulus Dei ? 4 505 Crisogonus 1001 bef 3 Jul 521 presviter tit. S. Crisogoni… ? 1 505 secundus Crispianus 1001 19 Nov 465 episcopus Subaugustanus ? 1 506 Crispinus btw 339 and 346- bishop of Patavium ? 3 or 4 506 (ι /η 356 ) 1001 Crispinus 1002 446/7-466/7 episcopus Ticinensis, nutritor ? 4 506-507 Crispinus 1003 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 5 507-508 Crispinus 1004 * 324 episcopus ? 1 508 Crispinus 1005 * aft 521 episcopus ? 4 508 Cristodorus 1001 bef 541† presbyter legis ? 2 509 s(upra)s(cripta)e Gothor(um) Cristoforus 1001 7th/8th c? pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 509 Cyprianus 1001 aft 392-bef 414? presbyter ? * 512-513 Cyprianus 1003 451 episcopus eccl. Brixilliani ? 3 513-514 Cyprianus 1004 13 Mar 487 episcopus Numentanus ? 2 514

185

Cyprianus 1005 495?-499 presbyter tit. Marci ? 1 514-515 Cyprianus 1006 1 Mar 499 diaconus s. eccl. Romanae ? 1 515 regionis Cyprianus 1008 Jul 593-Feb 599 diaconus, rector Siciliae ? 1 516-520 Cyprianus 1009 * mid-5th c episcopus ? 3 520 Cyprus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 520-521 Cyriacus 1001 4th c presb(yter) ? 1 521 Cyriacus 1003 451 episcopus eccl. Laudensis ? 4 521-522 Cyriacus 1004 7-9 Dec. 531 presbyter ? 1 522 Cyriacus 1006 bef Jul 592-bef Oct servus Dei de Roma; abbas ? 1 522-525 600† Cyriacus 1007 * ? episcopus ? 3 525 Cyrillus 1001 * ? episcopus ? 4 526 Cyrinus 1001 * 5th c presbyter ? 1 526 Cythegius 406 ? * 572 (ι ) 1001 Dalmatius 1001 355/391-386/422† notarius aeclisiae ? 2 529 Dalmatius 1004 5th c presbiter ? 3 529 Damasus 1001 c. 305-11 Dec 384† diaconus, presbyter, pope (r. ? 1 530 366-384) Damianus 1002 * ? episcopus ? 4 531 Daniel 1001 5th/6th c le(v)i(t)a (=deacon) ? 3 531 Darses ( η ) 4th/5th c εε ? 6 532 1001 Datius 1001 535/6-552† episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 532-534 Dativus 1001 * ? episcopus ? 2 535 Decentius 1002 bef Mar 416-19 episcopus Eugubinus ? 2 536-537 Mar 416 Decentius 1005 mid-6th c in pontificatu (=episcopus) ? 2 537 Decianus 1001 5th/6th c serbus [D]ei ? 2 538 Decius 1001 487-499 episcopus eccl. Trium ? 5 538-539 Tabernarum Decius 1005 bef Sep 595-Aug episcopus Lillibitanus ? 6 540-541 599† Decoratus 1004 6th c servus D(e)i ? 1 542 Decorosus 1001 6th/7th C. acolothus ? 1 543 Delphinus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 543 Demetrianus 1002 580-598 clericus Firmanus ? 2 544 Demetrius 1002 Dec 590-Sep 591 episcopus Neapolitanus ? 5 547-548 Demetrius 1004 * btw 432 and 440 presbyter ? 1 548 [De]mofilus 1001 4th/5th c sacerdo[s]…in episcopatu ? 1 548 Dene[…] 1001 6th/7th C. serbus D(e)i ? 1 549 Deodatus 1001 13 May 495 episcopus ? 1 549 Deodatus 1002 * late 5th/early 6th c episcopus ? 5 549 Desiderius 1001 343 Campaniae episcopus ? 5 550 Desiderius 1005 7th/8th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 552

186

Deusdedit 1001 5th c levitarum primus in ordine ? 1 552 [D]eusdedit 1002 5th/6th c presb(yter) ? 1 552 Deusdedit 1004 550 de subdiconorum et ? 1 553 notariorum vel defensorum officio depositus Deusdedit 1010 595-600 presbyter tit. s. Iohannes et ? 1 555-556 Paul Deusdedit 1011 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. s. Praxedis ? 1 556 Deusdedit 1012 600-603 episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 556-557 D(eu)sded(it) 1014 6th/7th C. pr(esbyter) ? 1 557 Deusdedit 1015 * ? episcopus ? 3 557 D(eu)sdona 1001 7th c? pr(es)b(yter) peccator ? 1 558 Deutherius 1002 * 324 episcopus ? 1 558 Dexter 1001 256-10 Dec 322 episcop(us) ? 2 559 Dicentius 1001 * ? episcopus ? 2 559 Dicentius 1002 * ? episcopus ? 2 560 Dignissimus 1001 502† presbyter a vincula s. Petri ? 1 560 Apostoli Dik(inianos) 4th c [ε ] ? 1 560 (ι [ιι ]) 1001 Diogenes 1001 381 episcopus Genuensis ? 4 560-561 Diogenes 1002 4th c confessor ? 4 561 Diogenes 1004 * mid-5th c episcopus ? 4 561 Dionisius 1001 6th c presbyter ? 6 562 Dionysios 5th/6th c εεε η ? 6 563 (ιι ) 1001 ιη Dionysios 3rd/4th c. ε ; ? 1 563 (ιι ) 1002 Dionysius 1001 355-bef 361/2?† episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 563-565 Dionysius 1002 Oct 449-bef Dec Romanae ecclesiae notarius ? 1 565-566 449? Dionysius 1004 aft Nov 496-526 monachus, abbas? ? 9 566-569 Dionysius 1005 495?-499 presbyter tit. Aemilianae ? 1 569 Dionysius 1006 5th or 6th c levita…, artis honestae ? 1 570 functus et officio quod dedit (medicus) Dionysius 1007 * btw 314 and 335 presbyter ? 1 570 Dionysius 1008* btw 352 and 366 presbyter ? 1 570 Diorno 1001 7th c? d(iaconus?), serbus D(e)i ? 1 571 Discolius 1001 * late 4th/early 5th c episcopus ? 4 571 Dioscoros 1001 bef 506/7-530† diaconus ? 9 571-579 Domesticus 1001 13 Jan 552 primerius notariorum ? 2 580 ecclesiae Ravennatis Dometius 1001 6th c diac(onus) et arcarius ? 1 580 (treasurer) s(an)c(t)ae sed(is) apostol(icae) Dominicianus late 4th c episcopus ? 3 580 1001* Dominator 1001 * 4th/5th c episcopus ? 3 581

187

Dominator 1002 * 5th/6th c episcopus ? 3 581 Dominicus 1001 495?-499 presbyter tit. Priscae ? 1 582 Dominicus 1002 551 (episcopus) de Callipoli ? 5 582-583 Dominicus 1004 590-595 episcopus civitatis ? 2 583-584 Centumcellensis Dominicus 1005 5 Jul 595 episcopus civitatis Utricoloni ? 2 584 Dominicus 1007 Jan 592 presbyter ? 5 585 Dominicus 1008 Mar 596 clericus ? 2 585 Dominicus 1009 2nd half of 6th c archidiaconu[s] ? 3 585 Dominicus 1010 6th c p(res)b(yte)r ? 3 586 Dominicus 1011 6th/7th C. pr(es)b(yter) deserviens ? 2 586 basilicae s(an)cti Vitalis martyris Dominicus 1012 7th/8th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 586 Domitianus 1001 Aug 458-bef Jun episcopus ? * 586-587 460 Domitianus 1003 * ? episcopus ? 2 587 Domitius 1001 Oct 598-Dec 598 abbas atque presbyter ? 6 587-588 monasterii ss. Maximi et Agathae quod Lucuscanum dicitur Domn[…] 1001 5th/6th c lector ? 3 589 Domninos 4th c ascetic of some sort ? 9 591 ( ) 1001 Domninus 1001 487?-495?-499 presbyter tit. Crescentianae ? 1 591-592 Domninus 1002 549-aft 592/9 vir religiosus ? 2 592 Domninus 1003 btw 556 and 561 episcopus Ecanus ? 5 593 Domnio 1001 393-bef 402† monachus Romanus ? 1 593-594 Domnio 1002 5th c [d]iacon ? 1 594 Donatianus 1001 30 Sept 313-2 Oct (episcopus) de Foro Claudii ? 2 595 313 Donatos ( ) 4th/5th c ε [ε ] ? 6 595 1001 Donatus 1001 aft Apr 397-bef presbyter eccl. ? 4 596 412/13† Mediolanensis Donatus 1002 4th c episcopus ? 2 596 Donatus 1003 4th/5th c episc(opus) ? 1 596 Donatus 1006 531-571† [diaco]nus ? 4 597 Donatus 1007 7-9 Dec. 531 diaconus ? 1 597-598 Donatus 1008 561-570 presbyter ? 5 598 Donatus 1010 Jul 595 archidiaconus ? 2 599 Donatus 1011 Sep 596-Aug 597 presbyter ? 6 599 Donatus 1013 6th c mansionarius ss. Iohannis et ? 1 600 Pauli Donus 1001 btw Oct 593 and episcopus Messanensis, ? 6 600-602 Sep 595-Jan 603 presbyter cardinalis of Rome Donus 1002 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. S. Eusebi ? 1 602-603 Dorus 1001 8 Mar 448 episcopus Beneventanus ? 5 603

188

Dulcidius 1001 btw Sep 590 and diaconus ? 3 604 Mar 604 Dulcinus 1001 bef Nov 594† Lucrencis civitatis episcopus ? 5 604-605 Dulcitius 1001 1 Feb 369† at the presb(yter) ? 1 605 latest Dulcitius 1002 26 Apr 419 presbyter ? 1 606 Dulcitius 1003 449 notarius ecclesiae ? 1 606-607 Dulcitius 1004 495?-499-502? episcopus eccl. Sabinensium ? 2 608-609 Dulcitius 1005 7-9 Dec. 531 presbyter ? 1 609-610 Dulcitius 1006 aft Aug 556 praesbyter ? 1 610 Dulcitius 1010 * ? episcopus ? 2 611 Dyagadeus 1001 6th/7th C. p[resbyter]? ? 3 611 Ebentius 1001 5th c presb(yter) ? 1 612 Ecclesius 1001 11 Nov 523-531/2† Rav(ennatis) eccl. Episcopus ? 2 612-615 Ecclesius 1002 Jun 600-Jan 604 episcopus Clusinus ? 2 615 Ecclesus 1001 6th/7th c? pr(es)b(yter) ? 4 615 Efesius 1001 381 episcopus ? * 616 Eirenes ( ε ) 4th/5th c εε ? 6 616 1001 Eleutherius 1001 558-bef Mar 561 episcopus ? 6 616-617 Eleutherius 1002 btw 575 and 590- pater monasterii beati ? 2 617-618 bef 593/4 evangelistae Marci… in Spolitinae urbis pomeriis Elpicius 1001 * btw 395 and 399 levita ? 5 618 Emerius 1001 btw 577 and 586 presbyter ? 3-4 619-620 Ennodius 1001 473/4-Jul 521 episcopus Ticinensis senatoria 8 620-632 l Entolius 1001 5th c […] sanc(tae) Rom(anae) ? 6 632 eccl(esiae) Ephesius 1001 382/3 episcopus…ordinatus…plebi ? 1 633 Romanae Ephevus 1001 bef 343† episcopus ? 5 633-634 Epicarpius 1001 8 Mar 448 presbyter ? 5 634 Epictetus 1001 1 Aug 314 episcopus a Centcellis ? 2 634 Epictetus 1002 Summer 356-Jul de Centumcellis episcopus ? 2 634-636 359-360? Epiphanes 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 636 Epiphanius 1001 438/9-21 Jan 496† episcopus Ticinensis ? 4 637-641 Epiphanius 1003 487-495? episcopus Spellatis ? 2 642 Epiphanius 1004 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 642-3 Nov 502? Epiphanius 1005 487-495?-6 Nov presbyter ? 1 643 502? Epiphanius 1006 487-495?-6 Nov presbyter ? 1 643 502? Epiphanius 1007 487-495?-6 Nov presbyter ? 1 644 502? Epiphanius 1008 btw 492 and 496- episcopus eccl. ? 5 644-645 499 Beneventanae

189

Epiphanius 1009 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 645 Nov 502? Epiphanius 1010 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 646 Nov 502? Epiphanius 1011 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 646 Nov 502? Epiphanius 1012 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 647 Nov 502? Epiphanius 1013 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Apostolorum ? 1 647-648 Nov 502? Epiphanius 1014 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Cyriaci ? 1 648 Nov 502? Epiphanius 1015 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Fasciolae ? 1 648-649 Nov 502? Epiphanius 1016 487?-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 649-650 Nov 502 Epiphanius 1017 487?-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 650 Nov 502 Epiphanius 1018 7-9 Dec. 531 presbyter ? 1 650 Epiphanius 1019 Oct 535?-May-Jun episcopus s. eccl. Eclanensis ? 5 651 536 Epiphanius 1020 bef 591† lector ecclesiae (Calaritanae) ? 7 652 Epiphanius 1021 Sept 592 subdiaconus ? 1 652 Epiphanius 1022 593-603 presbyter, archipresbyter, ? 7 653 oeconomus Epiphanius 1023 bef 593-Sep 603 diaconus noster (Romae) ? 9 653-654 Epiphanius 1026 * 324 episcopus ? 1 654-655 Epiphanius 1028 * btw 432 and 440 presbyter ? 1 655 Equitius 1001 btw 314 and 335 presbiter ? 1 655-656 Equitius 1002 475?-487 episcopus Matellicatis ? 2 656 Equitius 1003 510/11-bef 571/4? abbas in Valeriae partibus ? 2 657-658 multorum… monasteriorum pater Eracl[ius] 1002 6th c lec(tor) ? 3 658 Erennios 362 ι ? 7 659 (ι ) 1001 Eruperantius 1001 btw 526 and 530 presbiter ? 2 659-660 Etherius 1001 btw 444 and presbyter ? 5 660 449/452 Eugarius 1001 355 episcopus ? * 661 Euandrus 1001 30 Sept 313-2 Oct (episcopus) ab Ursino ? 2 661 313 Euangelus 1001 398-aft 418? presbyter ? 1 662 Euangelus 1002 bef Jun 593 diaconus Sipontinae eccl. ? 5 662-663 Eubodius 1001 19 Nov 465 episcopus Tifernensis ? 2 663 Eucarpus 1001 343 (episcopus) ? 9 663-664 Eucarpus 1002 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Meresapae ? 6 664 502 Eucarpus 1003 Sep/Dec 558-Feb episcopus Messanensis ? 6 664-665 559 Eucharistus 1001 btw 492 and 496 deacon ? 2 665

190

Eudoxius 1001 aft 398? presbyter ? 7 668 Euentius 1001 381-392/3?-397? episcopus Ticiniensis ? 4 668-669 Euentius 1003 7-9 Dec. 531 presbyter ? 1 669-670 Euentius 1004 Jul-Aug 599 diaconus eccl. Mediolanensis ? 4 670-671 Eufrasius 1001 559 ep(iscopu)s ? 3 671-672 Eufraxius 1001 bef 507/11† acoluthus ? 1 672 Eugamius 1001 4th c l[ector] ? 1 672-673 Eugenius 1001 1 Aug 314 diaconus… missus ab ? 1 673 Sivestro episcopo Eugenius 1002 343 (episcopus) ? 9 673-674 Eugenius 1003 487-495 presbyter ? 1 674-675 Eugenius 1006 6th/7th c? serv(us) D(e)I praepositus ? 1 676 mo(nasterii) s(an)c(t)i Hermetis Eugippius 1001 bef 482-aft 533 presbyter; abbas ? 9 676-679 Lucullanensis oppidi Eugypius 1001 6th c ep(iscopu)s ? 3 679 Eulalius 1001 4th/5th c presbiter ? 1 679 Eulalius 1002 418-423† archidiaconus, episcopus, ? 1 680-681 antipope (r. Dec 418-Apr 419) Eulalius 1003 499-502 episcopus eccl. Syracusaenae ? 9 681-682 Eulogius 1001 343 (episcopus) ? 0 682-683 Eulogius 1002 451 episcopus eccl. Iporiensis ? 4 683 Eumacius 1001 aft 462- bef 492- episcopus Volaterranae eccl. ? 2 685 496† Eumerius 1001 * late 5th/early 6th c presbyter ? 1 685 Eunomius 1001 bef 10 Nov 316 episcopus ? * 687 Eunomius 1002 * 5th/6th c monk son of 'a 2 687 notable' Eupilius 1001 * 6th c episcopus ? 4 688 Euplus 1001 13 May 495 episcopus ? 1 688 Euresius 1002 6th/7th c mon(achus) ? 1 689 Eusanius 1001 btw 578 and 590- episcopus Agrigentinus ? 6 690 bef Jul 594† [Eus]ebios 4th/5th c priest ? 6 691 ([ ]ι ) 1001 Eusebius 1001 353-369/70† episcopus Vercellensis ? 7 692-697 Eusebius 1002 371/2-401/2 episcopus ? 3 697-698 Eusebius 1003 381 episcopus Bononiensis ? 3 698-700 Eusebius 1004 bef 392-418 presbyter from a 3 700-702 notable family in Cremona Eusebius 1006 451-Oct 456? episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 704 Eusebius 1007 19 Nov 465 episcopus Senensis ? 2 705 Eusebius 1008 19 Nov 465 episcopus Sutrinus ? 2 705 Eusebius 1009 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? * 705

191

Eusebius 1011 Nov 502-526 episcopus eccl. Fanestris ? 2 706 Eusebius 1013 Jul 592 abbas ? 5 707 Eusebius 1015 6th/7th c? pr(es)b(yter) ? 4 708 Eusebius 1017 * ? episcopus ? 2 708 Eusebius 1018 * 4th c presbyter Romanus ? 1 709 Eusebius 1019 * 5th/6th c episcopus ? 4 708 Eusebius 1020 * 6th/7th c episcopus ? 4 708 Eustachius 1001 aft 395-bef 4 Apr either clericus or episcopus ? 3-4 710 397 Eustasius 1001 355 episcopus ? * 710 Eustasius 1002 381-392/3? episcopus ? * 710 Eustasius 1003 aft 398? monachus ? 7 711 Eustasius 1004 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Cermonensis ? 3 711 502 Eustathius 1002 6th/7th c p(res)b(yte)r ? 1 712 Eustaxius 1001 * late 4th/early 5th c episcopus ? 3 712 Eusterius 1001 * 5th c? episcopus? ? 5 713 Eusthasius 1001 bef 343† episcopus ? 5 713 Eustomius 1001 355 episcopus? ? * 718-719 Eustorgius 1001 aft 343-bef 355 episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 719 Eustorgius 1002 510/11? episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 719-720 Euthasius 1001 451 episcopus eccl. Augustanae ? 4 720 Euthiches 1001 5th/6th c not(arius) eccl(esiae) ? 1 721 Rom(anae) Euthicius 1001 343 Ariminensis clerus ? 2 721-722 Euthicius 1002 mid-6th c abbas ? 2 722 Euthymius 1001 355 episcopus ? * 722 Euticius 1002 482-539† episcopus Comensis ? 4 724 Eutyches 1001 1 Mar 499 presbyter tit. Aemilianae ? 1 724-725 Eutychius 1001 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Tranensis ? 5 726 502 Eutychius 1002 Aug 593-bef Jul episcopus Tyndarinus ? 6 726-727 599 Exhilaratus 1002 6th c conversus ? 5 727 Exhilaratus 1003 Sep 603 episcopus ? 6 727-728 Exigu(u)s 1001 6th c? ep(iscopu)s ? 1 728 Exilaratus 1001 6th c p(res)b(yter) v(ir) 1 728 v(enerab ilis) Exonosus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 728-729 Expectatus 1001 5 Jul 595 prebyter tit. S. Vitalis ? 1 729 Exsuperantius 1001 356?-381 episcopus Dertonensis ? 4 729-730 Exsuperantius 1002 4th c diaconus ? 1 730 Exsuperantius 1003 Jan 603 episcopus ? 0 730 Exuperantius 1001 4th c presbit(er) ? 1 731 Exuperantius 1003 bef 22 Jun 431 sanctus episcopus ? 5 731

192

Exuperantius 1004 aft 458-29 May episcopus ? 2 731-732 477† Exuperantius 1005 324 episcopus ? 1 733 * Exuperantius 1006* 5th c episcopus ? 4 732 Exuperantius 1007 5th c episcopus ? 2 732 * Fabianus 1001 * 324 diaconus ? 1 733 Fabiolus 1001 15 Oct 535† fidel[is] acoletus ? 4 736 Fabius 1001 418-428 episcopus occidentalium ? * 736-738 partium Fabius 1002 580-bef 598† episcopus eccl. Firmanae ? 2 738 Facistus 1001 6th c? ? ? 5 738 Facundinus 1001 343 ? * 738-739 Faventius 1001 451 episcopus Regiensis eccl. ? 5 744 Favor 1001 late 3rd/early 4th c lector ? 1 745 Faustinianus 1001 btw 492 and 496 clericus eccl. Grumentinae ? 5 746 Faustinianus 1002 * 4th c episcopus ? 3 746 Faustinus 1001 343 ? * 746-747 Faustinus 1002 btw Dec 383 and presbyter or sacerdos ? 1 747-749 Dec 384 Faustinus 1007 bef Dec 419-425/6 episcopus eccl. Potentinae, ? 2 750-752 provinciae Piceni, legatus ecclesiae Romanae Faustinus 1008 btw 492 and 495/6 archidiaconus ? 5 752 Faustinus 1011 btw 526 and 530 acolitus ? 2 753 Faustinus 1013 * 4th c episcopus ? 3 734-755 Faustus 1001 4th c exorc(ista) ? 1 755 Faust[us] 1002 5th c? praesbyter ? 5 755 Faustus 1006 bef 565? sacerdos (priest or bish?) ? 3 759 Faustus 1010* 324 episcopus ? 1 760 Felicellus 1001 6th c s(u)bd(iaconus) ? 5 761 Felicanus 1002 btw 496 and 526 episcopus ? 0 762 Felicanus 1004 bef Oct 591† presbiter ? 1 763 Felicanus 1005 * 2nd c/5th or 6th c episcopus ? 2 763 Felicanus 1006 * 324 episcopus ? 1 763 Felicio 1001 6th/7th c p(res)b(yte)r peccator ? 1 763 Felicissimus 1001 3rd/4th c. [d]iaconus ? 2 764 Felicissimus 1002 bef Sep 345- 5 Sep [di]aconus ? 2 764 424† Felicissimus 1004 13 Mar 487 episcopus Sabinensis ? 2 765 Felicissimus 1005 btw 492 and episcopus eccl. Caudinae ? 5 765-766 495/6?-1 Mar 499 Felicissimus 1006 btw 492 and 496 diaconus ? 2 766 Felicissimus 1008 btw 526 and 530 diaconus ? 2 766-767 Felicissimus 1009 * 324 episcopus ? 1 767 Felicissimus 1010 * btw 314 and 335 presbyter ? 1 767

193

Felix 1003 30 Sept 313-2 Oct (episcopus) a Florentia ? 2 769 313 Tuscorum Felix 1004 30 Sept 313-2 Oct (episcopus) a Tribus ? 5 770 313 Tabernis Felix ( ι ) 1006 343 ? * 770 Felix 1007 356-365† archidiaconus, antipope ? 1 770-771 Felix 1008 btw 375 and 386- episcopus ? 4 771-772 392/3? Felix 1009 381 episcopus ? 3 772 Felix 1010 392/3 ascetic of some sort ? 1 772 Felix 1011 394-412/13 episcopus Bononiensis ? 3 773 Felix 1012 395-398 cleric (presbyter or diaconus) ? 1 773 [F]elix 1013 4th c [p]resbi[ter] ? 1 773 Felix 1014 4th c diak(onus) ? 1 773 Felix 1019 btw 401 and 417 episcopus Nucerinus ? 5 774-775 Felix 1020 410-411 episcopus urbis Romae ? 1 775 Felix 1021 26 Apr 419 conpraesbyter ? 1 775 Felix 1023 11 Mar 435† diac(onus) ? 1 776 Felix 1024 btw 440 and 461- praesbiter ? 1 776 471† Felix 1025 bef 465† episcopus ? 5 777 Felix 1026 19 Nov 465 episcopus Lunensis ? 4 777 Felix 1027 19 Nov 465 episcopus Sipontius ? 5 777 Felix 1028 bef 472-492 diaconus, pope ? 1 777 Felix 1030 9 Feb 484† sanc(tus) ep(is)c(opus) ? 5 779 Felix 1031 484 episcopus de Turribus ? 7 780 Felix 1032 487-btw 492 and episcopus Anagninus ? 5 780 496? Felix 1033 487-btw 492 and episcopus Anatiatinus ? 5 781 496? Felix 1034 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 781 Felix 1035 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 781-782 Felix 1036 btw 492 and 496 Nolanae ecclesiae clericus ? 5 782 Felix 1038 487?-495-499? presbyter ? 1 782-783 Felix 1039 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus eccl. Faliscae et ? 2 783-784 499-502 Nepesinae Felix 1041 487?-495?-499 presbyter tit. Aequiti ? 1 785 Felix 1042 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus eccl. Interamnae ? 2 785-786 502 Felix 1043 5th/6th c p(res) b(yter) ? 1 787 Felix 1044 5th/6th c arc(hi)diac(onus) ? 7 787 Felix 1044c 5th/6th c? ep(iscopu)s ? 3 787 Felix 1045 23 Oct 502 episcopus eccl. Atellanae ? 5 787-788 Felix 1047 518-520 diaconus, legatus ? 1 788-794 Felix 1048 526-530† papa ? 2 794 Felix 1049 7-9 Dec. 531 episcopus Numentani ? 2 794-795 civitatis

194

Felix 1052 aft 554-bef 593/4† praepositus…monasterii ? 5 795 Felix 1053 Sep 555-Aug 556 praesbyter ? 1 795 Felix 1054 bef 565-bef 588/9† episcopus Taurisianae eccl. ? 3 796 Felix 1057 btw 578 and 590- episcopus Pisaurensis ? 2 797-798 Jul 596 Felix 1059 590/591-599 episcopus civitatis Portuensis ? 2 798-800 Felix 1060 aft 588/9-aft Jan episcopus Tarvisii ? 3 800-801 591 Felix 1061 bef Mar 591-bef episcopus Messanensis ? 6 801-802 Sep 595† Felix 1063 Jun 591 abbas ? 5 803 Felix 1064 Jul 591-Dec 593 episcopus Sipontinus ? 5 803-804 Felix 1066 Jul 592 episcopus de Acropolim ? 5 804 Felix 1070 bef Oct 593 diaconus ? 3 806 Felix 1071 May 594-595 episcopus (unus ex Italiae ? * 807-808 episcopis) Felix 1072 595-600 presbyter tit. S. Sabina ? 1 808-09 Felix 1073 5 Jul 595 presbyter t. s. Sixti ? 1 809 Felix 1074 599-604 rector patrimonii Appiae, ? 5 809-810 subdiaconus Felix 1078 * 4th c episcopus ? 4 810 Felix 1079 * 324 episcopus ? 1 811 Felix 1080 * btw 432 and 440 episcopus ? 1 811 Fermosanus 1001 7th c? p(res)b(yte)r ? 5 811 Festus 1005 btw 590 and Apr Capuanae ecclesiae ? 1 814 593-bef Nov 594 episcopus Fidelis 1002 * 324 episcopus ? 1 816-817 Fidelis 1003 * 5th or 6th c episcopus ? 3 816 Fidelissimus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 817 Fidentius 1001 4th/5th c? acolitus ? 5 817 Filaster 1001 btw 355 and 374- episcopus Brixianus ? 3 817-819 aft 387 Filippus 1001 bef 3 Jul 521 praepositus beati martyris ? 1 819-820 Pancrati Firmanus 1002 13 Mar 487 presbyter ? 1 824 Firmanus 1003 602-603 episcopus Tergestinae eccl. ? 3 824-825 Firmissimus 1001 4th c presbiter ? 1 825 Firmus 1001 395/7?-430/39? presbyter, monachus ? 8 825 Flavianus 1004 542?† antistes (=episcopus) ? 4 828 Flavianus 1005 * 6th c? episcopus ? 4 828 Flavianus 1006 * ? episcopus ? 4 829 Floreius 1001 451 presbyter ? 4 834 Florentinus 1002 btw 401 and 417 episcopus Tiburtinensis ? 1 835 Florentinus 1003 Mar 559 episcopus de Clusio ? 2 835-836 Florentinus 1005 bef Jun 599-Dec diaconus eccl. Ravennatis ? 2 836-837 603 Florentinus 1006 Dec 603 archidiaconus eccl. ? 2 837

195

Anconitanae Florentius 1001 355 episcopus ? * 837 Florentius 1002 363-378 episcopus Puteolanus ? 5 837-838 Florentius 1003 366-bef 383/4 episcopus… apud Ostiam ? 1 838 Florentius 1004 late 4th c episcopus eccl. Ravennatis ? 2 838-839 Florentius 1005 late 4th c levita ? 1 839 Florentius 1006 408 or 431† Dei in[serviens?] ? 1 839 (=monachus?) Florentius 1007 19 Nov 465 episcopus Talesinus ? 5 839-840 Florentius 1008 19 Nov 475 episcopus ? 2 840 Florentius 1009 499-502 episcopus eccl. Plestinae ? 2 840-841 Florentius 1010 5th c diac(onus) ? 1 841 Florentius 1012 5th/6th c presb(yter) ? 5 841 Florentius 1013 7-9 Dec. 531 presbyter ? 1 842 Florentius 1014 1st half of 6th c presbyter ? 2 842 Florentius 1015 Aug 551 (episcopus) de Matellica ? 2 843 Florentius 1016 Dec 592-593/4 subdiaconus ? 1 843 Florentius 1017 593-594 presbyter ? 1 843 Florentius 1018 Sep/Oct 598 diaconus ? 1 844 Florentius 1019 6th c vir in vita atque habitu ? 2 844 sanctae conversationis Florentius 1020 * 5th/6th c episcopus ? 2 844 Florentius 1021* mid-6th c episcopus ? 2 845 Florianus 1001 30 Sept 313-2 Oct (episcopus) a Sinna ? 2 845 313 Florianus 1002 bef 521- aft 553/4- abbas, ex monasterio ? 4 845-846 561? Romeno Floridus 1001 541/3-bef 599 episcopus Tifernae Tiberinae ? 2 847-849 Florus 1001 1 Aug 314 diaconus ? 6 849 Florus 1002 4th c? episcopus Mentur(nensis) ? 5 849 Florus 1004 418-428-btw 444 episcopus occidentalium ? * 850-852 and 449? partium Florus 1005 btw 502 and 510 clericus ? 4 852 Florus 1006 btw 526 and 530 lector ? 2 852-853 Fonteius 1001 btw 577 and 586- episcopus Feltriensis ? 3 853-855 aft Jan 591 Formarius 1001* 5th c episcopus ? 2 855 Fortunatianus 1001 btw 340 and 342- episcopus Aquileiensis ? 8 856-857 bef 370/2 Fortunatus 1001 343 Neapolis Campaniae ? 5 857-858 episcopus Fortunatus 1004 bef 25 Jul 428 subdiaconus ? 1 858 Fortunatus 1005 btw 492 and 496- episcopus eccl. Anagnia ? 5 858-860 499-502 Fortunatus 1006 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus eccl. Fulginatium ? 2 860-861 499-502 Fortunatus 1007 499-6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl. Suessanae ? 5 861-862

196

Fortunatus 1008 5th c episc(opus) ? 1 862 Fortunatus 1011 6 Nov 502 presbyter ? 1 863 Fortunatus 1012 515-516 episcopus Catinensis ? 6 863-865 Fortunatus 1013 bef 11 Feb 544 p(rae)p(ositus) basilic(ae) ? 1 865 beati aposto(li) Pauli Fortunatus 1014 bef 547/9-bef antistes Tudertinae eccl. ? 2 866 586/7† Fortunatus 1014b 565-bef 600† episcopus ? 3 866 Fortunatus 1016 Aug 593-bef Aug episcopus Neapolitanus ? 5 867-871 600† Fortunatus 1018 593-594 abbas monasterii quid ? 1 871-872 appelatur Balneum Ciceronis Fortunatus 1019 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. Ss. Quattuor ? 1 872 Coronatorum Fortunatus 1020 Nov 596 episcopus Fanensis ? 2 872-873 Fortunatus 1022 Jul 599 abbas mon. s. Demetrii ? 1 873 Fortunatus 1023 Oct 603 abbas in monasterio Ss. ? 2 873-874 Laurentii atque Zenonis Fortunatus 1025 * c. 400† presbyter Turritanae eccl. ? 5 874 Frigdianus 1001 early 6th c? Lucanae eccl. Episcopus ? 2 875 Frontus 1001 * late 6th c episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 876 Frugifer 1001 btw 542 and 565 ep(iscopus) ? 3 876 Fulgentius 1001 13 Mar 487 presbyter ? 1 877 Fulgentius 1002 1 Mar 499 archidiaconus ? 1 877 Fulgentius 1003 545?-bef 593-594† episcopus… qui Urticulensi ? 2 878 eccl. Praeerat Fuscus 1002 bef Jun/Jul 599-Feb abbas monasteriorum ? 5 879-880 600? Fylacrius 1001 554?† ep(iscopu) eccl. ? 4 880 Novar(iensis) Ga[…] 1001 btw 384 and 399 praesbyter ? 1 880 Gabbesius 1001 4th/5th c diac(onus), per(e)g(rinus) ? 1 881 Gaido 1001 7th/8th c p(res)b(yte)r ? 1 882 Gallianus 1001 5th c presbyter ? 0 883 Gallicanus 1001 * 4th c monk ? 9 883-884 Gallus 1002 529-546† ep(iscopu)s ? 4 884 Gallus 1004 * ? episcopus ? 2 885 Gattus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 885-886 Gaudentius 1001 30 Sept 313-2 Oct (episcopus) a Pisis ? 2 886-887 313 Gaudentius 1002 371 clericus ? 1 887 Gaudentius 1003 aft 379-bef 410† episcopus (called ι ? 3 887-890 η ) Gaudentius 1004 389 presb(yter) ? 1 890 Gaudentius 1005 4th c dia(conus) ? 1 890 Gaudentius 1007 4th/5th c epsicopus ? 4 891 Gaudentius 1008 4th/5th c in [d]iaco[natu] ? 8 891 Gaudentius 1011 19 Nov 465 episcopus Antiatinus ? 5 892

197

Gaudentius 1012 19 Nov 465 episcopus Aviciensis ? 2 892 Gaudentius 1013 19 Nov 465 episcopus Scyllatenus ? 5 892 Gaudentius 1014 19 Nov 465 episcopus Vecconensis ? 2 892 Gaudentius 1015 475 sacerdos aufiniensis eccl. ? 2 892 Gaudentius 1017 13 Mar 487 episcopus Foroclaudiensis ? 2 894 Gaudentius 1018 btw 496 and 526 abbas ? 9 894 Gaudentius 1019 495?-499 episcopus eccl. Salernitanae ? * 894-895 Gaudentius 1020 495?-499 episcopus eccl. Tadinatis ? 2 895 Gaudentius 1021 495?-499 episcopus eccl. Vulsinensis ? 2 896 Gaudentius 1023 5th/6th c [pre]sbiter ? 4 896 Gaudentius 1025 556/7-558/9 episcopus Volaterranae eccl. ? 2 897-898 Gaudentius 1026 Mar 559 praesbyter qui etiam ? 6 898 monachus est Gaudentius 1027 bef 593-594 presbiter ? 2 898 Gaudentius 1028 Nov 594-Mar 595 episcopus Nolanus ? 5 898-899 Gaudentius 1029 * 324 episcopus ? 1 899 Gaudentius 1030 * ? episcopus ? 2 899 Gaudiosus 1001 btw 492 and 496 diaconus Clientiensis vici ? 5 900 Gaudiosus 1002 5th c? s(an)c(tu)s episc(opus) ? 8 900 Gaudiosus 1003 3 Jul 521 presbyter quartus tit. S. ? 1 900 Crisogoni Gaudiosus 1004 7-9 Dec. 531 presbyter ? 1 901 Gaudiosus 1005 7-8 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 901 Gaudiosus 1008 bef Sep 595† presbyter ? 1 902 Gaudiosus 1009 Feb 599 defensor sedis nostrae ? 6 902-903 Gaudiosus 1010 Jul 599 episcopus Eugabio ? 2 903 Gaudiosus 1011 6th c? libr(arius) ? 1 903 Gaudiosus 1012 6th/7th c? […]marturius Lauren[tii ? 1 903 titulo] Damasi (presbyter or clericus) Gaudiosus 1014 * bef. 451† episcopus Brixianus ? 3 904 Gavinianus 1001 Jul 592 diaconus ? 2 905 Gazeus 1001 btw 571/2 and diaconus ? 3 905 586/7 Gelasius 1001 4th c exorcist[a] ? 1 905 Gelasius 1002 bef 492-496† dictator; Pope ? 8 906 Gelasius 1003 Jul 592 subdiaconus ? 6 906 Gelasius 1004 * 4th c episcopus ? 2 906 Gemellus 1001 bef May 477 subdiaconus… Raven(natis) ? 2 907 eclesie et rector Sicilie Geminianus 1001 392/3 episcopus ? 4 907 Geminianus 1003 Aug 458-bef Jun episcopus ? * 908 460 Geminus 1001 Sep 558/Feb 559 episcopus Puteolanus ? 5 909 Gemmulus 1001 6th/7th c? lictor tit. S. Marturis ? 1 909 Caecil[i]ae

198

Generosus 1001 4th c [pre]sbyter ? 1 909 Genesius 1001 495?-499 presbyter tit. Nicomedius ? 1 910 Genesius 1002* ? episcopus ? 3 910 Genialis 1001 392/3 ascetic, disciple of ? 1 911 Iovinianus Genialis 1003 * 5th/6th c? episcopus ? 3 911 Genitor 1001 btw 492 and 496 presbyter ? 5 911 Georgius 1008 6th/7th c acoluthus ? 1 914 Georgius 1010 * ? episcopus ? 4 915 Germanus 1001 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus eccl. Pisaurensis ? 2 915-918 499-502? Germanus 1003 518-520 episcopus Capuanus ? 5 918-24 Germ[a]n[us] 1004 5th/6th c? ep(iscopu)s ? 3 924 Germanus 1005 * 21 Feb 546 episcopus ? 3 925 Germinator 1001 392/3 ascetic, disciple of ? 1 925 Iovinianus Gerontius 1001 bef 397-400/401 diaconus ? 4 926 Gerontius 1002 aft 451/2 episcopus ? 4 926 Gerontius 1004 18 Jun 456† presb(yter) ? 1 927 Gerontius 1005 465-btw 492 and episcopus Camerinus ? 2 927-928 496? Gerontius 1007 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus eccl. Ficuclensis ? 2 928-929 Nov 502 Gerontius 1008 btw 492 and 496 episcopus Valuensis ? 2 929 Gerontius 1009 btw 526 and 530 subdiaconus ? 2 930 Gerontius 1010 550 de subdiaconorum et ? 1 930 notariorum vel defensorum officio depositus Gerontius 1011 mid-6th c abbas ? 5 931 Gerontius 1012 Apr 557 episcopus Tusciae ? 2 932 Annonariae Gerontius 1013 565† primic(erius) notariorum s. ? 1 932 eccl. Romanae Gerontius 1014 583/4† frater…in monasterio ? 1 932 Gregorii Gerontius 1015 * 6th/7th c? episcopus ? 3 932 Gloriosus 1001 Oct 598 episcopus Ostia ? 1 933 Glycerius 1001 aft 431- 15 Sep 440 episcopus ? 4 933 Glycerius 1002 473-475 comes domesticorum, ? 2 933-934 Augustus, episcopus Glycerius 1003 * 6th c monachus ? 2 934 Glyrius 1001 btw 492 and 496 episcopus? (surely cleric) ? 5 934 Gordianus 1001 487?-495?-499-502 presbyter tit. Pammachi ? 1 934-936 Graecianus 1001 21 Jul 359 episcopus a Calle ? 5 936-937 Grammatius 1001 * 25 Jan 490 episcopus ? 5 937 Gratianus 1001 17 Jul 564 subdiaconus vir 2 937 reverend us

199

Gratianus 1002 Sep 595 ecclesiae Benefranae ? 5 938 diaconus Gratianus 1003 7th c? levita (=diaconus) ? 4 938 Gratiosus 1002 Jan 593-595 episcopus civitatis ? 2 939 Nomentum Gratiosus 1003 Jan 593 subdiaconus ? 1 939-940 Gratiosus 1004 Sep 599 notarius (eccl. Romanae) ? 1 940 Gratiosus 1005 5 Oct 600 presbyter tit. Ss. Nerei et ? 1 940 Achillei Gratiosus 1006 * mid 6th c episcopus ? 3 940 Gratus 1001 451- bef 501† episcopus eccl. Augustanae ? 4 940-941 Gregorius 1001 1 Aug 314 episcopus quo loco qui est in ? 1 942 Portu Romae Gregorius 1002 355 episcopus ? * 942 Gregorius 1003 359 episcopus ? * 942-943 Greg[orius] 1004 Apr 369† diac(onus) ? 1 943 [Gre]gorius 1005 4th c serbus Dei ? 1 944 Gregorius 1006 481-bef 29 May episcopus Mutinensis eccl. ? 2 944 482 Gregorius 1008 bef 541-546/550 monachus noble 5 944-945 Gregorius 1009 573-12 Mar 604† diaconus apostolicae sedis; noble 1 945-949 episcopus Romae (r. 590- 604) Gregorius 1010 Oct 590-Sep 594 presbyter et abbas ? 6 949 Gregorius 1011 bef Aug 591-Jan episcopus Agrigentinae ? 6 950-951 603 civitatis Gregorius 1015 6th/7th c di[aconus] Rav(ennatensis) ? 2 953 eccl. Gricinus 1001 4th c? ep(iscopu)s ? 3 954 Grimald[us] 1001 6th/7th c pr(esbyter) ? 1 954 Grunitus 1001 May 430† diaconus ? 2 954 Gudelivus 1001 551 ustiarius basilicae Gothorum ? 2 954 Guderit 1001 551 ustiarius basilicae Gothorum ? 2 955 Gudila 1002 btw 507 and 511 episcopus ? 2 956 Gudilibus 1001 bef mid-6th c? diaconus v(ir) 2 956 v(enerab -ilis) Guneis 1001 6th/7th c? pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 957 Guttus 1001 6th c? agolitus s(an)c(ta)e aeclesiae ? 5 959 Capuanae Habentius 1001 aft 590-bef May episcopus Perusii ? 1 959 599 Habetdeum 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 959 Habetdeus 1001 9 May 486 † sanctus abbas ? 5 959 Healfred 1001 7th c? p(res)b(yter) ? 8 960 Helia 1001 6th c? ep(is)c(o)p(us) ? 7 961-962 Helianus 1001 btw fall 352 and presbyter urbis Romae ? 1 962 spr. 353 Helias 1001 571/2-586/87 † archiepiscopus Aquiliensis, ? 3 962-965

200

patriarcha Heliodorus 1001 3rd/4th c pr(esby)t(er) (?) ? 1 965 Heliodorus 1002 bef 373/75-bef 404- episcopus Altinensis ? 3 965-967 406?† Helpidius 339-340 εε ? 1 968 (ι ) 1001 Helpidius 1003 btw 492 and 496- episcopus eccl. Volaterranae ? 2 969-970 502 Helpidius 1004 bef 507/11-Aug medicus ( ) etiam ? 4 970-971 526 diaconus Helpidius 1005 Sep/Dec 558-Apr diaconus, episcopus ? 6 972 559 Catanensis Helpidius 1006 6th c [praepo]situs ? 1 973 Helpidius 1007 6th/7th c episc(opus) ? 1 973 Helpidius 1008 * late 4th/early 5th c episcopus ? 5 973-974 Heper 1001 6th c comes, diaconus v(ir) 2 976 i(nlustris ) Heracleianus 1001 343 ? 9 976 Heraclida 1001 2nd half of 4th c episc(opus), servus Dei ? 1 976-977 Heraclius 1001 318-7 Feb 338† lector r(egionis) sec(undae) ? 1 977 Heraclius 343 ? 9 977 (ει ) 1002 Heraclius 1003 397-398 diaconus ? 3-4 977-978 Heraclius 1004 aft May 535-bef 15 presbyter ? 1 978 Oct 535 Herculanus 1001 bef 541/43-late episcopus Perusinae civitatis ? 2 978 548/early 549 Herculanus 1002 * 6th c? episcopus ? 3 979 Herculanus 1003 * 324 episcopus ? 1 979 Herculentius 1001 btw 492 and 496 episcopus Potentinus ? 5 979-980 Herculinus 1001 13 Mar 487 episcopus Utriculanus ? 2 980 Herennius 1001 13 Mar 487 episcopus Portuensis ? 1 981 Hermogenianus 324 episcopus ? 1 982 1002 * Hermolaus 1001 btw 526 and 530 primicerius, defensor ? 2 982 Hilario 1001 aft 577/80-bef pater, monachus ? 1 984 582/83† Hilarius 1001 354/5-bef 377/79 diaconus ? 1 985-986 Hilarius 1004 19 Nov 465 episcopus Amerinus ? 2 987 Hilarius 1005 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 987-988 Hilarius 1006 btw 590 and 604 notarius Germaniciani ? 1 988 Hilarus 1001b early 5th c pre(s)b(yter) ? 1 989 Hilarus 1002 449-468† diaconus Romanus, ? 7 989-992 archidiaconus?, episcopus Romae (r. 461-468) Hilarus 1003 476-15 May 558† abbas Galeatensis ? 2 992 Hilarus 1004 499-6 Nov 502? presbyter tituli Lucinae ? 1 993 Hilarus 1006 498-9 Jul 528† lictor t(i)t(uli) Pudentis ? 1 994

201

Hilarus 1008 5th/6th c [famulus?] Chr(ist)i ? 5 994 Hilarus 1009 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Tempsanae ? 5 994-995 502 Hilarus 1011 536-537 p(res)b(yter) ? 1 997 Hilarus 1014 Jul 600-10 Jul 601 subdiaconus ? 5 998-999 Himilus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 999- 1000 Hippolytus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1000 Hippolytus 1002 * early 6th c diaconus ? 1 1000 Hirenaeus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1001 Hireneus 1001 4th c exorc(ista) ? 1 1001 Hireneus 1002 6th/7th c presbyter? ? 1 1001 Hobedianus 1001 * late 4th/early 5th c episcopus ? 4 1002 Homobonus 1001 5th c episc(opus) [vir] 2 1002 v(enerab ilis) Homobonus 1002 14 Dec 556 subdiaconus ? 1 1002 Homobonus 1003 592-595 episcopus civitatis ? 5 1002- Albanensis 1003 Homobonus 1004* 324 episcopus ? 1 1003 Honager 1001 4th/5th c pre(sbyter)? ? 1 1003 Honestosus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1004 Honoratus 1001 355-397 episcopus, urbis (Vercellae) ? 4 1005- sedem tenuit 1006 Honoratus 1002 359 episcopus ? * 1006- 1007 Honoratus 1003 359 episcopus ? * 1007 Honoratus 1005 late 5th/early 6th c episcopus Novariensis ? 4 1007- 1008 Honoratus 1006 5th/6th c presbyter ? 5 1008 Honoratus 1008 btw 507/11 and pater monachorum ? 5 1008- 533-bef 541/552† 1009 Honoratus 1010 569 episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 1009 Honoratus 1012 Oct 584-590/592?† notarius apocrisarius ? 1 1010 Honoratus 1013 Aug 591 presbyter ? * 1011 Honoratus 1014 Sep 591 archidiaconus ? 1 1011 Honoratus 1015 bef 550?-593/594 monachus ? 2 1011 Honoratus 1016 * mid-4th c diaconus ? 1 1011 Ho[no]rius 1001 5th/6th c dia(conus) ? 3 1013 Ho[no]rius 1002 509-28 Sep 549 not(arius) s(an)c(t)ae ? 5 1013 [eccl(esiae)] Nucerinae Honorius 1003 btw 526 and 530 presbiter ? 2 1013 Honorius 1004 btw 526 and 530 subdiaconus ? 2 1014 Honorius 1005 btw 526 and 530 cantor ? 2 1014 Honorius 1007 Feb 603 episcopus Tarentinus ? 5 1014 Honorius 1008 * late 5th/6th c? episcopus ? 3 1015 Hormisda 1001 499-523† diaconus, episcopus Romae wealthy 5 1015- (r. 20 Jul 514-6 Apr 523) 1016

202

Horontius 1001 589/90-bef Jan 591 episcopus Vicentiensis ? 3 1016- 1017 Hosbut 1001 551 ustiarius basilicae Gothorum ? 2 1018 Hostilius 1002 bef Mar 559-Mar episcopus ? * 1019 559 Humanianus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1019 Hyacinthus 1001 3rd/4th c? acolitus ? 1 1020 Ia[…] 1001 428?† diaconus ? 1 1020 Iacobus 1001 378/393 presbyter ? 9 1020 Iacobus 1003 413/415 ser(vus) Dei ? * 1021 Iacobus 1004 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1021 Ianouarios 4th/5th c εε ? 6 1022 (ι ) 1001 Ianuarius 1003 343 (episcopus) a Campania de ? 5 1023- Benevento 1024 Ianuarius 1004 381 episcopus ? 0 1024 Ianuarius 1005 392/393 ascetic ? 1 1024- 1025 Ianuarius 1006 4th c exorcista ? 4 1025 Ianuarius 1008 4th/5th c diaconus ? 1 1025 Ianuarius 1011 447-449 episcopus Aquileiensis ? 3 1026- 1027 Ianuarius 1012 19 Nov 465 episcopus Praenestinus ? 1 1027 Ianuarius 1013 480-Oct/Nov 490† s(an)c(tae) ecl(esiae) presu[l] ? 3 1027 Ianuarius 1016 487?-495?-499 presbyter tituli Vestinae ? 1 1028- 1029 Ianuarius 1017 5th c diac(onus) ? 3 1029 Ianuarius 1018 late 5th/early 6th c pr(es)b(yter) s(an)c(t)ae ? 3 1029 eccl(esiae) Terg(estinae) Ianuarius 1019 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1029- 1030 Ianuarius 1020 bef Jun 591-603 episcopus, metropoleos, ? 7 1030- archiepiscopus de Caralis 1035 Ianuarius 1021 5 Oct 591 diaconus eccl. Messanensis ? 6 1036 Ianuarius 1022 6th/7th c diaconus v(ir) 4 1036 v(enerab ilis) Ianuarius 1023 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1036 Ianuarius 1024 * btw 361 and 363 presbyter ? 1 1037 Iason ( ω ) 1001 4th/5th c εε ? 6 1037 Ilicius 1001 387/390-btw 401 presb(yter) ? 1 1038 and 417 Ilius 1001 4th c? ep(iscopu)s ? 1 1038 Ingeniosus 1001 392/93 ascetic ? 1 1041 Ingenuinus 1001 btw 577 and 586- episcopus Sabionensis ? 3 1041- 591 1042 Innocentius 1001 bef. 366† acol(uthus) ? 1 1043 Innocentius 1002 aft 368 and bef 373 episcopus ? * 1043- 1044

203

Innocentius 1003 374/75† presbyter ? * 1044 Innocentius 1005 4th c presb(yter) ? 1 1044- 1045 Innocentius 1007 401-417 diaconus, episcopus Romae ? 5 1045 (r. 401-417) Innocentius 1008 414-486† ep(iscopus) ? 4 1045 Innocentius 1009 Oct 443 episcopus ? * 1045- 1046 Innocentius 1010 487-502 episcopus ecclesiae ? 2 1046- Mevanatis 1047 Innocentius 1011 495?-499-502 episcopus eccl. ? 2 1047- Forosemproniensis 1048 Innocentius 1012 5th c diaconus ? 3 1048 Innocentius 1013 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. ? 5 1049 502? Ferentinatium Innocentius 1014 23 Oct 502-6 Nov epsicopus eccl. Tifernatium ? 2 1049- 502? Tiberinorum 1050 Innocentius 1015 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1050 Innocentius 1016 Jul 599-603 episcopus Sardiniae ? 7 1050- 1051 Innocentius 1017 5th c? ep(iscopu)s ? 3 1051 Innocentius 1018 * ? episcopus ? 2 1051 Innocentius 1019 * early 4th c episcopus ? 4 1051 Inportunus 1002 Jan 592-bef May episcopus Atellanae civitatis ? 5 1052 599† Inportunus 1003 6th c subd(iaconus) rec(ionis) ? 1 1052 quartae Inportunus 1004 6th c acol(u)t(hus) ? 1 1053 Ioa[nnes] 1001 6th/7th c pres(byter) ? 5 1053 Ioanne(s) 6th/7th c ( ) […] ? 1 1054 (ω()) 1001 Ioannis 1001 383-463 or 461-541 praesbyt(er), Dei servus v(ir) 5 1054 v(enerab ilis) Ioannis 1003 7th c clericus ? 1 1054 Iobianus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1055 Iobianus 1002 * mid-4th c episcopus ? 3 1054 Iobianus 1003 * mid-4th c clericus(?) ? 1 1055 Iobinus 1001 4th c iaconus (=diaconus) ? 1 1055 Iobinus 1002 Nov 594 diaconus et abbas de Portu ? 7 1056 Veneris Iocundus 1001 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? * 1056 Iocundus 1002 btw Mar 559 and praesbyter Turinatis eccl. ? 2 1057 Mar 561 Iocundus 1003 * late 4th/early 5th c presbiter ? 0 1057 Ioh[..] 1001 6th/7th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 1057 Iohannes 1003 4th/5th c p(res)b(yter) ? 1 1059 Iohannes 1004 2 Apr 432† Neapolitanae urbis episcopus ? 5 1059 Iohannes 1005 btw 445 and 454 monachus ? * 1060

204

Iohannes 1006 Jun 451 presbyter ? 9 1060 Iohannes 1007 451 episcopus eccl. Cremonensis ? 3 1060- 1061 Iohannes 1008 19 Jul 477-5 Jun Ravennatis episcopus ? 2 1061- 494† 1062 Iohannes 1009 478-bef 495/496† episcopus cui papa Nolanum ? 9 1063 dedit ecclesiam Iohannes 1010 btw 492 and 496 episcopus Pisanus ? 2 1063- 1064 Iohannes 1011 btw 492 and 496 episcopus Soranus ? 2 1064 Iohannes 1012 btw 492 and 496-6 episcopus eccl. Spoletinae ? 2 1064- Nov 502 1066 Iohannes 1013 btw 492 and 496- episcopus eccl. Vibonensis ? 5 1066- 499 1067 Iohannes 1014 btw 492 and 496 archidiaconus Falerionensis ? 2 1067 urbis Iohannes 1016 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus eccl. Ariminensis ? 2 1067- 499-502 1069 Iohannes 1017 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Pammachi ? 1 1069- Nov 502? 1070 Iohannes 1018 499-6 Nov 502 diaconus regionis […] ? 1 1070- 1071 Iohannes 1019 5th c p(res)b(ite)r ? 7 1071 Iohannes 1021 5th/6th c clericus? ? 2 1072 Iohannes 1022 501/502-506 diaconus eccl. Romanae ? 1 1072 Iohannes 1023 aft 502-bef 558/59† episcopus ? 5 1072- 1073 Iohannes 1024 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Turritanae ? 5 1073 502? Iohannes 1026 512-518/20 diaconus ? 1 1074- 1075 Iohannes 1027 518-520 episcopus ? * 1075- 1080 Iohannes 1028 bef 523-526† episcopus Romae (r. 523- ? 2 1080 526) Iohannes 1030 bef 526-535† presbyter ex tit(ulo) s. ? 1 1081 Clementis; episcopus Romae Iohannes 1031 btw 526 and 530 diaconus ? 2 1081 Iohannes 1032 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1082 Iohannes 1034 11 Mar 537 subdiaconus regionarius ? 1 1082 primus regionis Iohannes 1036 549-551 episcopus Marsorum ? 2 1084- 1086 Iohannes 1037 18 Mar 550 presbyter et apocrisarius ? 1 1086 Iohannes 1041 bef 555-Jan 595 episcopus Ravennatis ? 1 1087- 1093 Iohannes 1042 Sep 555-Aug 556 praesbyter ? 1 1093 Iohannes 1043 16 Apr 556 (episcopus) de Perusia ? 2 1094 Iohannes 1044 btw 556 and 561 episcopus Larinatis ? 5 1094 Iohannes 1045 Sep-Dec 558 episcopus Nolanus ? 5 1094 Iohannes 1047 Sep/Dec 558 episcopus de Narnia ? 2 1095 Iohannes 1049 Mar 559 episcopus ? * 1095

205

Iohannes 1053 bef 561-574† subdiaconus?, episcopus ? 1 1098 Romae Iohannes 1054 17 Jul 564 tabellio civitatis Rav(ennae) ? 2 1098 Iohannes 1055 bef 565 antistes ? 3 1098 Iohannes 1057 btw 571/2 and lector ? 3 1099 586/7 Iohannes 1063 577/86-bef Jan 591 episcopus Parentinae ? 3 1100- ecclesiae 1101 Iohannes 1066 588/89-590/91 in Dei servitio ? 1 1101 Iohannes 1068 bef 590† presbyter sanctae Romanae ? 1 1102 ecclesiae Iohannes 1069 bef 590† monachus ? 2 1102 Iohannes 1070 Dec 590 episcopus de Urbs Vetus ? 2 1102- 1103 Iohannes 1073 Apr 591-Nov/Dec episcopus Surrentinus ? 5 1103- 598 1104 Iohannes 1074 bef May 591† monachus ? 6 1104- 1105 Iohannes 1076 bef Jun 591-Sep abbas ? 7 1105- 602 1106 Iohannes 1077 Aug 591-Jul 597 abbas monasterii sanctae ? 6 1106- Luciae in Syracusaena 1107 civitate Iohannes 1078 Feb 592-Jul 595 episcopus Vellitranus ? 5 1107- 1108 Iohannes 1078b Mar-Apr 592 episcopus ? 2 1108 Iohannes 1079 Jul 592-Aug 598- episcopus Squillacinus ? 8 1108- Dec 603? 1109 Iohannes 1080 Jul/Aug 592 episcopus Laurinensis ? 6 1109 Iohannes 1082 Apr 593-bef Sep subdiaconus ? 1 1110 593 Iohannes 1083 Jun 593-bef Nov episcopus Callipolitanus ? 5 1110- 595† 1111 Iohannes 1084 Sep 593 abbas ? 1 1111 Iohannes 1086 May 594 coepiscopu(s) nost(er) ? 4 1112 Iohannes 1087 bef Oct 594 subdiaconus ? 6 1112 Iohannes 1089 Feb 595-Jun 603 archidaconus, episcopus ? 6 1112- Syracusaenus 1120 Iohannes 1090 592?-5 Jul 595 episcopus civitatis ? 1 1120- Falaritanae 1121 Iohannes 1091 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. S. Chrysogoni ? 1 1121 Iohannes 1092 5 Jul 595-5 Oct 600 pres. Tit. Ss. Iohannes et ? 1 1121 Pauli Iohannes 1093 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. S. Silvestri ? 1 1122 Iohannes 1094 5 Jul 595-5 Oct 602 pres. tit. S. Vitalis or tit. Ss. ? 1 1122 Protasi et Geruasi Iohannes 1095 Jul 595 presbyter ? 2 1122- 1123 Iohannes 1096 Jul 595 abbas de Regio ? 5 1123 Iohannes 1097 12 Aug 595 presbyter ? 1 1123 Iohannes 1098 Spring/Summer servus Dei ? 1 1123- 596 or Jun 601 1124

206

Iohannes 1099 Jun-Jul 599 ? vir 3 1124 religiosu s Iohannes 1103 bef Sep 597-Jul 599 regionarius ? 1 1125- 1126 Iohannes 1105 bef Feb 598† monachus ? 1 1126 Iohannes 1114 May 599 episcopus in castello quod ? 3 1129 Novas dicitur Iohannes 1115 Jul 599-Dec 603 episcopus Arminium ? 2 1129- 1130 Iohannes 1116 6th c diaconus ? 1 1130 Iohannes 1117 6th c subdiaconus ? 1 1130 Iohann[es] 1121 6th c [praepo]situs ? 1 1131 Iohannes 1123 Jun 600 diaconus ? 2 1132 Iohannes 1124 Jul 600 diaconus ? 5 1132 Iohannes 1125 Oct 600 diaconus ? 2 1132 Iohannes 1126 Nov 600-Jan 603 subdiaconus Ravennae ? 1 1132- 1133 Iohannes 1134b Jun 601 monachus ? 1 1136 Iohannes 1135 Aug 602 abbas ? 6 1136 Iohannes 1136 Jan 603 episcopus ? 0 1137 Iohannes 1137 Feb 603 Ravennatis clericus ? 2 1137 Iohannes 1138 Jul-Sep 603 episcopus Panormitanus ? 6 1137- 1139 Iohannes 1140 6th/7th c Polensis ep(iscopu)s ? 3 1139 Iohannes 1141 6th/7th c exiguus epis(copus) ? 1 1139 Iohannes 1142 6th/7th c exiguus presbyter ? 5 1140 Iohannes 1143 6th/7th c primicir[ius] ? 1 1140 Iohannes 1145 7th/8th c? pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 1140 Iohannes 1146 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1141 Iohannes 1147 * 4th c presbyter ? 1 1141 Iohannes 1148 * Nov 556† ep(is)c(opus)? ? 3 Iohannis 1008 6th/7th c antistes ? 1 1143 Iohannis 1009 6th/7th c presbyter tit. S. [… ? 1 1143 re]g(ionis) septime Ionisus 1001 5th c clericus ? 7 1144 Iordanes 1002 14 Aug 551 (episcopus) Crotonio ? 5 1145- 1146 Iordiadus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1146 Iordanis 1001 6th/7th c clerecus ? 1 1147 Ioses ( ω) 1001 343 ? * 1147 Iostinos ( ) 5th/6th c ι ? 6 1148 1001 [I]ovianus 1001 4th/5th c lec[to]r ? 2 1148 Iovinianus 1001 aft Aug 385-bef monachus ? 0 1148- 406† 1151 Iovinus 1001 371/72-aft 397 achidiaconus, episcopus ? 3 1152- 1153

207

Iovinus 1004 487?-495?-499 presbyter tit. Aemilianae ? 1 1153- 1154 Iovinus 1005 bef 577 or bef 590? episcopus ? 5 1154 Irenaeus 1001 btw 374 and 397 clericus ? 4 1155- 1158 Irenaeus 1002 13 May 495 episcopus ? * 1158- 1159 Ireneus 1001 4th c? excorcista ? 1 1159 Isaac 1002 493-555 hermit ? 9 1160- 1161 Iucundus 1001 4th/5th c episcopus ? 1 1166 Iucundus 1002 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 0 1166 Iucundus 1003 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus ecclesiae ? 4 1166- 502 Augustinae 1167 Iuhannis 1001 461 or 491-511† exhorcista ? 5 1167 Iulianus 1001 3rd/4th c presbyter ? 1 1173 Iulianus 1002 343 episcopus ? * 1173 Iulianus 1002b btw 361 and 364- Parentinae urbis episcopus ? 3 1173- bef 402† 1174 Iulianus 1004 375 diaconus Aquileiae ? 3 1174 Iulianus 1006 4th c ep(isco)p(us) ? 5 1174- 1175 Iulianus 1007 4th/5th c [presbyter?] tituli […] ? 1 1175 Iulianus 1009 408-bef 16 Mar episcopus Eclanensis ? 5 1175- 455† 1186 Iulianus 1010 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1186- Nov 502 1187 Iulianus 1011 btw 492-496 episcopus Brundisii ? 5 1187 Iulianus 1012 btw 492 and 496- presbyter tit. Anastasie ? 1 1187- 499-6 Nov 502? 1188 Iulianus 1013 btw 492 and 496 diaconus sccl. Beati martyris ? 2 1188 Eleutherii episcopi Iulianus 1014 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1188- Nov 502? 1189 Iulianus 1015 487?-489?-499-6 presbyter ? 1 1189 Nov 502? Iulianus 1018 late 5th/6th c? episcopus in ecclesia ? 4 1190 Laudensi Iulianus 1019 aft 501-aft 534† dia[conus] ? 4 1190 Iulianus 1020 487?-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1190- Nov 502 1191 Iulianus 1021 497?-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1191 Nov 502 Iulianus 1024 btw 526 and 530 acolithus ? 2 1192 Iulianus 1027 548-560 episcopus eccl. Cingulanae ? 2 1195- 1197 Iulianus 1029 btw 579 and 590 p(raepositus basilicae s.) ? 1 1198 P(etri) secundicerius Iulianus 1031 aft 593/94† defensor, episcopus ? 1 1198- 1199 Iulianus 1035 * 5th/6th c? episcopus ? 3 1200 Iulianus 1036 * late 5th/early 6th c presbyter ? 2 1200

208

Iulianus 1037 * btw 387 and 397 presbyter ? 3 1201 Iulianus 1038 * btw 361 and 363 subdiaconus ? 2 1201 Iulius 1003 448?-449 episcopus Puteolanus ? 5 1202- 1204 Iulius 1006 * 324 diaconus ? 1 1205 Iulius 1007 * 324 diaconus ? 1 1205 Iunior 1001 355 episcopus ? 4 1206 Iunior 1002 589/90-aft Jan 591 episcopus Veronensis ? 3 1206- 1207 Iust[…] 1001 6th c [e]piscopus Capuae ? 5 1208 Iustinianus 1001 451 episcopus ecclesiae ? 4 1212 Vercellensis Iustinianus 1003 * 6th/7th c? episcopus ? 3 1213 Iustinus 1001 359 episcopus ? * 1213- 1214 Iustinus 1002 btw 492 and 496 archidiaconus Volaterranae ? 2 1214 eccl. Iustinus 1003 487?-495?-499 presbyter tit. Pudentis ? 1 1214- 1215 Iustinus 1006 * btw 484 and 487/88 episcopus provinciae Siciliae ? 6 1217 Iustus 1001 19 Nov 465 episcopus Faventinus ? 2 1217 Iustus 1002 Mar 488-5 Feb 492 episc(opu)s ? 5 1218 Iustus 1003 btw 492 and 496- episcopus ecclesiae ? 5 1218- 499 Acerontinae 1219 Iustus 1004 btw 492 and 496 episcopus Larinati ? 5 1219- 1220 Iustus 1005 23 Oct 502-nov 502 episcopus ecclesiae Signinae ? 5 1220- 1221 Iustus 1006 557 episcopus per Tusciam ? 2 1221 annonariam Iustus 1007 590/91† monachus ? 1 1221- 1222 Iustus 1008 Apr 591 clericus ? 5 1222 Iustus 1009 Jul 595 presbyter tit. Ss. Nerei et ? 1 1222- Achillei 1223 Iustus 1010 Jun 601-10 Nov monachus ? 1 1223 630† Iuvenalis 1001 4th c episcopus Narniae ? 2 1224 K[a]rpos 4th c ( ) (ε ) ? 1 1225 ([] ) 1001 K[y]p[r]ianus 1001 6th/7th c diaconus ? 1 1226 [K]yriadas 4th/5th c ι [ ] ? 6 1226 ( ) 1001 [La?]ctan[tius] 5th/1st quarter of [le?]ctor ? 2 1227 1001 6th c Lampadius 1002 1 Mar 499 episcopus ecclesiae ? 2 1230 Urbissalvensis Larentius 1001 6th/7th c exorcista ? 1 1230 Latinus 1001 4th c exorcista, presbyter, ? 3 1231 episcopus Latinus 1003 bef 12 Apr 559 electus ad episcopatus ? 5 1231- 1232

209

Laur[…] 1001 17 Dec 399† [p]r(es)b(yter) ? 1 1232 Laurentius 1001 Mar 394 sacrum lectionum oracula ? 2 1234- personans 1235 Laurentius 1002 aft 397-bef 411 papa fidelissimus ? 0 1235 Laurentius 1007 btw 401 and 417 episcopus Seniensis ? 2 1235 Laurentius 1009 446-8 May 494† lector s. aeclesiae ? 5 1237 Aeclanensis Laurentius 1009b mid-5th c episcopus ? * 1237 Laurentius 1010 466-526† prepositus basilice b[eat]i ? 1 1237 Pauli Apostoli Laurentius 1011 487-495?-499-6 presbyter ? 1 1237- Nov 502 1238 Laurentius 1012 487-495?-499-6 presbyter ? 1 1238 Nov 502 Laurentius 1013 487-495?-499-6 presbyter ? 1 1238 Nov 502 Laurentius 1014 487-495?-499-6 presbyter ? 1 1238 Nov 502 Laurentius 1015 488/89-btw 503 and episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 1239- 506 1242 Laurentius 1016 btw 492 and 496 clericus, episcopus? ? 0 1242 Laurentius 1017 btw 492 and 496 archidiaconus ? 1 1242 Laurentius 1019 487?-495-499-6 presbyter ? 1 1242- Nov 502 1243 Laurentius 1020 487?-495-499-6 presbyter ? 1 1243 Nov 502 Laurentius 1021 487?-495-499-6 presbyter ? 1 1243- Nov 502 1244 Laurentius 1023 498-507 Romanae ecclesiae ? 1 1244- presbyter, episcopus 1246 ecclesiae Nucerinae, antipope Laurentius 1024 495?-499-bef Oct episcopus ecclesiae Trebiatis ? 2 1246 502† Laurentius 1025 487?-495?-499 archipresbyter tituli Praxidae ? 1 1247 Laurentius 1026 487?-495?-499 presbyter tituli Laurentii ? 1 1247- 1248 Laurentius 1026b 5th c presbyter ? 0 1248 Laurentius 1027 5th c exor[cista] ? 1 1248 Laurentius 1031 495?-23 Oct 502-6 episcopus eccl. Bergomatis ? 3 1249- Nov 502? 1250 Laurentius 1032 btw 492 and 496?-6 episcopus ecclesiae Boensis ? 5 1250- Nov 502 1251 Laurentius 1033 487?-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1251- Nov 502 1252 Laurentius 1034 btw 507 and 511 presbyter ? * 1252 Laurentius 1036 btw 526 and 530 presbiter ? 2 1252- 1253 Laurentius 1037 btw 526 and 530 acolitus ? 2 1253 Laurentius 1038 btw 526 and 530 lector ? 2 1253 Laurentius 1039 btw 526 and 530 orrearius (=horrearius) (of ? 2 1253 the Church; seemingly some

210

sort of clergyman) Laurentius 1040 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1253- 1254 Laurentius 1041 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1254 Laurentius 1045 Apr 557 episcopus Annonariae ? 2 1255- 1256 Laurentius 1046 Mar 559 episcopus Centumcellensis ? 2 1256 Laurentius 1047 btw Sep 570 and subdiaconus s. R(avennatis) v(ir) 2 1256 Aug 578 e(ccl.), praepositus fabriciae r(eligios huius us) Laurentius 1048 btw 571/2 and diaconus, servus Chr(isti) ? 3 1256- 586/7 1257 Laurentius 1051 572-27 Feb 612 ep(iscop)us eccl. Sivitatis ? 5 1257 Stabiensis Laurentius 1052 573-bef Mar 593† episcopus Mediolanensis senatoria 4 1257- l 1258 Laurentius 1053 btw 577 and 586 presbyter ? * 1258- 1259 Laurentius 1054 btw 588 and 590- episcopus Bellunensis ? 3 1259- aft Jan 591 1260 Laurentius 1055 Sep 591 primus… in ordine diaconii ? 1 1260 sedes apostolicae Laurentius 1056 btw 593/94 and 599 Aretinus praesul ? 2 1260 Laurentius 1057 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. S. Silvestri ? 1 1261 Laurentius 1058 596-2 Feb 619 monachus, presbyter; ? 1 1261- archiepiscopus… 1263 Durouernensis ecclesiae Laurentius 1061 6th c cant(or) ? 3 1263- 1264 Laurentius 1062 6th/7th c p(res)b(yte)r ? 1 1264 Laurentius 1063 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1264 Laurentius 1064 * late-4th/early-5th c episcopus ? 4 1265 Laurentius 1065 * mid-5th c episcopus ? 5 1264 Laurentius 1066 * btw 474 and 493 episcopus ? 5 1264 Laurentius 1067 * 5th/6th c? episcopus ? 9 1265 Laurentius 1068 * ? episcopus ? 2 1265 Laurio 1001 6th c monachus ? 2 1266 Lautus 1001 btw 571/72 and lector ? 3 1267 586/87 Lautus 1002 btw 571/72 and actoarius s. eccl. ? 3 1267 586/87 Aquil(eiensis) Lazarus 1001 aft 15 Sep 440- bef antistes ? 4 1267 451 Legitimus 1001 10 Oct 443 episcopus ? 2 or 5 1269 Leo 1001 343 diaconus ? 1 1269- 1270 Leo 1002 btw 366 and 384 presbyter ? 1 1270 Leo 1004 late 4th c? episcopus ? 1 1270 Leo 1005 4th/5th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 1271 Leo 1007 418-461† diaconus, episcopus Romae ? 2 1271- 1272

211

Leo 1008 bef 445 prebeter ? 1 1272 Leo 1009 459-22 Apr 519† diac(onus) ? 5 1272 Leo 1010 13 Mar 487 presbyter ? 1 1272 Leo 1011 5th/6th c presbyter ? 1 1273 Leo 1011b bef Oct 519 agens in rebus?, legatus? ? 1 1273 Leo 1012 6th/7th c monachus v(ir) 5 1273 s(an)c(tu )s Leo 1013 Oct 535?- May-Jun episcopus sccl. Nolanae ? 5 1273- 536 1274 Leo 1017 bef Jun 591-Mar episcopus Catanensis ? 6 1276- 604 1279 Leo 1018 Aug 591 episcopus in Corsica ? 7 1279 Leo 1019 Jan-Mar 594 acolithus ? 1 1279 Leo 1020 bef Oct 594-Oct archidiaconus ecclesiae ? 5 1280 594 Myriensis Leo 1021 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. s. Damasi ? 1 1280- 1281 Leo 1023 6th/8th c presbyter ? 1 1281 Leo 1024 6th/7th c pr(esbyter) ? 3 1281 Leo 1026 6th/7th c? pr(es)b(yte)r ? 5 1282 Leo 1027 6th/7th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 5 1282 Leo 1028 6th/7th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 1282 Leo 1029 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1283 Leo 1030 * btw 432 and 440 diaconus, cives romanus ? 1 1283 Leoninus 1001 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 2 1283 Leontios 388 episcopus ? 1 1284 (ε ) 1001 Leontius 1001 1 Aug 314 presbyter ? 1 1284- 1285 Leontius 1002 355 episcopus ? * 1285 Leontius 1004 371 clericus ? * 1285 Leontius 1009 bef. 405† presbyter ? 1 1286 Leontius 1010 btw 492 and 496 clericus ? 5 1287 Leontius 1011 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? * 1287 Leontius 1015 Mar 559 episcopus ? * 1288 Leontius 1017 Mar 593-bef May episcopus ? 2 1288- 599† 1289 Leontius 1019 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1292 Leopardus 1001 360-384† lector de Pudentiana ? 1 1293 Leopardus 1002 btw 384 and 399 - presbyter ? 1 1293- btw 401 and 417 1294 Leopardus 1004 * ? episcopus ? 2 1294 Lepidus 1001 13 Mar 487 presbyter ? 1 1295 Leucius 1001 4th/5th c? episcopus ? 5 1295- 1296 Leucosius 1001 4th c episc(opus) ? 5 1296 Libanius 1001 417 diaconus ? 6 1296

212

Liberatus 1002 Aug 591 diaconii fungi perhibetur ? 7 1297 officio (diaconus) Liberius 1001 336?-352-366† diaconus; episcopus Romae ? 1 1297- 1298 Liberius 1002 mid-4th c episcopus ? 2 1298 Liberius 1003 late-4th/early-5th c episcopus ? 2 1298 Liberius 1007 bef Mar 592† antistes ? 5 1301- 1302 Liberius 1009 * 324 diaconus ? 1 1302 Libertinus 1001 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1302- 1303 Libertinus 1002 btw 541 and 552- Fundensis monasterii ? 5 1303 554 praepositus Libertinus 1004 Jul 599-Sep 602 episcopus Sardiniae ? 7 1305 Limenius 1001 381-bef 396† episcopus Vercellensis ? 4 1306- 1307 Lim[…] 1001 395?† [pr]sebyter ? 1 1307 Litorius 1001 495-499-6 Nov 502 presbyter ? 1 1307- 1308 Liverius 1001 * 324 diaconus ? 1 1309 Livianus 1001 401-417 diaconus ? 1 1309 Lollianus 1001 bef summer 435 diaconus ? 1 1309- 1310 Lollius 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1310 Lucas 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1311- 1312 Lucensius 1001 9 Jun 451-aft Jan episcopus ecclesiae ? 2 1312- 452 Ascolanae 1319 Lucentius 1001 4th c presbyter ? 1 1319- 1320 Lucianus 1001 aft 366/367- bef episcopus (Donatist) ? 1 1320 373/378 Lucianus 1002 495?-499 episcopus ecclesiae ? 2 1320- Tarquiniensis 1321 Lucianus 1004 14 May 553 episcopus ecclesiae ? 6 1321- Meletensis 1322 Lucianus 1006 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1322- 1323 Lucidus 1002 Aug 602-Jan 603 episcopus Leontinis ? 6 1323- 1324 Lucifer ( ε ) Aft Nov 353-370† episcopus Calaritanus ? 7 1324- 1001 1328 Lucifer 1002 19 Nov 465 episcopus Tifernis Metauris ? 2 1328 Lucifer 1003 484 episcopus Calaritanus ? 7 1328 Lucifer 1004 Oct 598 monachus; praepositus ? 6 1329 Lucilianus 1001 4th c? Chr(isti) serbus ? 1 1329 Lucillus 1001 bef 476-bef presbyter ? 4 1330 492/496† Lucillus 1002 bef Jul 592-Sep/Oct episcopus de Melita ? 6 1331- 599 1332 Lucius 1001 343-356 episcopus ? 3 1332- 1333

213

Lucius 1002 btw Fall 352 and presbyter ? 1 1333 Spring 353 Lucius 1003 359 episcopus ? * 1333- 1334 Lucius 1005 bef Sep 592 episcopus Regitanus ? 5 1335 Lucius 1006 * late 4th c episcopus ? 3 1335 Lucusti[…] 1001 4th c diac[onus] ? 1 1335 Luminosus 1002 btw 526 and 530 lector ? 2 1337 Luminosus 1003 mar/16 Apr 559 praesbyter ? 3-4 1337 Luminosus 1004 Jun 595 abbas ? 2 1337- 1338 Luminosus 1005 5 Jul 595 episcopus ? 5 1338 Luminosus 1006 Jul 599 "servus sanctae Mariae, quod ? 5 1339 est parrochiae ecclesiae Grumentinae" Luminosus 1007 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1339 Luparius 1001 7th c? archipresbyter, athele(t)a ? 3 1339 Christ(i) Lupicinus 1002 5th/6th c lector ? 2 1340 Lupicinus 1003 * late-4th/early-5th c episcopus ? 3 1341 Lupicinus 1004 * late 6th c? episcopus ? 4 1340 Lupus 1001 aft 24 Sep 366-21 diaconus ? 1 1341 Aug 370 Luxorius 1001 * ? episcopus ? 3 1341 M[…] 1002 aft 534† subdiac(onus) ? 4 1342 Macedo 1001 6th/7th c [pre]suiter ? 5 1342 Macedonius 1001 381 episcopus ? 0 1343 Macedonius 1003 4th c exorcista de Katolika ? 1 1344 Macedonius 1004 btw 401 and 417 episcopus Apulus ? 5 1344 Macedonius 1005 btw 425 and 450 presbyter ? * 1344- 1345 Macedonius 1006 551?-bef Feb 559† episcopus ? 3 1345 Macarius 1001 aft 368?-bef presbyter ? 1 1345- 383/384† 1346 Macrinus 1001 4th c lector ? 3 1348 Macrobius 1001 344/347?-366/367 episcopus ? 8 1348- 1349 Magnus 1002 aft 510/511-bef episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 1350- 535/536† 1351 Magnus 1003 btw 526 and 530 diaconus ? 2 1351 Magnus 1004 bef Mar 593-bef presbyter eccl. ? 4 1351 Sep 600† Mediolanensis Maioranus 1001 btw 526 and 530 notarius, defensor ? 2 1352 Maiorianus 1001 451 episcopus ? 4 1352 Maiorianus 1002 19 Nov 465 episcopus Astensis ? 4 1353 Maiorianus 1003 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1353 Maioricus 1001 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 5 1353- 1354 Maiorinus 1001 * ? episcopus ? 4 1354

214

Maiulus 1001 6th/7th c mon(acus) ? 1 1354 Mak[ar]i[os] 5th/6th c ε ()(ε ) ? 6 1354 (ι ) 1001 Manasses 1001 * late 6th c episcopus ? 3 1356 Maqrinus 1001 7th c? clericus ? 1 1356 Marcellianus 1001 418-431 episcopus ? * 1363 Marcellianus 1002 501-556† famulus Christi, subdiaconus vir 4 1363 religiosu s Marcellianus 1003 Spring 502- bef episcopus ? 3 1363- 507?† 1364 Marcellinus 1001 3rd/4th c diaconus ? 1 1367 Marcellinus 1002 bef 343† episcopus ? 2 1367- 1368 Marcellinus 1003 btw Aug 383 and presbyter ? 1 1368- Dec 384 1370 Marcellinus 1005 btw 426? And 454? episcopus ? 4 1370 Marcellinus 1006 487-495?-499 presbyter ? 1 1370- 1371 Marcellinus 1007 487?-495-499? presbyter ? 1 1371 Marcellinus 1008 487?-495-499? presbyter ? 1 1371 Marcellinus 1009 487?-495?-499 presbyter tituli Iuli ? 1 1372 Marcellinus 1010 5th/6th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 4 1372 Marcellinus 1011 aft 507?-bef 513 episcopus ? 3 1372- 1373 Marcellinus 1012 Mar/Apr 559 episcopus Amiterninus ? 2 1373 Marcellinus 1013 bef 593/594† antistes Anchonitanae ? 2 1373 Marcellinus 1014 bef Jul 600† abbas ? 5 1373- 1374 Marcellus 1001 1st half of 4th c episc(opus) ? 1 1374 Marcellus 1002 353 episcopus ex Campania ? 5 1374- 1375 Marcellus 1003 aft 374?-381-bef episcopus ? 0 1375- 397? 1376 Marcellus 1005 495-563† subd(iaconus) reg(ionis) ? 1 1376 sexte Marcellus 1006 499-6 Nov 502? presbyter tituli Romani ? 1 1376- 1377 Marcellus 1008 535-536 presbyter Nolanus ? 5 1377- 1378 Marcellus 1009 Mar 559 episcopus Seuoniensis ? * 1378 Marcellus 1010 583/584 frater (monachus) ? 1 1378 Marcellus 1011 591 monachus ? 6 1378- 1379 Marcellus 1014 6th/7th c sacerdos ? 2 1379 Marcellus 1015 * late 5th c episcopus ? 3 1379 Marcellus 1016 * late 6th c episcopus ? 4 1380 Marcianus 1001 392/393 ascetic ? 1 1380- 1381 Marcianus 1002 4th c praesbyter ? 1 1381

215

Marcianus 1003 4th/5th c presbyter ? 1 1381 Marcianus aft Oct 451 ι ? 1 1381 (ι ) 1004 Marcianus 1005 bef 482-bef 509† monachus, praesbyter… ? 8 1381- monasterio praefuit 1382 Marcianus 1006 13 Mar 487 episcopus Amerinus ? 1 1382 Marcianus 1007 487?-495?-499 presbyter tit. S. Caeciliae ? 1 1383 Marcianus 1009 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Aecanae ? 5 1384 502 Marcianus 1010 534/539-578/593 episc(opus) ? * 1385 Marcianus 1011 btw 577 and 586 episcopus Opitergiensis ? 3 1385 Marcianus 1012 btw 577 and 586 episcopus Petenatis ? 3 1385 Marcianus 1013 5 Jul 595 episcopus civitatis Ferentis ? 2 1386 Marcianus 1014 Bef Jul 597-Apr episcopus Lucrensis civitatis ? 5 1386- 599 1387 Marcianus 1016 bef Dec 598/Jan tabularius ? 6 1387- 599 1388 Marcianus 1017 Mar 604 monachus ? 6 1388 Marcianus 1018 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1388 Marcus ( ) aft 15 Apr 313- bef ? ? 1 1389 1001 2 Oct 313 Marcus ( ) 325 episcopus ? * 1389- 1002 1390 Marcus 1003 336† episcopus Romae ? 1 1390 Marcus 1004 4th/5th c [e]xorcista ? 1 1391 Marcus 1005 btw 401 and 417 leader of heretical sect ? 1 1391 Marcus 1007 btw 492 and 496 presbiter monasterii ? 5 1391- 1392 Marcus 1008 499-6 Nov 502? presbyter tit. Lucinae ? 1 1392 Marcus 1009 6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl. Samninae ? 5 1393 Marcus 1010 btw 523 and 526 presbyter ? 5 1393 Marcus 1011 btw 526 and 530 lector ? 2 1393 Marcus 1013 btw 541 and poeta, monachus ? 5 1394 546/550 Marcus 1014 Mar 559 subdiaconus ? 2 1394 Marcus 1015 6th/7th c pr(esbyt)er ? 1 1394 Marcus 1016 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1395 Marcus 1017 * 324 diaconus ? 1 1395 Mareas 1002 Aft Dec 545- bef 1 pr(esbyter), praesuils in ? 1 1396 Apr 555 vicibus Marianus 1001 btw 401 and 417 episcopus Apulus ? 5 1398- 1399 Marinianus 1001 355 episcopus ? * 1400 Marin[i]anus 1002 4th/5th c diaconus ? 2 1400 Marinianus 1003 bef 590-oct 603 monachus, ? 1 1401- arc[h]iep(iscopus) 1407 Marinianus 1005 Jul 591-Oct 599 episcopus Turritanae civitatis ? 7 1407- 1408 Marinianus 1006 Jul 591-Sep/Oct abbas ? 6 1408

216

598 Marinianus 1007 bef Jul 592 abbas ? 6 1408- 1409 Marinus 1002 btw 492 and 495/6 primicerius cantorum sanctae ? 5 1409 ecclesiae Neapolitanae Marinus 1003 bef 492/495- bef abbas ? * 1409 509 Marinus 1004 btw 526 and 530 defensor ? 2 1409- 1410 Marinus 1008 6th/7th c p(res)b(yte)r invicti s. ? 3 1411 Ma(u)ri episcopi Marinus 1009 6th/7th c p(res)b(yte)r ? 3 1411 Marinus 1010 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1411 Marius 1001 bef 482-bef 521 presbyter ? 3 or 4 (or 1411- 8?) 1412 Marius 1002 bef 502† presbyter ? 2 1412 Marius 1003 1 Mar 499 episcopus eccl. Tifernatium ? 2 1412 Marius 1004 559 praesbyter ? 6 1412- 1413 Marolus 1001 aft 406- Oct/Nov episcopus ? 4 1413- 430? 1414 Martinianus 1002 bef summer 435 presbyter ? 1 1415 Martinianus 1003 484 episcopus de Foru Traiani ? 7 1415 Martinianus 1004 487-495? episcopus Formianus ? 5 1416 Martinianus 1005 13 Mar 487 presbyter ? 5 1416 Martinianus 1006 6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl. Ostranae ? 0 1416- 1417 Martinianus 1008 Apr 593 abbas de Palermo ? 6 1417- 1418 Martinous 7th c? ι ( ) ? 1 1418 ( ) 1001 Martinus 1001 4th c? ep(iscopu)s ? 1 1418 Martinus Oct/Nov 430?- ει ? 4 1419 ( ) 1002 Sep/Oct 431 Martinus 1003 495?-499-6 Nov presbyter tit. Cyriaci ? 1 1419- 502? 1420 Martinus 1004 aft 541-btw 579 hermit (solitariam vitam vir 5 1420- and 590 duxit) venerabi 1421 lis Martinus 1005 btw Jun 557 and Jul frater (monachus or clericus) ? 2 1421 570 Martinus 1007 btw 577 and 586 presbyter ? 3-4 1421- 1422 Martinus 1008 bef Aug 591-bef episcopus in Corsica, in sccl. ? 7 1422 Jan 596† Alirensem Martinus 1010 Apr 597 diaconus et abbas ? 0 1422- 1423 Martinus 1011 6th/7th c clericus et ostiarius istius ? 3 1423 ecclesiae Martinus 1012 6th/7th c acoluthus ? 1 1423 Marturius 1001 6th c p(res)b(yter) ? 5 1423 Martyrius 1001 343 episcopus ? 9 1424

217

Martyrius 1002 29 May 398?† lector ? 3 1425 Martyrius 1004 btw 492 and 496- episcopus Terracinensis ? 5 1426- Nov 502 1427 Martyrius 1006 bef 593/594† famulus Dei (monachus) ? 2 1427- 1428 Mastulus 1001 btw 526 and 530 archidiaconus eclesiae ? 2 1429 Ravennatis Maternus 1001 early 4th c episcopus ? 4 1430 Maurentius 1001 5th c sanctus… presbiter ? 3 1433 Mauricius 1002 bef Apr 600 monachus ? 5 1435 Mauricius 1003 6th/7th c acolitus ? 3 1435 Maurus 1001 4th c? episcopus et confessor ? 3 1436- 1437 Maurus 1004 btw 526 and 530 diaconus ? 2 1437 Maurus 1005 bef 541 monachus son of a 2 1438 noble Maurus 1006 Sep 552-Sep/Oct episcopus Praenestinus ? 1 1438 558 Maurus 1007 Mar 559 praesbyter ? 6 1438- 1439 Maurus 1008 Mar 594 abbas ? 1 1439 Maurus 1009 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. S. Priscae ? 1 1439- 1440 Maurus 1014 Jan 602 cellerarius ? 2 1441 Maurus 1015 7th/8th c pre(s)b(yter) ? 1 1441 Maurus 1016 * bef 551 episcopus ? 3 1442 Maurus 1017 * ? episcopus ? 3 1442 Max[…] 1001 4th c exorcista ? 1 1442 Maxentius 1001 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 1442- 1443 Maxentius 1004 btw 577 and 586- episcopus Iuliensis ? 3 1444- 591 1445 Maximianus 1002 498-553-Feb 556?† archiepiscopus ? 3 1446- 1452 Maximianus 1003 495?-499 episcopus eccl. Subaugustae ? 2 1452- 1453 Maximianus 1005 bef 585-Nov 594† episcopus Syracusaenus ? 6 1453- 1457 Maximianus 1006 * ? episcopus ? 2 1457 Maximianus 1007 * ? episcopus ? 4 1458 Maximillianus 495?-499-502 episcopus eccl. Perusinae ? 2 1458- 1002 1460 Maximillianus Apr 557-559 episcopus Tuscia Annonariae ? 2 1460 1003 Maximinus 1002 381 episcopus ? * 1462 Maximinus 1004 440 apud Siciliam arianorum dux ? 6 1462 Maximinus 1006 487-495? episcopus Ferentiensis ? 2 1463 Maximinus 1007 499-502? presbyter ? 1 1463- 1464 M[aximi]nus 1008 546-567† lector tit. ss. Iohannis et ? 1 1464 Pauli m[artyrum]

218

Maximus 1001 30 sep-2 Oct 313 episcopus ? 1 1465 Maximus 343 episcopus a Tuscia de Luca ? 2 1465 (ι ) 1002 Maximus 1003 343 Campaniae episcopus ? 5 1465- 1466 Maximus 1004 aft 355-bef Feb 362 episcopus… de Neapoli ? 5 1466- 1467 Maximus 1006 381-392/393? episcopus Emonensis ? 3 1467- 1468 Maximus 1007 381 episcopus ? * 1468 Maximus 1008 aft 387/390-btw [p]resb(yter) ? 1 1468- 401 and 417 1469 Maximus 1010 397-btw 408 and episcopus Taurinensis eccl. ? 4 1469- 423† 1470 Maximus 1011 4th/5th c presbyter ? 1 1471 Maximus 1012 4th/5th c presbyter ? 1 1471 Maximus 1013 btw 401 and 417 episcopus per Brittios ? 5 1471 Maximus 1014 451-465? episcopus eccl. Taurinatis ? 4 1471- 1472 Maximus 1015 487-502 episcopus eccl. Bleranae ? 2 1472- 1473 Maximus 1016 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 2 1474 Maximus 1019 oct 502-bef 512? episcopus eccl. Ticinensis ? 4 1475- 1476 Maximus 1021 btw Sep 558 and 3 diaconus ? 6 1476 Mar 561? Maximus 1023 bef 577/580-bef monachus ? 2 1477 590/591 Maximus 1024 bef May 591† subdiaconus ? 5 1477 Maximus 1029 * c. 559 archipresbyter ? 3 1478 Megalus 1001 4th c lector ? 1 1479 Melior 1001 btw 492 and episcopus ? 5 1491 495/496 Melitus 1001 btw 526 and 530 cantor ? 2 1491 Melleus 1001 btw 556 and 561 subdiaconus ? 5 1491- 1492 Mellitus 1001 590† monachus ? 1 1492 Mellitus 1002 Jun 601-624† abbas, episcopus, ? * 1493 archiepiscopus Memor 1001 408-bef 418/419† episcopus ? 5 1493- 1494 Memor 1002 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus ellc. Canusinae ? 5 1494- 502 1495 Menantius 1001 Mar 559 diaconus sedis nostrae ? 1 1495 Menas ( η) 519-Jun 536 η ? 1 1496- 1001 ει ω 1497 ι (lector et notarius) Menas 1002 575/576-583/584† ascetic ? 5 1497 Menas 1004 Jul 599-Nov 602 episcopus ? * 1497- 1498 Menas 1005 6th c notarius subregionarius s. ? 1 1498

219

Rom(anae) eccl. et rector Menas 1006 5 Oct 600 episcopus Telesinus ? 5 1498- 1499 Mercurius 1001 1 Aug 314 presbyter ab Ostiis ? 1 1504 Mercurius 1002 btw 366 and 384 levita fidelis (diaconus) ? 1 1504- 1505 Mercurius 1005 495?-499-23 Oct episcopus eccl. Sutrinae ? 2 1505- 502-6 Nov 502? 1506 Mercurius 1006 495?-23 Oct 502- 6 episcopus eccl. Gabinatium ? 1 1507- Nov 502? 1508 Mercurius 1007 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1508 Mercoles 1001 313-314 episcopus de civitate ? 4 1509- Mediolanensium 1510 Merulus 1001 btw 577 and frater (monachus) ? 1 1510 579/80?† Messala 1001 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? * 1510 Messor 1001 564 episc(opus) ? 0 1511 Micinus 1002 bef 521-522 presbyter ? 1 1512 Micinus 1003 * 324 episcopus ? 1 1512 Milianus 1001 btw 556 and 561 pseudo-monachus ? 0 1513 Miltiades 1001 303/304-10/11 Jan presbyter, episcopus Romae ? 8 1513 314 Minnulus 1001 aft 16 Jul 541-551 clericus legis Gothor(um) v(ir) 2 1513- ecl(esiae)n Rav(ennatis); r(everen 1514 spodeus dus) Mirabilis 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1514 Mirax 1001 4th c presbyter? ? 1 1515 Mirica 1001 551 spodeus (copyist), bokareis ? 2 1515 (Buchschreiber) Misenus 1001 435-11 Jan 511† episcopus eccl. Cumanae ex ? 5 1515- regione Campaniae 1519 Modestus 1001 btw 401 and 417 clericus ? 5 1520 Modestus 1002 * ? episcopus ? 3 1520 Molensis 1001 495?-499 episcopus eccl. ? 2 1520- Centumcellensis 1521 Monses 1001 5th/6th c presbiter ? 5 1521 Montanus 1003 5th c? ep(iscopu)s ? 3 1523 Montanus 1005 5 Oct 600 episcopus Saonensis ? 7 1523 Montanus 1006 * early 7th c? episcopus ? 3 1524 Moschos ( ) 5th/6th c archidiaconus ? 2 1524 1001 Murgio 1001 btw 571/572 and lector ? 3 1525 586/587 Murrasius 1001 494-1 Sep 529† acoletus ? 5 1525 Musicus 1002 Sep 594 abbas monasterii Agilitani ? 7 1526- 1527 Musonius 1001 465-13 Sep 535† episc(opus) ? 5 1527 Mustacius 1001 359 episcopus ? * 1527- 1528 Mutinus 1001 4th/5th c pr(esbyter) ? 4 1528

220

Narnus 1001 * ? episcopus ? 3 1529 Natalis 1001 bef Oct 603† episcopus… in Caesinati ? 2 1532 castro Navigius 1001 4th/5th c lector ? 1 1532 Nemorianus 1001 501-546 diaconus ? 4 1533 Neom 1001 btw 526 and 530 diaconus ? 2 1533 Neon 1001 Oct 458-459 episcopus Ravennatis ? 2 1533- 1535 Nepotianus 1001 393-bef summer presbyter ? 3 1535- 396† 1536 Nepotianus 1002 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1536 Nepus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1535- 1536 Nerius 1001 6th/7th c p(res)b(yte)r ? 3 1537 Niceas 1001 375 hypodiaconus ? 3 1538 (=subdiaconus) Aquileiae Niceta 1001 21 Mar 458 episcopus Aquileiensis ? 3 1539 [N]icolaos 5th c ( ε) ? 6 1540 (ι ) 1001 Nicolaus 1001 415 diaconus ? 9 1540 Nikôn ( ω ) 4th/5th c presbyter (?) ? 6 1540 1001 Nonnonus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1541 Nonnosus 1002 btw 540 and 557- praepositus monasterii quod ? 2 1542 bef 593† in Soractis monte situm est, abbas Nostrianus 1001 aft Apr 432- btw episcopus Neapolitanus ? 5 1543- 445 and 449† 1544 Numedius 343 ? * 1544 (ι ) 1001 Numerius 1001 4th/5th c diaconus ? 2 1544 Numerius 1002 Jun 593 diaconus Nucerinae eccl. ? 5 1545 Nunnosus 1001 * ? episcopus ? 2 1545 Obsequentius 1002 ? episcopus ? 2 1546 * Ocleatinus 1001 Jul 591 candidate for bishop ? 2 1550 Olibrius 1001 * ? episcopus ? 2 1550 Olympius 1001 bef 10 Nov 316 episcopus ? * 1552 Olympius 1002 355 episcopus ? 4 1552 Olympius 1004 btw 492 and 496 diaconus ? 5 1553 Olympius 1006 5th c lector de Eusebi ? 1 1553- 1554 Opas 1001 331-377† lector tit. Fasicole ? 1 1554 Opilio 1001 aft 462-bef btw 492 episcopus Volaterranae eccl. ? 2 1555 and 496† Opilio 1002 487?-499 presbyter tit. Vestinae ? 1 1555- 1556 Opilio 1006 Aug 591 diaconus ? 5 1558 Opilius 1002 * early 6th c ep(iscop)us ? 4 1559

221

Oportunus 1002 bef Jul 601 abbas monasterii s. Leucii ? 1 1559 Optarit 1001 551 praesb(yter) ? 2 1560 Optatiuanus 1001 451 episcopus sccl. Brixianae ? 3 1560- 1561 Optatus 1002 411-425 episco(opus) ? 1 1561 Optavianus 1001 6 Nov 502 presbyter ? 1 1562 Orontianus 1001 386/387 presbyter ? 4 1563- 1564 Orontius 1001 418-431 episcopus Occidentalium ? * 1564- partium 1566 Orosius 1001 Jun 591 abbas ? 1 1566 Ottabianus 1001 6th/7th c pr(e)s(by)t(er) ? 1 1567 Oue[s]perion ? ? 6 1567 (ε ()εω ) 1001 Oxyperentius btw 385 and 420 ascetic or monk ? * 1567 (ει ) 1001 P[…] ( […]) 1001 3rd/4th c ε [ ] ? 1 1568 Pacatianus 1001 6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl. Corneliensis ? 3 1568 Pacatianus 1002 * mid-5th c ep(iscop)us ? 4 1568 Paeanius 1001 aft 368-bef 373 episcopus ? 0 1569 Palladius 1001 3rd/4th c exorc(ista) ? 1 1571 Palladius 1003 429-431 diaconus; episcopus ad ? 8 1572 Scotos Palladius 1004 19 Nov 465 episcopus eccl. Salpinae ? 5 1572 Palladius 1005 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 2 1572- 1573 Palladius 1006 495?-499 episcopus eccl. Sulmontinae ? 2 1573- 1574 Palumbus 1001 7 Dec 531 diaconus ? 1 1574 Palumbus 1002 bef Sep 597-Apr episcopus eccl. Consentinae ? 5 1575 599 Palumbus 1003 btw 590 and 602 diac(onus) et vice dominus v(ir) 2 1576 v(enerab ilis) Palumbus 7th/8th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 1576 ( () ) 1004 Pammachius 1001 370/372-410† proconsul, monachus ? 8 1576- 1581 Pancratius 1001 354-355 presbyter ? 1 1581- 1582 Pancratius 1002 bef 493?† episcopus ? 2 1582 Pancratius 1003 5 Oct 493 episcopus ? 2 1583 Pancratius 1005 * ? episcopus ? 6 1583- 1584 Pantaleo 1001 bef Jun 593-Jun notarius sedis nostrae, ? 5 1585- 603 notarius Syracusaeni 1587 Pantaleo 1002 Sep-Oct 603 notarius noster, notarius ? 4 1587- Liguriae 1588 Pardus 1001 1 Aug 314 episcopus Salpensium, ex ? 5 1588

222

provincia Apulia Pardus 1002 Jan 599 clericus ? 5 1588 Paris 1001 * btw 337 and 340 episcopus ? 5 1589 Parthenius 1004 * ? episcopus ? 3 1590 Pascalis 1001 Mar 559 candidate for deacon ? 2 1590 Paschasinus 1001 440-452 episcopus Lillibetanus ? 6 151591- 1599 Pascasius 1002 397 ep(is)c(opus) ? 1 1600 Paschasius 1003 4th c diaconus ? 1 1600 Paschasius 1004 451 episcopus eccl. Genuensis ? 4 1600- 1601 Paschasius 1005 13-Mar-87 episcopus Centumcellensis ? 2 1601 Paschasius 1006 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1601- Nov 502? 1602 Paschasius 1007 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1601- Nov 502? 1602 Paschasius 1008 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1602 Nov 502? Paschasius 1009 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1602- Nov 502? 1603 Paschasius 1010 495?-499-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Vulturensis ? 5 1603- 502 1604 Paschasius 1011 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Eusebi ? 1 1604- Nov 502? 1605 Pasc[asius] 1012 5th/6th c [clericus] sanc(tae) ? 1 1605 Caecili[ae] Pascasius 1013 487?-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1605- Nov 502 1606 Paschasius 1014 aft 498-511-bef 514 apostolicae sedis diaconus ? 1 1606 Paschasius 1015 551-553 episcopus eccl. Altinae ? 3 1606- 1608 Paschasius 1016 btw Jul 600 and Jan episcopus Neapolim ? 5 1608- 601-Mar 603- 1609 614/615?† Pascentius 1001 377-398† lector de Fasc[iola] ? 1 1609 Pascentius 1004 * early 5th c ep(iscop)us ? 4 1610 Passivus 1001 580-602 episcopus de Firmo ? 2 1610- 1611 Pastor 1001 541 episcopus eccl. Astensis ? 4 1611 Pastor 1002 btw 496 and 526 abbas ? 0 1612 Paterius 1002 Feb 595-5 Oct 600 notarius secumdicerius ? 1 1613 Paterius 1003 * ? episcopus ? 3 1613 Paternianus 1001 * early 4th c ascetic, episcopus ? 2 1614 Paternus 1003 * ? episcopus ? 2 1615 Patricius 1001 343 ? * 1615 Patricius 1002 5th/6th c pres(byter) ? 5 1615 Patricius 1005 btw 526 and 530 clericus ? 2 1616 Patricius 1006 btw 577 and 586- episcopus Aemoniensis ? 3 1617 589/590

223

Paulianus 1001 343 ? * 1629 Paulinus 1001 354-22 Jun 431† episcopus Nolensis senatoria 8 1630- l 1654 Paulinus 1002 btw 374 and 397- diaconus, defensor et ? 4 1654- 418 procurator eccl. 1658 Mediolanensis Paulinus 1004 btw 401 and 417 presbiter ? 1 1658 Paulinus 1005 btw 414 and 416 presbyter ? 5 1659 Paulinus 1007 btw 414 and 416?- ep(iscopus) ? 5 1659 10 Sep 442† Paulinus 1008 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1660 Nov 502? Paulinus 1009 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1660- Nov 502? 1661 Paulinus 1010 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1661 Nov 502? Paulinus 1011 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Fasciolae ? 1 1661- Nov 502? 1662 Paulinus 1012 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Iuli ? 1 1662 Nov 502? Paulinus 1013 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. S. Laurenti ? 1 1662- Nov 502? 1663 Paulinus 1014 487?-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1663 Nov 502 Paulinus 1015 487?-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1664 Nov 502 Paulinus 1020 558?-bef Mar/Apr antistes Spoletanae civitatis ? 2 1666 559?-bef Mar 561 Paulinus 1021 559 episcopus Forosemproniensis ? 2 1667 Paulinus 1022 bef 591-bef Jan episcopus Tauriansis eccl. ? 6 1668 603† Provincae Brittiorum Paulinus 1023 Feb 591 presbyter monasterii s. ? 5 1668 Erasmi quod in latere montis Repperi situm est Paulinus 1024 Jun 601-10 Oct monachus, episcopus ? 1 1669 644† quondam… Eburacensis, sed tunc Hrofensis civitatis Paulinus 1025 * mid-5th c episcopus ? 5 1669 Paulos 1001 4th/5th c (ι ) ? 5 1669 Paulus 1002 btw Autumn 352 presbyter urbis Romae ? 1 1670 and Spr 353 Paulus 1003 355 episcopus ? * 1671 Paulus 1004 Sep 366 episcopus ? 1 1671 Paulus 1005 btw 396 and 410 diaconus ? 3 1671 Paulus 1006 4th c presbyter ? 1 1671 Paulus 1007 4th c exorcista ? 1 1671 Paulus 1008 4th c l[ector?] ? 1 1672 Paulus 1009 404-bef 410† antistes ? 5 1672 Paulus ( ) 406 ι ? 5 1672 1010 Paulus 1012 415 diaconus ? 1 1673

224

Paulus 1013 415 conpresbyter ? 9 1673 Paulus 1016 8 Mar 448 presbyter ? 5 1674 Paulus 1017 19 Nov 465 episcopus Aquaevivae ? 2 1674- 1675 Paulus 1018 19 Nov 465 episcopus Forumnovanus ? 2 1675 Paulus 1019 19 Nov 465 notarius ? 1 1675 Paulus 1020 btw 492 and 496 diaconus ? 2 1675- 1676 Paulus 1021 5th c presbyter ? 5 1676 Paulus 1022 5th/6th c? p(res)b(yter) tit. s(an)c(ti?) ? 1 1676 […] Paulus 1024 5th/6th c lector high 1 1676 Paulus 1026 18 Jan 518† preb(yter) ? 5 1677 Paulus 1027 btw 526 and 530 diaconus ? 2 1677 Paulus 1028 bef 527/528 pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 1677 Paulus 1029 15 Jul 528 ust(iarius) ? 5 1678 Paulus 1030 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1678 Paulus 1031 bef 11 Apr 548-25 diaconus ? 1 1678- Dec 549 1679 Paulus 1032 551 clericus eccl. Legis ? 2 1679 Gothorum s(an)c(t)ae Anastasie Paulus 1034 bef. Easter 559-bef monk; episcopus ? 3 1680 Easter 571 Aquileiensis (patriarcha) Paulus 1035 Jan-Apr 559 diaconus ad Catinensem sccl. ? 6 1681 Paulus 1038 Dec 591-Jul 595 episcopus civitatis ? 2 1682- Neptesenae 1683 Paulus 1039 Jul 593 episcopus ? * 1683 Paulus 1040 May 594 clericus ? 7 1683- 1684 Paulus 1042 Nov 598 eccl. Reatinae diaconus ? 2 1684 Paulus 1043 6th c monk ? 2 1684 Paulus 1044 6th c pa(epositus) ? 1 1684 Paulus 1046 late 6th c monachus? ? 1 1685 Paulus 1047 * early 5th c? episcopus ? 3 1685 Paulus 1048 * late 5th c? episcopus ? 3 1685- 1686 Paulus 1049 * mid-6th c? episcopus ? 3 1686 Paulus 1050 * aft 521 episcopus ? 4 1686 Paulus 1051 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1686 Pelagius 1001 bef 410-aft 417 monachus ? 8 1687- 1709 Pelagius 1003 536-561† diaconus s. eccl. Romanae; ? 1 1710- episcopus Romae 1716 Pelagius 1004 579-590† episcopus Romae ? 1 1716 Pelagius 1005 5 Jul 595 episcopus civitatis ? 5 1717 Anagninae Peregrinus 1001 501-551† diac(onus) ? 5 1718 Peregrinus 1002 Apr-Jul 517 episcopus Mesenensis ? 5 1719-

~~225~~

1720 Peregrinus 1003 6th c monachus ? 5 1720 Peregrinus 1004 * mid-6th c? episcopus ? 3 1720 Petronius 1001 3rd/4th c exorcista ? 1 1722 Petronius 1002 bef 376 presbyter ? 1 1722- 1723 Petronius 1004 btw 425 and 450 Bononiensus eccl. Episcopus ? 3 1723- 1724 Petronius 1005 4th/5th c episcopus Veronensis ? 3 1724 Petronius 1006 13 Mar 487 presbyter ? 1 1724 Petronius 1007 525 episcopus ? * 1725 Petronius 1008 Mar 559 presbyter ? 6 1725 Petronius 1009 Jul 591† notarius Romanae eccl. ? 1 1725- 1726 Petrus 1002 343 ? * 1726 Petrus 1003 4th/5th c episcopus ? 2 1726 Petrus 1005 bef Jun 411 diaconus in urbe Roma ? 1 1727 Petrus 1006 bef Jun 411 diaconus in urbe Roma ? 1 1727 Petrus 1007 415 subdiaconus ? 9 1727 Petrus 1008 btw 422 and 432- presbyter Urbis ? 8 1727 bef 440 Petrus Chrysologus 445?-448/449-bef episcopus Ravennatis ? 3 1728- 1009 Oct 458 1730 Petrus 1010 19 Nov 465-bef episcopus Portuensis ? 1 1730- 474 1731 Petrus 1013 487-btw 492 and episcopus Lorensis? ? 2 1731- 496? 1732 Petrus 1014 487-bef 499† episcopus Subaugustanus ? 2 1732- 1733 Petrus 1015 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1733 Nov 502? Petrus 1016 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1733- Nov 502? 1734 Petrus 1017 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1734 Nov 502? Petrus 1018 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1734 Nov 502? Petrus 1019 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1735- Nov 502? 1735 Petrus 1020 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1735 Nov 502? Petrus 1021 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1735 Nov 502? Petrus 1022 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1735- Nov 502? 1736 Petrus 1023 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1736 Nov 502? Petrus 1024 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1736 Nov 502? Petrus 1025 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1736- Nov 502? 1737 Petrus 1026 btw 492 and Nolanae ecclesiae clericus ? 5 1737

~~226~~

495/496 Petrus 1027 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 5 1737- 1738 Petrus 1030 15 Sep 494- episcopus ecclesiae ? 2 1739- 519/520 Ravennatis 1742 Petrus 1031 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1743 Nov 502? Petrus 1032 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1743 Nov 502? Petrus 1033 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1743- Nov 502? 1744 Petrus 1034 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Chrysogoni ? 1 1744 Nov 502? Petrus 1035 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Chrysogoni ? 1 1745 Nov 502? Petrus 1036 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Clementis ? 1 1745- Nov 502? 1746 Petrus 1037 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Praxidae ? 1 1746 Nov 502? Petrus 1038 5th c subdiaconus s. eccl. Romae ? 1 1746 reg(ionis) primae Petrus 1038 b 5th c ? ? 3 1747 Petrus 1039 501-502 Altinus episcopus ? 3 1747- 1748 Petrus 1040 487?-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1748- Nov 502 1749 Petrus 1041 487?-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1749 Nov 502 Petrus 1042 5th c presbyter ? 1 1749 Petrus 1044 btw 507 and 511 episcopus ? * 1750 Petrus 1045 511/512?-bef 520- praepositus basilicae beati ? 1 1750 bef 544 Apostoli Pauli Petrus 1046 aft 20 Dec 518-bef notarius s. eccl. Romanae ? 1 1750 Mar 519 Petrus 1048 bef 521-522 p(res)b(yter) prior tit. S. ? 1 1751 Crisogoni Petrus 1049 btw 526 and 530 subdiaconus ? 2 1751- 1752 Petrus 1050 btw 526 and 530 lector ? 2 1752 Petrus 1051 btw 526 and 530 lector ? 2 1752 Petrus 1052 btw 526 and 530 deaconus ? 2 1752- 1753 Petrus 1053 bef 527/528 primic(erius) tit. s. […] ? 1 1753 Petrus 1054 7 Dec 531-9 Dec presbyter ? 1 1753- 531? 1754 Petrus 1055 7 Dec 531-9 Dec presbyter ? 1 1754 531? Petrus 1056 7 Dec 531-9 Dec presbyter ? 1 1754 531? Petrus 1057 7 Dec 531-9 Dec presbyter ? 1 1754 531? Petrus 1059 bef Mar 536-Jun ι ? 1 1755- 536 1756

~~227~~

Petrus 1060 aft Mar 550-aft Feb s. eccl. Romanae siaconus ? 1 1756- 554 1758 Petrus 1061 551 subdiaconus aclisie gotice ? 2 1758 sancte Anastasie Petrus 1062 btw 556-561 episcopus Potentinus ? 5 1758 Petrus 1063 Mar/Apr 559 apostolicae sedis praesbyter ? 1 1759 Petrus 1064 Sep 570-17 Aug archiepiscopus sccl. ? 1 1759- 578 Ravennatis 1760 Petrus 1065 571† notarius s. eccl. Ravennatis ? 2 1760 Petrus 1069 btw 577 and 582- episcopus Altini ? 3 1761- 595 1762 Petrus 1070 btw 578 and 590- diaconus ? 1 1762- bef 604 1771 Petrus 1071 581 notarius s. eccl. Neapolitanae ? 5 1772 Petrus 1073 Mar 591-bef Nov episcopus Tarracinensis ? 5 1772 592† Petrus 1075 Sep 591-Oct 594 notarius in Regio ? 5 1773- 1774 Petrus 1076 Feb 592 diaconus ? 5 1774 Petrus 1076 b 593-594-bef 598† monasterio praeest ? 1 1774 Petrus 1078 btw Sep 590 and episcopus Troecalitanus ? 1 1775 Nov 594-Oct 598 Petrus 1079 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. s. Balbainae ? 1 1775- 1776 Petrus 1080 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. Ss. Iulii et ? 1 1776 Calisti Petrus 1081 Nov 595-Jul 601 episcopus Ydrontonus ? 5 1776- 1777 Petrus 1082 Jan 596-Sep 597 episcopus Aleriae de Corsica ? 7 1777 Petrus 1083 596-Aft Oct 614 monachus ? 1 1778- 1779 Petrus 1084 Nov 597 acolitus ? 1 1779 Petrus 1089 Nov/Dec 598 clericus ? 5 1780 Petrus 1096 Jul 600 diaconus ? 5 1783 Petrus 1097 6th c? antistes ? 7 1783 Petrus 1099 6th/7th c arcipr[esbyter] ? 1 1783 Petrus 1100 6th/7th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 1784 Petrus 1101 6th/7th c pr(esbyte)r ? 1 1784 Petrus 1102 * ? episcopus ? 3 1784 Petrus 1103 * aft 590 episcopus ? 3 1784 Petrus 1104* 324 episcopus ? 0 1784- 1785 Petrus 1105 * btw 432 and 440 presbyter ? 1 1785 Phaschasios 5th/6th c ε ? 6 1785 (ι ) 1001 Philadelphius 1001 4th c exo[rcista] ? 1 1786 Philippus bef Dec 418-btw εε ηι ? 1 1786- (ι ) 1002 432 and 440 ω 1792 Philippus 1003 465-btw 492 and episcopus Numanatis ? 2 1792- 496? 1793

~~228~~

Philippus 1004 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1793 Philippus 1005 Feb 603 presbyter ? * 1794 Philippus 1006 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1794 Philologios 1001 343 ? * 1794- 1795 Philosophus 1001 * late-6th c episcopus ? 4 1795 Philoxenus 1001 340-343 presbyter ? 1 1795- 1796 Phocas 1001 aft 565-bef 574 clericus ? 9 1797 Pim[…] ( ι […]) 5th c [ι ] [ω ] ? 6 1798 1001 (subdeacon and porter) Pimenius 1001 Jan 596 episcopus Amalfitanae ? 5 1798 civitatis Pinianus 1002 btw 376 and 380- consularis, monachus ? 1 1798- 432† 1802 Pisanus 1001 * ? episcopus ? 2 1803 Pistos ( ) 4th/5th c (ε )( ) ? 6 1803 1001 Placidius 1001 bef 541 monachus ? 1 1806- 1807 Placitus 1001 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. S. Savinae ? 1 1807- 1808 Plenus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1808 Plotinus 1001 392/393 ascetic ? 1 1808 Polemius 1001 bef 397-412 diaconus ? 4 1809 Pompeianus 1002 bef 541 abbas, pater monasterii ? 2 1811 Pompeius 1001 bef Nov 594-May episcopus ? * 1811 600 Pompeus 1001 * bef 381 episcopus ? 4 1812 Pomponius 1001 bef 502-536?† episcopus Neapolitanus ? 5 1812 Postumianus 1001 20 Jun 431 presbyter ? 5 1812 Praeiecticius 1001 Sep 591-bef Jul 595 episcopus ? 3 1814 Praesidius 1001 aft Aug 383- diaconus ? 5 1814- 403/404? 1815 Praesidius 1002 418-431 episcopus ? * 1815 Praestantius 1001 451 episcopus eccl. Bergomatis ? 3 1816 Praetextatus 1002 19 Nov 465 episcopus Interamnus ? 2 1817 Prancat[ius?] 1001 5th c presbyter ? 1 1818 Pretiosus 1001 590/591-Jul/Aug praepositus monasterii ? 1 1819 592 Pretiosus 1002 6th/7th c aepiscopus aecletiae ? 5 1819- catolicae sancte Brundisine 1820 Primasius 1001 518/519 Calaritanae civitatis antistes ? 7 1820 Primenius 1002 476-bef 482 presbyter Italiae noble * 1820- origins 1821 Primenius 1003 Oct 598 episcopus Nuceria ? 5 1821 Primicenius 1001 4th/5th c lector; episcopus ? 1 1821 Primigenius 1001 4th c diacon ? 1 1821 Primigenius 1002 Bef Nov/Dec 598† notarius ? 6 1822

~~229~~

Primitivus 1001 13 May 495 episcopus ? 0 1822- 1823 Primus 1001 3rd/4th c exorcist[a] ? 1 1823 Primus 1003 359 episcopus ? * 1823- 1824 Primus 1005 19 nov 465 episcopus Atellanus ? 5 1824 Priscillianus 1002 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1826- 1827 Priscus 1001 359-btw 368 and episcopus ? * 1827- 373? 1828 Priscus 1003 bef 405† episcopus Nucerinus ? 5 1828 Priscus 1004 523† episc(opus) ? 5 1829 Priscus 1005 aft 2 Apr 554-Mar episcopus Capuanus ? 5 1829 559 Priscus 1006 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1829 Priscus 1007 * 324 diaconus ? 0 1830 Priscus 1008 * mid-4th c diaconus ? 1 1830 Priscus 1009 * bef 336 ? ? 0 1830 Priscus 1010 * bef 422 ? ? 0 1830 Privatus 1001 Jul/Aug 592 abbas ? 6 1830- 1831 Probatius 1001 343 ? * 1834- 1835 Probianus 1001 2nd half of 4th c Dei sacerdos (episcopus) ? 2 1835 Probianus 1003 btw 556 and 561 pseudo-monachus ? 1 1835 Probianus 1004 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1835- 1836 Probinus 1002b btw 556 and 561 pseudo-monachus ? 0 1837- 1838 Probinus 1003 571-572 patriarcha apud Aquileiam ? 3 1838 Probinus 1004 16 Dec 570-20 Aug episc(opus) ? 5 1838 572† Probinus 1005 Jul 595-bef Aug presbyter ? 1 1838- 599 1839 Probinus 1006 15 Oct 600 presbyter tit. s. Cyriaci ? 1 1839 Probinus 1007 * late 6th c ep(iscop)us ? 4 1839 Probinus 1008 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1840 Probus 1001 288-Mar 368† praestiter (= presbyter) ? 4 1840 Probus 1002 355 episcopus ? 0 1840 Probus 1004 2nd half of 4th c episcopus ? 2 1841 Probus 1006 19 Nov 465-bef Jan episcopus Canusinus ? 5 1842 474 Probus 1007 btw 492 and 496?-6 episcopus eccl. ? 5 1842- Nov 502 Carmeianensis 1843 Probus 1009 9 Dec 531 diaconus ? 1 1844 Probus 1011 bef Sep 590-bef abbas ? 1 1844- 603† 1845 Probus 1012 bef 593/594† episcopus Reatinae civitatis ? 2 1845 Probus 1013 bef 593/594-Oct abbas monasterii ss. Andreae ? 2 1845- 600 et Luciae (quod appelatur 1846

~~230~~

Renati) Probus 1014 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1846 Probus 1015 * 5th c? episcopus ? 3 1846 Proclinus 1001 btw 401 and 417 praesb(yter) tit. Byzanti ? 1 1847 Proculeianus 1001 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Saepinatis ? 5 1848 502 Proculus 1001 4th c lector ? 3 1848 Proculus 1002 5 Jul 595 episcopus civitatis ? 1 1849 Praenestinae Proculus 1003 Jun 596-Apr 598 episcopus massae ? 5 1849- Nichoteranae 1850 Proculus 1004 Nov 602 diaconus eccl. Asculanae ? 2 1850 Proculus 1005 * 4th c? episcopus ? 3 1850 Proficius 1001 4th c lec(tor) et exorc(ista) ? 1 1850 Proficuus 1001 btw 492 and 496 Salpinae sacerdos eccl. ? 5 1851 (episc.) Profous 1001 Sum. 395 monachus ? 5 1851 Profuturus 1002 * 397? episcopus ? 4 1851 Proiectitus 1001 19 Nov 465 episcopus Nepesinus ? 2 1852 Proiectitus 1002 13 Mar 487 episcopus Tarquiniensis ? 2 1852 Proiecticius 1003 487?-499-6 Nov presbyter tit. Damasi ? 1 1852- 502? 1853 Proiecticius 1004 499-6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl.Foronovanae ? 2 1853- 1854 Proiectus 1002 Sum 418 clericus ? 1 1854 Proiectus 1003 431 episcopus et legatus ? * 1855- apostolicae sedis 1857 Proiectus 1004 bef 445/448-458 episcopus Corneliensis eccl. ? 3 1858 Proiectus 1005 29 May 482 episcopus ? * 1858 Proiectus 1006 492-576† ep(iscopu)s ? 4 1858 Proiectus 1009 mar/Apr 559 notarius ? 2 1859 Propinquus 1001 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Trebiatis ? 4 1860 502 Prosper 1001 * late 6th c? episcopus ? 4 1860 Prosper 1002 * 5th c? episcopus ? 5 1861 Protasius 1001 342-343 ab Italia de Mediolano ? 4 1861- episcopus 1862 Proterius 1001 30 Sep 313-1 Aug (episcopus) Capuensis ex ? 5 1862- 314 provincia Campaniae 1863 Providentius 1001 Jul 595 episcopus de Histria ? 3 1863 Provinus 1001 * 4th/5th c? episcopus ? 4 1863 Ptolemaios 3rd/4th c (ε ) ? 1 1863 (ε ) 1001 Pullio 1001 516-519 subdiaconus eccl. Romanae ? 1 1864- 1866 Pullio 1002 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1866 Q[…] 1001 536?† presbyter vir 2 1867 venerabi lis

~~231~~

Quadragesimus bef 593/594 Baxentinae eccl. Episcopus ? 0 1867 1001 Quadratus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1868 Quadratus 1002 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1868 Quartinus 1001 * 6th c? episcopus ? 3 1868 Quartus 1001 btw 492 and 496 defensor, deacon elect ? 5 1869 Quinigesius 1001 btw 492 and episcopus ? 5 1869- 495/496 1870 Quintasius 1001 1 Aug 314 episcopus de civitate Caralis ? 6 1870 provincia Sardenia Quintianus 1001 * 6th c? episcopus ? 2 1871 Quintianus 1002 * ? episcopus ? 3 1871 Quintillus 1001 355 episcopus ? 0 1872 Quintius 1001 451 episcopus eccl. Albiganensis ? 4 1872 Quintus 1002 451 episcopus eccl. Dertonensis ? 4 1873 Quintus 1003 1 Mar 499 episcopus eccl. Teanensis ? 5 1873 Quiriacus 1001 1 Aug 314 diaconus… missus ab ? 1 1874 Silvestro episcopo Quiriacus 1002 4th/5th c presbiter ? 1 1874 Quirillus 1001 bef Sep 565† diaconus Romanus ? 1 1875 Quodvultdeus 1001 439-bef 24 Oct episcopus Carthaginis ? 8 1875 454† Quodvultdeus 1002 5th c episcopus ? 3 1875 Quodvultdeus 1003 14 May 553 episcopus eccl. Numanae ? 2 1876- 1877 Quodvultdeus 1004 585/586 abbas ? 1 1877 Rapulus 1001 7th c monachus ? 1 1878 Rau[bo]nus 1001 7th c pres(byter) ? 1 1878 Re[…] 1001 6th/7th c ep(is)c(opus) ? 3 1878 Redemptus 1001 4th/5th c levita ? 1 1879 Redemptus 1002 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 1879 Redemptus 1003 487?-495-499? presbyter ? 1 1879- 1880 Redemptus 1004 487?-495-499? presbyter ? 1 1880 Redemptus 1005 487?-495?-499 presbyter tit. Chrysogoni ? 1 1880- 1881 Redemptus 1006 487?-495?-499 presbyter tit. Tigridae ? 1 1881 Redemptus 1008 27 Dec 530 notarius eccl. Romanae ? 1 1882 Redemptus 1009 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1882 Redemptus 1010 14 May 553 episcopus eccl. Nomentanae ? 2 1883- 1884 Redemptus 1011 btw 561 and 568- Ferentinae episcopus ? 2 1884 586/587† Redus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1885- 1886 Redux 1001 13 Dec 581 episcopus ? 5 1886 Regulus 1001 6th/7th c? abba, presbyter ? 5 1886 Renatus 1002 449† presbyter tit. Clementis ? 1 1887-

~~232~~

1888 Renatus 1004 9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1889 Renatus 1005 * 5th c episcopus ? 8 1889 Renatus 1006 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1890 Renovatus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1890 Reparatus 1001 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 5 1891 Reparatus 1002 btw 526 and 530 lector ? 2 1891 Reparatus 1004 19 Oct 553† diac(onus) ? 5 1892 Reparatus 1006 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1892 Repostibus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1893 Respectus 1001 3rd/4th c exorcista ? 2 1893 Respectus 1002 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 2 1893 Restitutus 1001 Sum. 395 monachus ? 5 1893 Rogatus 1001 4th/5th c lector ? 7 1897 Rogatus 1002 23 Oct 502 episcopus eccl. ? 6 1897- Taurmenitanae 1898 Romanus 1003 343-461† or 455- presbiter ? 1 1899 482† Romanus 1004 19 Nov 465 episcopus Albanensis ? 5 1899- 1900 Romanus 1005 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 1900 Romanus 1006 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 1900 Romanus 1007 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 1901 Romanus 1008 1 Mar 499 episcopus eccl. Pitinatium ? 2 1901 Romanus 1009 487-495?-499? presbyter tit. Tigridae ? 1 1902 Romanus 1010 5th c acolitus ? 1 1902 Romanus 1011 23 Oct-6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl. Nomentanae ? 2 1902- 1903 Romanus 1012 btw 526 and 530 acolitus ? 2 1903 Romanus 1013 bef 536/539 monachus ? 2 1904 Romanus 1014 Mar 559 clericus eccl. Theanensis ? 5 1904 Romanus 1021 5 Jul 595 episcopus civitate Blentanae ? 2 1913- 1914 Romanus 1022 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. s. Marcelli ? 1 1914 Romanus 1023 Mar 596 clericus ? 2 1914 Romanus 1025 6th/7th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 1915 Romanus 1027 * ? episcopus ? 3 1916 Romulus 1002 487-6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl. Praenestinae ? 1 1917 Romulus 1003 btw 492 and 496 presbyter ? 5 1917- 1918 Romulus 1004 1 Nov 493 diaconus Romanus ? 1 1918 Romulus 1005 5th c presbyter tit. Pud[en]tianae ? 1 1918 Romulus 1008 aft 525? levita ? 5 1919 Romulus 1009 14 Aug 551 (episcopus) de Numana ? 2 1919 Romulus 1010 * 4th c episcopus ? 4 1920 Rosarius 1001 1 Mar 499 episcopus eccl. Surrentinae ? 5 1920

~~233~~

Rotamus 1001 355 episcopus ? 0 1920 Rufentius 1001 23 Oct-6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl Egnatinae ? 5 1921- 1922 Rufinianus 1002 Jun 601† monachus or clericus ? 1 1923- 1924 Rufininus 1001 aft 355-bef 359† episcopus (probably) ? 5 1924 Rufinus 1001 371 clericus ? 1 1924 Rufinus 1002 371-402† lector ? 1 1925 Rufinus 1003 371/372-410† presbyter ? 3 1925- 1940 Rufinus 1004 398 presbyter ? * 1940 Rufinus 1005 399-401 presbyter ? 9 1941 Rufinus 1006 btw 399 and 401- presbyter ? 9 1941- bef 411/412 1942 Rufinus 1007 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus eccl. Canusinae ? 5 1942- 499 1943 Rufinus 1010 Feb 559 episcopus Vivonensis ? 5 1943 Rufinus 1011 Feb/Mer 559 monachus ? 1 1944 Rufinus 1012 bef Nov 594-bef episcopus Vivonensis ? 5 1944 Nov/Dec 598† Rufinus 1013 6th c abbas ? 4 1944 Rufus 1001 371 clericus ? 1 1945 Rufus 1002 bef 581/583 episcopus Taurinensis urbis ? 4 1945- 1946 Rusticianus 1002 * 6th c? episcopus ? 3 1950 Rusticula 1001 btw 419 and 422 episcopus ? * 1951 Rusticus 1002 13 Mar 487 presbyter ? 1 1951- 1952 Rusticus 1003 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus eccl. Menturnensis ? 5 1952 499 Rusticus 1004 mid-5th c episcopus ? * 1952 Rusticus 1005 23 Oct-6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl. Buxentinae ? 5 1953 Rusticus 1006 aft 5 Feb 504 acolytus s. eccl. Catholicae ? 2 1953 Romanae Rusticus 1007 btw 526 and 530 presbiter ? 2 1954 Rusticus 1008 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1954 Rusticus 535 ι εω ... ? 1 1955 (' ι ) 1009 ωι (clericus) Rusticus oct 535?-May-Jun episcopus s. eccl. Faesulanae ? 2 1955- (' ι ) 1010 536 1956 Rusticus 1011 btw 537 and 547- diaconus ? 1 1956- bef Nov 565 1959 Rusticus 1012 589/590-bef 591† episcopus Tarvensis ? 3 1960 Rusticus 1013 bef Nov 594-Mar archidiaconus ? 5 1960 595 Rusticus 1014 595-600 presbyter tit. s. Susannae ? 1 1961 Rusticus 1016 6th c presbyter ? 5 1962 Rusticus 1017 6th c praesbyter ? 4 1962 Rusticus 1018 dec 603 diaconus eccl. Anconitanae ? 2 1962

~~234~~

Rusticus 1019 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1962- 1963 Sabas 1001 13 Apr 493† presbyter s. eccl. Romane ? 1 1963 Sabatinus 1001 6th/7th c sacerdos ? 4 1964 Sabinianus 1001 381 diaconus ? 3 1965 Sabinianus 1002 btw 382? and 419 diaconus ? * 1965- 1966 Sabinianus 1003 Jul 593-22 Feb 606 diaconus, apochrisarius, ? 2 1966- episcopus Romae 1968 Sabinianus 1004 12 Aug 595 diaconus ? 1 1968 Savinianus 1005 Jul 599 episcopus Callipoli ? 5 1968- 1969 Sabinus 1001 30 sep-2 Oct 313 (episcopus) a Terracina ? 5 1969 Sabinus 1002 btw 368 and 373- episcopus Placentinus ? 4 1968- 392/393? 1973 Sabinus 1003 btw 492 and 496 episcopus Marcellianensis ? 5 1973- sive Casilinatis urbis 1974 Sabinus 1005 5th c archidiaconus; altaris ? 1 1974 primis… minister; levita Sabinus 1006 525? sacerdos (=episcopus) ? 5 1974- 1975 Sabinus 1007 7 Dec 531-btw 542 episcopus s. eccl. Canusinae ? 5 1975- and 552 1977 Sabinus 1008 Jul 591 abbas monasterii s. Stephani ? 5 1977 insulae Capris Sabinus 1009 591-Dec 603 subdiaconus; regionarius, ? 1 1977- rector patrimonii 1979 Savinus 1012 6th/7th c diaco(nu)s ? 4 1981 Salerius 1001 bef Oct 598-Jun notarius, cartularius ? 1 1981 603 Sallustius 1002 495?-499-Nov 502 episcopus eccl. Amerinae ? 2 1982- 1983 Sambatius 1001 * ? episcopus ? 3 1985 Sanba 1001 7th c? pr(esbyter) ? 1 1985 Sanctulus 1001 364-444† or 413- subdiac[onus] ? 4 1985 493† Sanctulus 1002 495?-499 episcopus civitatis Signinae ? 5 1986 Sanctulus 1003 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 1986- 1987 Sanctulus 1005 btw 571 and 574?- presbiter ? 2 1987- 592/593 1988 Sanctulus 1006 * 324 episcopus ? 0 1988 Santus 1001 5th c presbiter ? 1 1988 Sapatus 1001 bef Apr 548-559 diaconus, apocrisarius ? 1 1988- 1989 Saprikios 343 ? * 1989- (ι ) 1001 1990 Sarabo 1001 5th c presb(iter) ? 1 1990 Sarmata 1001 6th c presbyter ? 4 1990 Sarmatio 1001 bef 396? monachus ? 4 1991 Saturius 1001 * early 4th c episcopus ? 2 1992

~~235~~

Saturnin[us] 1001 4th c? episcopus ? 3 1992 Saturninus 1002 4th/5th c diac(onus) ? 3 1992 Saturninus 1003 1 Mar 499 episcopus eccl. Herdonitanae ? 5 1992- 1993 Saturninus 1007 Sep-Nov 594 expresbyter ? 2 1994 Saturus 1001 4th/5th c exorcista ? 4 1994 Scolasticus 1004 7th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 1999 Sebastianus 1001 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1999 Nov 502? Sebastianus 1002 487-495?-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 1999 Nov 502? Sebastianus 1003 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 2000 Nov 502? Sebastianus 1004 487?-495-499?-6 presbyter ? 1 2000 Nov 502? Sebastianus 1005 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Nicomedis ? 1 2000- Nov 502? 2001 Sebastianus 1006 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Aequiti ? 1 2001- Nov 502? 2002 Sebastianus 1007 5th c presbyter a vin[culis] ? 1 2002 Sebastianus 1008 23 Oct-6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl. Suranae ? 2 2002- 2003 Sebastianus 1009 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter ? 1 2003 Nov 502? Sebastianus 1010 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 2003- 2004 Sebastianus 1011 Nov 547-550 diaconus, ad Dalmatias ? 1 2004- patrimonii regendi causa 2006 remissus Sebastianus 1012 May 599 episcopus ? 0 2006- 2007 Sebastianus 1013 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2007 Sebesius 1001 397? ascetic (?) ? 9 2007 Seco[laris?] 1001 btw 571/572 and lectu[r] ? 3 2007- 586/587 2008 Secun[…] 1001 7th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 2008 Secundinus 1001 4th/5th c ministrator chrestianus ? 1 2008 (=diaconus?) Secundinus 1003 btw 492 and 496 (episcopus) Visinensis ? 2 2009- 2010 Secundinus 1004 Mar 559 episcopus ? 0 2010 Secundinus 1006 bef Aug 591-Jan episcopus Tauromenitanus ? 6 2010- 603 2014 Secundinus 1007 Mar 593 in monasterio s. Martin ? 5 2014 abbas Secundinus 1008 May 599 servus Dei inclausus ? 3-4 2014- 2015 Secundinus 1009 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2015- 2016 Secundinus 1010 * ? episcopus ? 5 2015 Secundus 1001 30 sep-2 Oct 313 episcopus ? 1 2016 Secundus 1002 Apr 556-Apr 559 episcopus Taurominitanae ? 6 2016-

~~236~~

civitatis 2017 Secundus 1003 591-Mar 612† servus Christi Tridentum, ? 3 2017 abbas Secundus 1004 bef Jan 596-Oct diaconus, servus Dei ? 2 2017- 596 2018 Secundus 1005 * 451-452† episcopus ? 3 2018 Segetius 1001 10 Oct 443 episcopus ? * 2019 Seleucus 1001 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 2019- 2020 Senator 1001 450-451 episcopus ? 4 2021- 2023 Senator 1002 btw 501 and 513 episcopus ? 3-4 2024 Senator 1003 * ? episcopus ? 3 2024 Senatus 1001 7th c? episcopus ? 5 2024 Seneca 1001 1 Nov 493 episcopus (?) ? 2 2024- 2025 Senecio 1001 bef Jun 412 presbyter ? 1 2025 Senecio 1002 Aug 493, 494, 495, episcopus ? 0 2025 or 496 Septiminus 1002 495?-499 presbyter tit. Iuli ? 1 2026- 2027 Septimus 1001 bef 30 Sep 447 episcopus Altinensis ? 3 2027 Serbusdei 1001 5th/6th c pr(e)s(byter) ? 1 2028 Serenus 1001 btw 492 and episcopus eccl. Nolanae ? 5 2030- 495/496-23 Oct 2032 502-6 Nov 502? Serenus 1002 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 0 2032- 2033 Serenus 1003 495?-499-bef Oct episcopus eccl. Nomentanae ? 2 2033 502† Serenus 1004 Nov 598-bef Dec episcopus Anconitanae ? 2 2034 603† civitatis Serenus 1005 598 diaconus ? 2 2034 Sergius 1002 5th/6th c p(res)b(yte)r ? 1 2035 Sergius 1005 6th/7th c humilis monachus ? 1 2037 Sergi[us] 1006 7th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 2037 Servandus 1001 487-495 presbyter ? 1 2037- 2038 Servandus 1002 btw 526 and 530 presbiter ? 2 2038 Servandus 1003 btw 526/529 and diaconus atque abbas ? 5 2038- Feb 541 monasterii 2039 Servandus 1004 May 599 diaconus eccl. Fesulanae ? 2 2039 Servusdei 1001 19 Nov 465 episcopus Nomentanus ? 2 2040 Servusdei 1002 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit. Clementis ? 1 2040- Nov 502? 2042 Servusdei 1003 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Feraenae ? 2 2042 502? Servusdei 1004 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 2043 Servusdei 1005 aft Mar 550-May subdiaconus regionis primae ? 1 2043- 553 2044

~~237~~

Servusdei 1006 btw 579 and 590- diaconus ? 1 2044- bef Sep/Oct 598† 2045 Servusdei 1007 Aug 591 clericus ? 5 2045 Severinus 1001 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Tendaritanae ? 6 2048 502 Severinus 1002 btw 526 and 530 acolitus ? 2 2048- 2049 Severinus 1004 550 de subdiaconorum et ? 1 2050 notariiorum vel defensorum officio depositus Severinus 1005 bef Oct 594† eccl. Myriensis episcopus ? 5 2051 Severinus 1006 * ? episcopus ? 2 2051 Severinus 1007 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2051 Severus 1001 btw 296 and 304 diaconus ? 1 2052 Severus 1002 1 Aug 314 diaconus de civitate ? 4 2052 Mediolanensium provincia Italia Severus 1003 343 episcopus Ravennensis ? 2 2052- 2053 Severus ( ε ) 343 ? * 2054 1004 Severus 1006 387/393-397/398 episcopus ? 5 2055 Severus 1008 401-417 episcopus per Brittios ? 5 2056 Severus 1010 11 Mar 422 apostolicae sedis notarius ? 1 2056- 2057 Severus 1011 429-519† presbyter ? 4 2057 Severus 1013 19 Nov 475 episcopus ? * 2057- 2058 Severus 1014 13 Mar 487 episcopus Casinatus ? 5 2058 Severus 1016 495?-499-6 Nov presbyter tit. Gai ? 1 2059- 502? 2060 Severus 1017 508? episcopus ? * 2060 Severus 1020 btw 532 and 535 p(res)b(yter) ? 1 2060- 2061 Severus 1023 btw 559 and Mar episcopus Camerinum ? 2 2061- 561 2062 Severus 1024 btw 577 and 586- episcopus Tergestinus ? 3 2062 589/590 Severus 1025 586/587-608† episcopus Aquileiensis ? 3 2062- (patriarcha) 2064 Severus 1026 Jul 591-Jul 599 episcopus Ficuclinus ? 2 2064 Severus 1027 bef 593/594† eccl. Beatae Mariae Dei ? 2 2064- genetricis et semper virginis 2065 sacerdos Severus 1029 6th c clericus? ? 1 2065 Severus 1030 * 6th c? episcopus ? 4 2065 Severus 1031 * late-6th c episcopus ? 4 2066 Si[…] 1001 4th/5th c diaconus ? 7 2066 Sidonius 1001 5th/6th c subdiaconus ? * 2066 Sigesarius 1001 Dec 409 Gothorum episcopus ? 1 2066

~~238~~

Silanus 1001 442/443 diaconus eccl. Panormitanae ? 6 2067 Silbanos 4th c ι ? 6 2067 (ι ) 1001 Silbanos 6th c ι ι ? 1 2068 (ι ) 1002 * ι εω Silbius 1001 6th/7th c eccl. sanctae minister ? 7 2068 Silvanus 1001 aft Mar 483-bef Jul εε ? 1 2068- 484 2069 Silvanus 1002 * ? episcopus et confessor iuxta ? 5 2069 Terracina Silverius 1001 523-aft Mar 537† subdiaconus ? 1 2069 Silvester 1001 314-335† presbyter(?), episcopus ? 1 2071 Romae Silvester 1002 btw 446 and 466 archidiaconus ? 4 2071 Silvester 1003 btw 492 and 496 clericus eccl. Grumentinae ? 5 2071 Silvester 1004 btw 492 and 496 diaconus ? 5 2072 Silvinus 1001 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Veliterninae ? 5 2073 502 Silvinus 1002 5th/6th c? ep(iscopu)s ? 3 2073 Silvinus 1003 * 5th c episcopus ? 3 2074 Silvius 1001 6th c presbyter ? 4 2074 Simplicianus 1001 bef 358/361-bef episcopus Mediolanensis ? 1 2075- Nov 400† 2079 Simplicianus 1002 451 episcopus eccl. Novariensis ? 4 2079- 2080 Simplicianus 1003* ? episcopus ? 3 2080 [Si]mplicius 1002 4th c? lector ? 1 2080 Simplicius 1003 4th/5th c presb(yter) ? 1 2081 Simplicius 1004 468-483† episcopus Romae ? 1 2081 Simplicius 1005 13 Mar 487 presbyter ? 1 2081 [S]implicius 1006 5th c? pre[sbyter?] ? 4 2081 Simplicius 1009 bef Feb 541-bef abbas monasterii Casinensis ? 5 2082 577?† Simplicius 1010 * 4th c episcopus ? 3 2082- 2083 Sinodus 1001 6th/7th c? diac(onus) ? 4 2084 Siracusius 1001 btw 492 and 496 episcopus ? 5 2084- 2085 Siricius 1001 btw 352 and 366- lector, diaconus, episcopus ? 1 2086 399† Romae Siricius 1002 btw 374 and 397 presbyter? ? 4 2086 Siricius 1004 10 Jul 431 notarius s. catholicae eccl. ? 1 2087 Urbis Romae Sisinnius 1002 29 May 398?† diaconus ? 9 2087- 2088 Sisinnius 1005 Sep/Oct 599 presbyter Regitanae civitatis ? 5 2089 Sisinnus 1001 5th c presbyter ? 1 2089 Sixtus 1001 417/417-440† presbyter, episcopus Romae ? 1 2090 Xystus 1002 13 Mar 487 presbyter ? 1 2091

~~239~~

Sixtus 1003 13 May 495 notarius s. eccl. Romanae ? 1 2091 Xystus 1004 21 Mar 537 subdiaconus regionarius ? 1 2091 regionis sextae Sixtus 1005 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2091- 2092 Smaragdus 1001 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 2092- 2093 Solacius 1002 btw 577 and 586 episcopus Veronensis ? 3 2096 Solutor 1001 359 episcopus ? * 2096- 2097 Soranus 1001 487?-499 presbyter tit. Vestinae ? 1 2098 Soter 1001 495 episcopus Neapolitanus ? 5 2099 Speciosus 1001 aft 529-aft 541† monachus noble 0 2100 Speciosus 1002 bef Feb 590-bef Jul subdiaconus, then (lay) ? 6 2100 594† notarius, then monachus Speciosus 1003 590/591 presbyter ? 1 2101 Speciosus 1004 bef Dec 594 presbyter ? 2 2101 Speciosus 1005 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. s. Clementis ? 1 2101- 2102 Speciosus 1006 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. Damasi ? 1 2102 Spectabilis 1001 * ? episcopus ? 4 2102 Sperantius 1002 343 ( ) ? * 2103 Spes 1001 late 4th/early 5th c episcopus, Dei servus ? 2 2103- 2104 Spes 1002 4th c venerabilis pater, monachus ? 2 2104 Spoudasius 1001 343 ( ) ? * 2105 Stennius 1001 30 sep-2 Oct 313 (episcopus) ab Arimino ? 2 2105- 2106 Stephanos 14 jun 419 ι ? 6 2107 ( ) 1001 Stephanos 6th c? (ε ), εε ? 5 2108 ( ) 1002 Stephanus 1002 btw 492 and 496 presbyter ? 2 2108 Stephanus 1003 btw 492 and 496 diaconus ? 2 2108 Stephanus 1004 btw 492 and diaconus ? 5 2109 495/496 Stephanus 1006 495-499?-Nov 502? presbyter ? 1 2109 Stephanus 1007 495?-499-502-510? episcopus eccl. Neapolitanae ? 5 2110- 2111 Stephanus 1008 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus eccl. Nursinae ? 2 2111- 499-Nov 502 2113 Stephanus 1009 495?-499-Nov 502? presbyter tit. Marcelli ? 1 2113 Stephanus 1010 495?-499-Nov 502? presbyter tit. Eusebii ? 1 2113- 2114 Stephanus 1012 btw 501 and 513 abbas ? 4 2114 Stephanus 1013 btw 501 and 513 diaconus ? 4 2115 Stephanus 1014 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus eccl. Venusinae ? 5 2115- 23 Oct-6 Nov 502 2116 Stephanus 1015 495?-499?-6 Nov presbyter ? 1 2116- 502 2117

~~240~~

Stefanus 1017 526 praep(o)s(i)t(us) ? 1 2117 […L]aurenti martyris Stephanus 1018 btw 526 and 530 presbiter ? 2 2118 Stephanus 1019 btw 526 and 530 diaconus ? 2 2118 Stephanus 1020 btw 526 and 530 acolitus ? 2 2118- 2119 Stephanus 1021 btw 526 and 530 acolitus ? 2 2119 Stephanus 1023 btw 526 and 530 decanus ? 2 2119- 2120 Stephanus 1025 aft 542-bef Apr eccl. Romanae diaconus et ? 1 2120- 548† apocrisarius 2121 Stephanus 1027 551-553 episcopus eccl. Ariminensis ? 2 2121- 2123 Stephanus 1028 Sep 552-Sep/Oct diaconus vices pontificis in ? 1 2123 558 urbe Roma agens Stephanus 1029 552-587† lectur v(ir) 3 2123 r(eligios us) Stefanus 1030 17 Jul 564 scrinarius gloriosae sedis v(ir) 2 2123 d(evotus ) Stephanus 1034 bef 590/591 pater monasterii (=abbas) ? 2 2124 Stephanus 1038 bef 593/594† presbyter ? 2 2126 Stephanus 1039 bef 593/594 abbas ? 2 2126- 2127 Stephanus 1041 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit. s. Marci ? 1 2127- 2128 Stephanus 1044 Jan 599 abbas monasterii s. Marci ? 2 2128- iuxta muros Spolitanae 2129 civitatis Stephanus 1046 feb/apr 599-Jan 603 episcopus ? 5 2129- 2130 Stephanus 1048 6th c ep(i)s(copus) ? 7 2130 Stephanus 1050 late 6th c monachus(?) ? 1 2131 Stefa[nus] 1052 6th/7th c episcopus ? 5 2131 S[te]fanus 1054 7th c [pr](es)b(yter) ? 1 2132 Stephanus 1055 * aft 507? episcopus ? 3 2132 Stephanus 1056 * ? episcopus ? 3 2132 Stercorius 1001 343 (episcopus) ab Apulia de ? 5 2132- Canusio 2133 Strato 1001 aft 24 Feb 303-bef diaconus ? 1 2135- 28 Oct 312 2136 Stratophilus 1001 355 episcopus ? 4 2136 Suniefridus 1001 551 diaconus ? 2 2137 Superianus 1001 4th/5th c clerecus de Aq(u)ileia ? 3 2138 Surakosios 5th c? ? 6 2138 (ι ) 1001 Suranus 1001 bef 590† abbas ? 2 2138 Surgentius 1001 544-bef Mar 550 primicerius scholae ? 1 2139 notariorum Surus 1001 4th c? episcopus ? 4 2140

~~241~~

Syagrius 1001 btw 374 and 397 episcopus ? 3 2140- 2141 Sylvestrianus 1001 324 episcopus ? 0 2141 * Symmachus 1003 20 Jun 431 episcopus ? 5 2145 Symmachus 1004 498 presbyter ? 1 2145 Symmachus 1005 498-514 ιω , episcopus ? 7 2145- Romae 2146 Symmachus 1010* 324 episcopus ? 0 2148 Synedius 1001 355 episcopus ? * 2148 Syrus 1001 356-362 diaconus ? 4 2149 Syrus 1002 btw 374 and 397 presbyter ? 1 2149 Syrus 1003 5th c diac(onus) ? 3 2149 Syrus 1004 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2149- 2150 Syrus 1005 * before 6th c confessor ? 3 2150 Taorgius 1001 bef 383-384 episcopus ? 0 2151 Tarrensis 1001 1 Mar 499 diaconus regionis […] ? 1 2151 Taurinus 1001 359 episcopus ? * 2152- 2153 Tegrinus 1001 aft Sum 355-bef presbyter ? 4 2154- Oct 359 2155 Telemachios 391? Or btw 395 ηι ε ? 9 2155 (ηει ) 1001 and 423? Teodius 1001 6th/7th c? mon(achus) ? 1 2156 Teodorus 1001 6th c pr(esbyter) ? 3 2156 Terentianus 1002 aft 2nd c episcopus ? 2 2156- 2157 Terentius 1003 557-558/559 episcopus Tusciae ? 2 2157- Annonariae 2158 Tertull[i]an[os] 4th/5th c ι ( ) ? 6 2159 (ε [ι] []) 1001 Tertullianus 1001 ? episcopus ? 3 2159 Tertullus 1002 1 Mar 499 diaconus regionis […] ? 1 2159- 2160 Teudorus 1001 6th/7th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 2160 Theodatus 1001 bef 544 abbas et archimandrita ? 4 2161 Theodo[…] 1003 6th/7th c eg[i]t ep(iscop)at[um] ? 7 2164 Theodorus 1001 1 Aug 314 episcopus Aquilegentium, ex ? 3 2166 provincia Dalmatia Theodorus 1002 btw 366 and 384 presbyter ? 1 2166 Theodorus 1006 404-405? Or 407- ι η ? 1 2168- 408? 2169 Theodorus 1007 aft 28 Aug 430 presbyter ? 3 2169 Theodorus 1008 13 May 435† episcopus ? 5 2169 Theodorus 1009 aft 451-bef 489 episcopus ? 4 2169- 2170 Theodorus 1010 5th/6th c? ep(iscopu)s ? 3 2170

~~242~~

Theodorus 1016 Jul 590-bef monachus ? 1 2172 591/592† Theodorus 1020 bef 593/594† custos ecclesiae ? 1 2174 Theodorus 1021 Jul 593-bef Feb episcopus Lillibitanus ? 6 2174- 595† 2175 Theodorus 1025 599-603 episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 2177 Theodorus 1027 6th/7th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 2178 Theodorus 1028 6th/7th c pr(esbyter) ? 3 2178 Theodorus 1029 early 7th c? acol(itus) s(an)c(t)ae ? 1 2178 Rom(anae) eccl(esiae) Theodorus 1031 * 5th/6th c? episcopus ? 3 2179 Theodorus 1032 * 21 Feb 546 Episcopus ? 3 2179 Theodorus 1033* ? episcopus ? 2 2179 Theodorus 1034 * btw 314 and 335 presbyter ? 1 2179 Theodorus 1035 * 324 diaconus ? 1 2179 Theodosianus 1001 Sep 596-Nov 597 diaconus ? 6 2180- 2181 Theodosios 1001 aft 565-bef 574 clercus ? 9 2181 Theodosius 1001 7 Dec 490 ep(is)c(opus) ? 5 2181 Theodosius 1004 Mar 593-Jun 595- abbas monasterii s. Martini ? 5 2181- 599? 2182 Theodosius 1005 May/Jun 599 abbas monasterii a Liberio ? 5 2182- quondam patricito in 2183 Campaniae partibus constructi Theodosius 1008 6th/7th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 1 2184 Theodosius 1009 * 5th c episcopus ? 2 2184 [T]heodotus 1001 4th/5th c diaconus ? 1 2184 Theodulus 1001 aft 368-bef 373 episcopus ? 0 2185 Theodulus 1002 396-bef 412/413 notarius; qui… Mutinensem ? 4 2185 rexit ecclesiam Theofrastus 1001 5th c diac(onus) ? 3 2186 Theophanes 1001 535?-536-553? archidiaconus ? 1 2186- 2188 Theophilus 1001 30 sep-2 Oct 313 episcopus a Benevento ? 5 2188- 2189 Theophilus 1002 * ? episcopus ? 3 2189 Theopropus 1001 bef Feb 541 monachus vir 5 2190 nobilis Theodoros 7th c? ? 1 2190 (ε ) 1001 Theudila 1001 551 spodeus, clericus eclesie ? 2 2193- legis Gothorum s. Anastasie 2194 Tomas 1003 btw 526 and 530 presbiter ? 2 2195 Tomas 1004 btw 526 and 530 lector ? 2 2195 Thomas 1005 13 Jan 552 secundocirius notariorum ? 2 2195 ecclesiae Ravennatis Thomas 1008 bef 593† episcopus ? 7 2196 Th[o]ma ( [ω]) 6th/7th c ( ) η ? 1 2197- 1011 (η ) 2198

~~243~~

Tiberius 1001 19 nov 465 episcopus Curium ? 2 2198 Sabinorum Tiberius 1002 * mid-6th c? episcopus ? 4 2198 Tiburtius 1001 13 Jun 449 notarius ? 1 2198 Tiburtius 1002 19 Nov 465 episcopus Capuanus ? 5 2199 Tiburtius 1003 bef 577/580† presbiter ? 1 2199 Tiburtius 1004 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2199- 2200 Ticianus 1001 421-476† sacerdos (=episcopus) ? 4 2200 Ticianus 1002 btw 492 and 496 presbyter ? 5 2200 Tigridas 1001 4th c diaconus ? 1 2200 Tigridius 1001 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl. Tauritanae ? 4 2201 502 Tigrinus 1001 btw 440 and 461 presbyter ? 1 2202 Timasius 1003 mid-5th c episcopus ? 5 2203 Timoteus 1001 4th c presbyter ? 1 2203 Timotheus 1001 aft 492-499 episcopus eccl. Abellininatis ? 5 2203- 2204 Timotheus 1002 499-6 Nov 502 presbyter tit. Marcelli ? 1 2204- 2205 Timotheus 1004 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2205 Tinulus 1001 6 Nov 502 presbyter ? 1 2205- 2206 Titianus 1002 * ? episcopus ? 3 2207 Titus 1001 426† diaconus ? 1 2208 Tobias ( ι ) 6th/7th c ( ) ? 6 2208 1001 Traianus 1002 465 subdiaconus ? 1 2209- 2210 Traianus 1004 Feb 595-Jan 603 episcopus insulae Melitensis ? 2 2210- 2211 Tranquillinus 1002 324 episcopus ? 0 2212 * Tranquilus 1001 btw 526 and 530 cantor ? 2 2212 Transm[…] 1001 523 praepositus basilicae beati ? 1 2212 Petr[i…] Tribunus 1001 7-9 Dec 531 archidiaconus ? 1 2213 Tribunus 1002 Dec 593 clericus ? 5 2213 Trifolius 1001 519-520 presbyter ? 1 2213- 2214 Truphon ( ) 5th/6th c presbyter ? 6 2215 1001 Trypho 1001 btw 492 and 496 ? vir 1 2215- religiosu 2216 s Tryphon 1001 355 episcopus ? 0 2216 Tullianus 1001 aft Dec 551-bef diaconnus, episcopus ? 1 2216- Apr 559 Grumentinus 2217 Tullinus 1001 btw 492 and 496 presbyter ? 5 2217- 2218

~~244~~

Turbantius 1001 btw 418 and 419- episcopus ? * 2218 422/430 Turcilianus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2219 Turddus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2219 Turturanus 1001 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2219 Ulpis 1001 late 4th c? lector ? 1 2339 Unscila 1001 btw 509 and 512 antistes vir 0 2339 venerabi lis Uranius 1001 22 Jun 431-aft 2 presbyter ? 5 2342- Apr 432 2343 Uranus 1001 19 Nov 465 episcopus ? 0 2343- 2344 Urbanus 1001 359?-381 Parmensis episcopus ? 3 2344- 2345 Urbanus 1002 487-bef 492/496† episcopus Fulginatis ? 2 2345- 2346 Urbanus 1004 6th c presb(yter) ? 1 2346 Urbanus 1005 bef Oct 600† abbas ? 6 2346 Urbanus 1006 * mid-4th c episcopus ? 5 2346 Urbanus 1007 * btw 352 and 366 diaconus ? 1 2347 Urbanus 1008 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2347 Urbicus 1001 3rd/4th c diaconus ? 1 2347 Urbicus 1002 357 diaconus ? 1 2348 Urbicus 1004 487?-499 presbyter tit Clementis ? 1 2348- 2349 Urbicus 1006 Jul/Aug 592-Nov abbas monasterii s Hermae ? 6 2349- 602 quod Panormi situm est 2351 [U]rbicus 1008 6th c pr(es)b(yter) prior ? 1 2351 Ursacius 1001 343 episcopus ab Italia de Brixia ? 3 2352 Ursacius 1002 397/398-410 frater (ascetic) ? 2 2353 Ursatius 1004 6th c ustuarius ? 3 2353 Ursicinus 1001 btw 401 and 417 presbyter ? 1 2353- 2354 Ursicinus 1002 406-496† presbyter ? 4 2354 Ursicinus 1003 aft 531/532- episcopus ? 2 2354- 535/536† 2355 Ursicinus 1004 594?-599 Taurinae civitatis episcopus ? 4 2355 Ursicinus 1005 * 5th or 6th c? episcopus ? 4 2356 Ursinus 1001 bef 366-384 diaconus, antipope ? 1 2356- 2358 Ursinus 1002 aft 396 or 402 episcop(us) Albanens(is) ? 5 2358 Ursinus 1004 5th c antistes ? 0 2359 Ursinus 1005 5th c presbyter ? 0 2359 Ursisinus 1001 517 lector eccl Veronensis ? 3 2359 Ursus 1001 371 clericus ? 1 2359 Ursus 1004 btw 401 and 417 episcopus ? 2 2360 Ursus 1005 btw 401 and 417 praesb(yter) tit Byzanti ? 1 2360

~~245~~

Ursus 1007 early 5th c episcopus ? 5 2361 Ursus 1008 1st quarter of 5th c presul (=episcopus) ? 2 2361- 2362 Ursus 1009 bef 31 Jul 432 ι ... ? 1 2362- εω ε 2363 Ursus 1010 499-502 episcopus eccl Reatinae ? 2 2363- 2364 Ursus 1011 1 Mar 499 episcopus eccl Stabianae ? 5 2364 Ursus 1012 btw 526 and 530 diaconus ? 2 2364- 2365 Ursus 1013 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 2365 Ursus 1014 btw 542 and 565 p(res)b(yte)r ? 3 2365 Ursus 1016 bef 590† frater (monachus) ? 2 2366 Ursus 1017 6th c diaconus ? 3 2366 Ursaldus 1001 btw 425 and 455† p(res)b(yte)r ? 2 2367 Uuiliarit 1001 551 clericus ? 2 2367 Uuimundus 1001 494? Or 514? episcopus ? 2 2368- 2369 Valens 1001 487?-495?-499 presbyter tit s Sabinae ? 1 2221- 2222 Valens 1002 446-24 Jul 531 ep(iscopu)s ? 3 2222 Valentinianus 1002 406 praesbyter ? 1 2223- 2224 Valentinianus 1004 aft 536/541-bef Lateranensi monasterio ? 5 2224 593/594† praefuit Valentinianus 1005 583/584† frater (monachus) ? 1 2225 Valentinianus 1006 6th c ustiarius ? 4 2225 Valentinianus 1007 ? episcopus ? 5 2225 * Valentinus 1002 4th/5th c praesbyter ? 1 2226 [V]alentinus 1003 4th/5th c exorc(ista) ? 3 2226 Valentinus 1004 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 2226- 2227 Valentinus 1005 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 2227 Valentinus 1006 487-495?-499? presbyter ? 1 2227 Valentinus 1007 495 episcopus ? 0 2227- 2228 Valentinus 1008 487?-495-499? presbyter ? 1 2228 Valentinus 1009 487?-495-499? presbyter ? 1 2228 Valentinus 1010 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus eccl. Amiterninae ? 2 2229- 499-502 2230 Valentinus 1011 487?-495?-499 presbyter tit Eusebii ? 1 2230- 2231 Valentinus 1012 487?-495?-499 presbyter ? 1 2231 Valentinus 1013 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 2231- 2232 Valentinus 1014 544-553 episcopus eccl Sivae ? 1 2232- Candidae 2233 Valentinus 1015 btw 556 and 561 notarius ? 1 2234 Valentinus 1016 Mar 559 clericus ? * 2234

~~246~~

Valentinus 1018 bef 594 abbas ? * 2234- 2235 Valentinus 1019 Feb 599 presbyter ? 2 2235 Valentinus 1020 * ? episcopus ? 3 2235 [Va]lentio 1001 4th c presb(yter) ? 1 2235 Valentio 1002 bef 570/571-bef abbas ? 2 2235- 582/583 2236 Valerianus 1001 371/372-bef 393† episcopus Aquileiensium ? 3 2237- civitatis 2239 Valerianus 1006 580-598 clericus Firmanus, notarius ? 2 2241 eccl. Firmanae Valerianus 1007 Feb 595 monachus ? 2 2241 Valerianus 1008 * ? episcopus ? 2 2242 Valerianus 1009 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2242 Valerius 1003 1 Mar 499 episcopus eccl Calenae ? 5 2245- 2246 Valerius 1005 6th/7th c sacer(dos) Chr(ist)i ? 4 2246 Valerius 1006* ? episcopus ? 3 2246 Valerius 1007 * ? episcopus? ? 5 2246- 2247 Varaca 1001 586/587-593/594 nauta; clericus ? 6 2248 Varinus 1001 bef Jan 558 diaconus ? 5 2248 Vaticanus 1001 23 Oct 502 episcopus eccl Ceneliensis ? 2 2249 Venantius 1001 499-6 Nov 502? presbyter tit Marcelli ? 1 2250- 2251 Venantius 1002 6 Nov 502 episcopus eccl ? 2 2251 Senogalliensis Venantius 1003 515-516 presbyter ? 1 2251- 2253 Venantius 1005 14 May 553 episcopus eccl Lippensis ? 5 2254- 2255 Venantius 1006 587/588-bef Feb exmonachus (but still patricius 6 2255- and Aug 601† dependant upon Church) Syracusa 2256 nus Venantius 1008 May 594-May 599- episcopus Lunensis ? 4 2258- May 603? 2260 Venantius 1010 Jan 599?-Jan 604 episcopus Perusinus ? 2 2261 Venegestus 1001 6th/7th c previter (presbyter) ? 5 2261 Vener[iosus?] 1001 376-446† [os]tiarius ? 4 2262 Veneriosus 1002 23 Oct 502-6 Nov episcopus eccl Pellensis ? 2 2262 502 Venerius 1001 Apr 397-btw 404 episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 2263- and 407 2264 Venerius 1002 feb/apr 599-Jan 603 episcopus Vivonensis ? 5 2264- 2265 Verecundus 1002 6th c? ep(iscopu)s ? 3 2266 Verecundus 1003 * aft 590 episcopus ? 3 2266 Vergilius 1001 4th/5th c pr(es)b(yter) ? 2 2266 Verus 1001 btw 366 and 384 presbyter ? 1 2267 Verustimilus 1001 324 episcopus ? 0 2267

~~247~~

* Viator 1002 343 ? * 2268 Viator 1003 381 episcopus ? * 2268- 2269 Viator 1004 13 May 495 episcopus ? * 2269 Viator 1006 Sep 596-Nov 597 diaconus ? 6 2270 Viator 1008 * 4th c? episcopus ? 3 2270 Viator 1009 * ? episcopus ? 3 2271 Vibolus 1001 595-600? presbyter tit. s Marcelli ? 1 2271- 2272 Victor 1001 aft 305-aft 314? episcopus a Garbe; in urbe ? 8 2272 Roma episcopus (donatist) Victor 1002 aft 368 and bef 373 episcopus ? 0 2273 Victor 1003 4th c acolitus a dominicu slave (?) 1 2273 Clementis Victor 1004 4th c lector ? 1 2273 Victor 1004b 31 Jan 466† sac(erdos) v(ir) 4 2273 r(everen dus) Victor 1005 btw 489 and 493? Novariensis episcopus ? 4 2274 Victor 1006 btw 492 and episcopus Neapolitanus ? 5 2274- 495/496 2275 Victor 1007 484 Taurinatis urbis episcopus ? 4 2275 Victor 1008 5th c praesb(yter) tit. Nicome[dis] ? 1 2276 Victor 1011 btw 492 and 496?- episcopus eccl Lunensis ? 4 2276- 23 Oct-6 Nov 502 2277 Victor 1012 btw 526 and 530 presbiter ? 2 2277- 2278 Victor 1013 4 Apr 538?-15 Feb episcopus ? 2 2278- 545?† 2280 Victor 1014 24 Feb 541-2 Apr episcopus Capuae ? 5 2280- 554† 2281 Victor 1015 bef mid-6th c presbyter ? 3 2281 Victor 1016 Jun 591-bef Nov episcopus Panormitanus ? 6 2282- 602† 2284 Victor 1017 5 Jul 595 presbyter tit s Caeciliae ? 1 2284- 2285 Victor 1018 btw Jun 594and Jul episcopus Fausianensis ? 7 2285- 599-Oct 600 2286 Victor 1019 6th c presbiter ? 1 2286 Victor 1020 6th/7th c ep(is)c(opus) ? 7 2286 Victor 1021 Aug 619 archipraesbyter tit s v(ir) 1 2286 Caeciliae v(enerab ilis) Victor 1022 *. 324 episcopus ? 0 2287 Victor 1023 * bef 381 episcopus et confessor ? 4 2287 Victorianus 1001 5th c notarius (for Roman ? 1 2288 church?) Victorianus 1002 bef Sep/Oct 599 presbyter ? 5 2288 Victorinus 1002 btw 356 and 362 exorcista ? 4 2293

~~248~~

Victorinus 1004 aft 18 Dec 495† diaconus v(ir) 2 2293 r(everen dus) Victorinus 1005 1 Mar 499 presbyter tit Sabinae ? 1 2294 Victorinus 1007 aft 30 Aug 526 episcopus vir * 2294 venerabi lis Victorinus 1008 btw 571/572 and lect(or) ? 3 2294 586/587 Victorinus 1009 bef 590/591?† frater ? 1 2295 Victorinus 1010 bef Aug 591† episcopus eccl ? 6 2295 Tauromenitanae Victorinus 1011 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2295 Victurinus 1001 377† exsorcista ? 4 2295 Vigilius 1001 aft 381-398-bef 404 episcopus Tridentinae eccl ? 3 2296- 2297 Vigilius 1003 478-535† presbiter vir 4 2297 religiosu s Vigilius 1004 btw 501 and 513 subdiaconus ? 4 2297 Vigilius 1005 btw 526 and 530 diaconus ? 2 2297- 2298 Vigilius 1006 btw 530 and 532- 7 diaconus, apocrisarius, ? 4 2298- Jun 555† archidiaconus (?), episcopus 2299 Romae Vigilius 1009 bef Jan 596 diaconus ? 2 2300 Vigilius 1011 * bef 451 episcopus ? 3 2301 Vigilius 1012 * ? episcopus ? 4 2301 Vincemalus 1001 487?-495?-499-6 presbyter tit Crescentianae ? 1 2301- Nov 502? 2302 Vincemalus 1002 btw 526 and 530 acolitus ? 2 2302- 2303 Vincentius 1001 325-bef 368-372† presbyter romanus, ? 1 2303- episcopus a Campania de 2305 Capua Vincentius 1002 21 Jun 366† presbyter ? 1 2305- 2306 Vincentius 1003 379/380-400 presbyter ? * 2306- 2307 Vincentius 1004 4th/5th c presbyter ? 1 2307 Vincentius 1006 476-526† famulus Dei, exurcista v(ir) 4 2307 r(eligios us) Vincentius 1007 aft 11 Apr 548-May subdiaconus regionis ? 1 2308- 553 secundae; episcopus 2309 Claudiopolis metropoleos Vincentius 1008 btw Sep 558 and episcopus Neapolitanus ? 5 2310 Feb 559 Vincentius 1009 Jun/Jul 599 diaconus Ydrontinae civitatis ? 5 2310 Vincentius 1010 Jul 599 episcopus Sardiniae ? 7 2311 Vincentius 1011 * btw 303 and 313† episcopus ? 2 2311 Vindemius 1001 495?-499-502 episcopus eccl Antiatinae ? 5 2312-

~~249~~

2313 Vindemius 1002 btw 526 and 530 acolitus ? 2 2313 Vindemius 1003 btw 577 and 586- episcopus Cessensis ? 3 2313- 590 2314 Vindemius 1005 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2314- 2315 Vindicianus 1001 * ? episcopus ? 2 2315 Vindicius 1001 * ? episcopus ? 2 2315 Vindimius 1001 536†? presb(yter) v(ir) 2 2315 v(enerab ilis) Vindimius 1002 btw 556 and 561 abbas ? 5 2316 Virbonus 1001 5 Jul 595 episcopus civitatis ? 2 2316- Tuscanensis 2317 Virigantinus 1001 Sep/Oct 594 in monasterio… lectioni ? * 2317 vacat Vit[…] 1001 4th/5th c lector ? 1 2317 Vitalianus 1001 aft 368 and bef 373 episcopus ? 0 2318 Vitalianus 1002 495?-499 episcopus eccl ? 2 2318- Arniensis/Narniensis 2319 Vitalianus 1003 495?-499 episcopus eccl Rosellanae ? 2 2319 Vitalianus 1005 551 praesb(yter) ? 2 2320 Vitalianus 1007 Nov 594 expresbyter ? 4 2320- 2321 Vitalianus 1008 btw Dec 593 and episcopus Sipontinus ? 5 2321 Nov 597-Jul 599 Vitalis 1002 398 presbyter ? * 2322 Vitalis 1003 483-bef 495† episcopus Troentinate ? 2 2322- 2325 Vitalis 1004 484 episcopus Sulcitanus ? 7 2325 Vitalis 1005 487-6 Nov 502 episcopus Fundanus ? 5 2325- 2327 Vitalis 1006 495?-499 episcopus Fanestris ? 2 2327- 2328 Vitalis 1007 515-516 diaconus ? 1 2328- 2329 Vitalis 1008 btw 526 and 530 subdiaconus ? 2 2330 Vitalis 1010 bef Jul 552 episcopus Mediolanensis ? 4 2330 Vitalis 1011 557-558/559 episcopus Tusciae ? 2 2331 Annonariae Vitalis 1012 bef 565 antistes ? 3-4 2331- 2332 Vitalis 1013 567 episcopus Altinatis ? 3 2332 Vitalis 1013b bef 577?† abbas monasterii Casinensis ? 5 2332 Vitalis 1017 * late 6th/early 7th c? episcopus ? 3 2335 Vitalis 1018* 324 episcopus ? 0 2335 Vitalius 1001 343 ? * 2335- 2336 Vivulus 1001 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 2338 Vivulus 1002 7-9 Dec 531 presbyter ? 1 2338

~~250~~

Volusianus 1004 * 324 episcopus ? 0 2342 Xystus 1001 6th c presbyter ? 1 2370 Yginus 1001 359 episcopus ? * 2370- 2371 Ypatius 1001 5th/6th c praesb(yter) sanctae aclesiae ? 2 2371 catholice Ravennat[is] Yppolitus 1001 Apr 593-Sep 593 clericus, notarius ? 4 2371- 2372 Ysaac 1001 btw 526 and 530 lector ? 2 2372 Zacheus 1001 bef 492/496 episcopus ? 5 2373 Zachaeus 1002 aft Mar 550-May episcopus eccl Scyllacenae ? 5 2373- 553 2375 Zama 1001 * 4th c episcopus ? 3 2375 Ze[…] 1001 btw 366 and 384† [famulus D]ei, o[stiarius] ? 1 2376 Zeno 1001 aft 356-aft 360? episcopus Veronensis ? 3 2376- 2377 Zenobius 1002 412/413 in civitate Florentina… ? 2 2378 episcopus Zinzius 1001 3rd/4th c subd(iaconus) ? 1 2379 Zosimus 1001 343 episcopus ? * 2380 Zosimus 1002 355/356-btw 383 episcopus in Neapoli civitate ? 5 2380- and 384 Campania 2381 Zosimus 1003 417-418† episcopus ? 9 2381 Zoticus 1001 30 sep-2 Oct 313 episcopus a Quintiano ? 2 2381 […]anpenus 1001 526-556† lector ? 5 2385 […]antius 1001 aft 348† lector de Pallacine ? 1 2386 […]asius 1001 6th c presbyter tit s mar[tyris ? 1 2386 Crisogoni?] […]atus 1001 4th c prae[sbyter] ? 1 2387 […]autino[…] 5th/6th c pr(esbyter) ? 4 2387 […]cet 1001 6th c p(res)b(yter) ? 3 2387 […]continus 1001 5th c presbyter ? 1 2388 […]didus 1001 386† pres(byter) ? 5 2388 […]dinus 1001 5th c? presbi[ter] v(ir) 2 2388 v(enerab ilis) […]ditarius 1001 26 Jan 488 [epi]scopus Aquen[sis] ? 4 2388 […]dius 1001 4th c? [p]raesby[ter] ? 1 2389 […]erius 1001 7th c episcopus ecl(lesiae) ? 3 2389 Pol(ensis) […]ius 1001 483 or 490† praesuiter ? 5 2390 […]ius 1002 5th/6th c diaco[nus] ? 1 2390 […]ius 1003 531 or 532† p(res)b(yter) tit. I[…] ? 1 2390 […]ldo 1001 6th c pr(es)b(y)t(er) ? 4 2391 […]nedic[…] 1001 5th c […]s epis(copus) ? 4 2391 […]nio 1001 5th c? lector de Savi[ne?] ? 1 2393 […]nis 1001 6th/7th c stauroforis (cross-bearer in ? 1 2393 stations of the cross)

~~251~~

[…]nos ([…] ) 4th/5th c? ι [ ] ? 6 2393 1001 […]nstantius 1001 4th/5th c diaconus ? 1 2393 […]nus 1001 4th/5th c presbiter ? 1 2394 […]nus 1002 545-30 Aug 558 lictor (=lector) ? 5 2394 […]onis 1001 386 presb[yter] ? 1 2395 […]or 1002 6th c ep(is)c(opus) ? 4 2395- 2396 […]orus 1001 4th/5th c [pre]sbite[r] ? 1 2396 […]oulos 4th/5th c [ι ] [ ? 6 2396 ([…] ) 1001 ]η ( sic) […]silius 1001 4th/5th c [de Fa]sicola (clericus) ? 1 2397 […]t[…]e[…] 1001 ? episcopus ? 3 2397 * […]theus 1001 4th c? lector ? 1 2397 […]tio 1001 5th/6th c clericus? ? 1 2397- 2398 […]tius 1001 5th c? episco[pus] ? 1 2398 […]tius 1002 289-19 Jun 362† lec[tor] ecles[ie c]atholice ? 1 2398 […]tus 1001 aft Aug 490† pre[sbyter] ? 4 2398 […]us 1001 4th c aepiscopus Tarracinensis ? 5 2399 […]us 1002 4th/5th c lec[tor] ? 1 2399 […]us 1003 btw 386 and 422† acolut(us) ? 1 2399 […]us 1004 5th/6th c subdia(conus) v(ir) 4 2399 r(eligios us)

~~Part 2: Lay Males~~

Name Dates Office/Occuptaion Rank Location Page in Code PCBE A[…] 1001 4th/5th c. ? ? 3 1 Abouterios 1001 339 to 346-350/51 ? ? 1 1 Abramius 1001 * ? ? ? * 1 Accellus 1001 Dec. 598/Jan. 599 senior civitatis (magistrate?) ? 5 9 Acolus 1001 448? praepositus regalis cubiculi ? 2 12 Acontius 1002 before 593/594 mansionarius, custos ? 1 13 ecclesiae Acosimus 1001 Jan. 593 sclavus sclavus 6 13 Ad[…] 1001 5th C. ? ? 3 13 Adelphius 1001 after 351 praefectus Urbis ? 1 14-15 Ademunt 1001 4 April 553 ? nat. son 2 15 of vir gloriosus Adeodatus 1001 4th/5th c. fossor ? 1 17 Adeodatus 1017 before Feb 595 ? civis 2 25 Adeodatus 1018 596-597 strator inlustris 2 25 Adeodatus 1019 July 599 ? ? 5 25-26

~~252~~

Adila 1001 btw. 507-511 comes vir 4 27 spectabili s Adquisitus 1001 c. 600 ? vir 4 27 clarissim us Adrias 1001 4th/5th c. ? ? 3 30 Adulouualdus b. Dec 603 rex ? 4 31 1001 Aelianus 1002 6th C. ? ? 2 31 Aemilianus 1003 Feb 559 magister militiae ? 5 34 Aemilius 1002 late 6th c. ? ? 5 36 Afrodisius 1002 3 January 419 tribunus et notarius vir 2 39 clarissim us Afrodites 1001 5th C. ? ? 3 39 Agapitus 1010 5th c.? ? ? 3 45 Agapitus 1013 517-before May 526 consul (517) consulari 1 46-47 s, senator Agapitus 1014 btw 503 and 508?- ? patricius 1 47-48 520?-before May 526 Agatho 1001 early 5th c.? ? student 2 51 Agatho 1006 July 596-Feb 601 ? ? 6 54 Agilulfus 1001 590-616† rex Langobardorum - 4 56-57 Aginatius 1001 368-375/376 vicarius Urbis Romanae; patrician 1 57-58 praetorian prefect of Gaul Agnellus 1005 btw 520 and 26 May notary vir 2 64 521 honestus forensis Agnellus 1015 5th/6th century ? vir 3 70 clarissim us Alaricus 1001 391-late 410† dux/rex Gothorum ? * 73-74 Albinus 1002 Aug 440-447 praefectus praetorio ? 1 78 Albinus 1003 after 493-524/525 praefectus praetorio Italiae patricius 1 78-79 Albinus 1008 June 594 ? ? 6 80 Albinus 1011 * btw 432 and 440 ? patricius 1 81-82 Aldio 1001 before June/July magister militum vir 1 82 592-Jan 599 magnific us Alexander 1001 btw 337 and 352 fossor ? 1 83 Alexander 1008 Fall 518 ? v(ir) 1 85 s(pectabi lis) Alexander 1010 May 591?-Nov 598- ? vir 6 87 June 599? magnific us Alexander 1011 Oct 600 praetor Siciliae ? 6 87 Alexander 1014 * btw 432 and 440 advocatus ? 1 88

~~253~~

Alexandros 4th/5th c ιι ? 1 89 ( [] ) ει 1001 Alico 1001 btw 501 and 513 ? ? 0 90 Aligernus 1001 Oct 598 ? ? 1 90 Alypius 1001 btw 374 and 397 ? unspec. 0 92 High rank Alypius 1002 391? praefectus urbis ? 1 92-93 Amandianus 1001 4th/5th C ? ? 2 94 Amandianus 1002 btw 492 and 496 ? vir 1 95 illustris Amandinus 1002 Sep/Oct 598?-Nov domesticus high rank 1 95-96 598 Amandus 1002 522† ? ? 1 97 Amantius 1002 4th/5th C ? ? 2 98 Amantius 1005 4 April 553 ? v(ir) 2 99 s(pectabi lis) Amantius 1008 * 5th c ? clarissim 0 100 us Amatius 1001 btw 520 and 26 May ? v(ir) 2 101 521- 3 June 521 d(evotus) Ambrosius 1001 333/4 or 339/40 positus in administratione ? 8 104 praefecturae Galliarum Ambrosius 1002 Mar 392? ? ? 4 105 Ambrosius 1004 509-533 quaestor, agens vices of high 4 105 praefecti praetorio rank Ammonius 1003 3 Jan-13 Jan 552 arg(entarius) v(ir) 1 107 c(larissi mus) Ammonius 1005 * ? ? ? 9 107 Ampelius 1001 371 praefectus Urbis Romae ? 1 108 Ampelius 1002 before 25 Mar 534 ? ? 2 108-109 Ampelius 1003 Feb 559 ? ? 1 109 Anabasius 1001 402 ? ? 3 110 Anamundarius July 600 ? ? 1 110 1001 Anastasius 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 112 Anastasius 1005 btw 492 and 496 defensor ecclesiae Romanae ? 1 114 Anastasius 1008 early 6th c ? vir 1 116 inlustris, consulari s? Anastasius 1010 14 Dec 556 ? ? 8 117 Anastasius 1013 before 29 Apr 560 argentarius et arcarius ? 2 117-118 Anastasius 1015 Sept 594 medicus ? 6 118 Anastasius 1017 Oct 596 tribunus ? 7 119 Anastasius 1018 Oct 598 ? ? 6 119 Anastasius 1019 600? ? v(ir) 2 120

~~254~~

h(onestus ) excab(?... ) s(?...) s(?...) Anastasius 1021 early 7th c? trib(unus) b(asilicae) ? 1 120 s(an)c(ti) Petri Anastasius 1024 * 4th c ? ? 1 121 Anatolius 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 121 Anatolius 1004 * 5th C exconsul ? 1 125 Andrea 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 125 Andrea 1002 btw 592 and Feb ? orator 1 126 603 [An]dreas 1003 4th C fossor? ? 1 127 Andreas 1012 Mar 559 ? ? 1 131 Andreas 1014 25 Feb - 1 Apr 575 ? v(ir) 2 131-132 h(onestus ) Andreas 1019 595-599 scholasticus vir 2 134-135 magnific us Andromachus btw 484 and 489- magister officiorum vir 9 137 1001 btw 492 and 496 illustris Anicit[us?] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 139 Anilas 1001 Mar/Apr 559 comes ? 0 140 Anna 1001 btw 507 and 511 comes vir 2 141 spectabili s Annio 1001 Nov/Dec 598 comes castri Aprutiensis ? 2 143 Firmensis Ansfrid 1001 Jun 600 dux or magister militum ? 2 143 Anthimus 1001 544 scribo ? 1 150 Antiochus 1001 btw 374 and 397 n/a vir 1 151 consulari s Antiochus 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 151 Antiochus 1004 4th c lector? ? 7 152 [Anto?]ninu[s] 4th C ? ? 3 155 1002 Antoninus 1003 479-554† argent(arius) ? 1 155-156 Antoninus 1004 btw 572 and 586 ? ? 3 156 Antoninus 1005 580-before May defensor ? 6 156-157 591† Antonius 1003 btw 374 and 397 ? ? 0 160 Antonius 1004 395? ? ? 0 160-161 Antonius 1006 btw 492 and 496 ? ? 5 161 Antonius 1010 btw 587 and 589 defensor eccl. Aquileiensis ? 3 163 Aphrodisius 1001 384/5 tribunus et notarius ? 1 165 Aphtonius 1001 Jan 419 decurio sacrii palacii vir 2 165 clarissim

~~255~~

us Apollinaris 1001 4th/5th c consul(aris) Venet(iae) et ? 3 166 Histriae Apollinaris 1002 27 Dec 480 ? v(ir) 2 166 d(evotus) Apollonius 1001 Oct 598 magister militum ? 6 166-167 Apro 1001 2nd half of 4th c? fossor? ? 1 171 Apronianus 1001 398-407 ? Turciae 3 171-173 gens decus Apronianus 1002 5th/6th century ? vir 3 173 inl(ustris ) Apronius 1001 417-419 ? ? 1 174 Aptonius 1001 before 593† ? inlustris 5 174 vir Aquilinus 1001 aft 6 Aug 378-bef 4 vicarius (Urbis Romae) ? 1 175 Aug 379 Aquilinus 1002 4th C fossor ? 1 175 Aquilinus 1003 5th C ? ? 3 176 Arbogast 1001 393-394 magister militum, comes ? 3 177-178 Arborius 1001 4 April 553 v(ir) c(larissimus) ? 2 178 Archelaus 1002 5th/6th century ? ? 3 183 Archelaus 1003 Apr 595-Oct 608 medicus vir 6 183 clarissim us Arcontius 1001 5th C ? ? 3 185 Argentius 1001 Oct 598 colonus ecclesiae Romanae ? 6 185-186 Argolicus 1001 510/511 praefectus Urbis vir 1 186 illustris Arigernus 1001 502-510/511 comes vir 2 186-187 illustris Ariulfus 1001 591-601† dux ? 2 188-189 Armenius 1002 btw 502 and 513 ? ? 3-4 190 Armenius 1003 btw Jun 557 and Jul ? ? 2 190 570 Armenius 1004 Apr 593 ? magnific 0 191 us Armentarius 1001 Mar 559 magister militum ? 0 192 Armentarius 1002 571† puer (='serviteur') ? 1 192 Arogis 1001 591-599 dux ? 5 195 Arsacius 1001 5th/6th century ? ? 4 196 Arsicinus 1001 Jul 591 dux ? 2 196 Artemius 1001 20 Jan 378-13 Oct ? c(larissi 2 197 384† mus) p(uer) Asellus 1002 4th C fossor ? 1 200 Asellus 1005 aft 468 praef(ectus) Urb(is) ? 1 202 Asparacius 1001 bef 25 Jun 453 magister offiicorum (?) vir 9 205 illustrissi

~~256~~

mus Asta[…] 1001 394 or 396 or 402 or praepositus ? 1 206 406 Asterius 1003 4th/5th c comes pistorum ? 1 206-207 Asterius 1013 494 comes, Urban Prefect, ? 1 210 consul (494) (presuma bly consulari s after 494) Asterius 1015 btw 537 and Nov ? ? (son of 0 211 545† consul) Attalus 1001 409-415 Augustus ? 9 215-216 Atticus 1001 btw 374 and 397 ? ? 0 216 Augustinus 1004 Feb/Apr 599 ? merchant 5 223 Augustus 1005 Oct 598?-Jan 602 ? vir 2 226 clarissim us Augustus 1007 * 4th c ? ? 1 226 Avienus 1001 452-468 ? vir 1 226-227 consulari s Avienus 1002 502-Mar 534† consul, praefectus praetorio ? 1 227-228 Avitus 1002 btw 501 and 513- ?, 'of judicial character' magnitud 3 230-231 Mar 534 o, culmen (no exact rank attested) Aurelius 1002 2nd half of 4th c? fossor? ? 1 234 Aurentinus 1001 4th c [f]ossor ? 1 235 Auxanon 1001 3rd/4th c fosor ? 1 237 Auxentius 1002 382-384 architect v(ir) 1 241 c(larissi mus) Auxiliaris 1001 435/437?-445 praefectus ? 8 244-245 Azimarchus 1001 598 scribo vir 1 245 magnific us Bacauda 1002 545 ? ? 2 246-247 Bacauda 1003 bef Oct 590† ? ? 6 247 Baduarius 1001 bef 576/577† ? curopalat 2 249 es?, patricius Bahan 1001 bef Jan 599 magister militum ? 2 249-250 Baiolus 1001 6th/7th c pontificum... primus ? 1 250 vestiarius Bal[…] 1001 5th c ? ? 1 250 Barbeousos 5th c ? ? 0 256 (ε ) 1001

~~257~~

Barbes 1001 5th c ? ? 3 256 Barsaina 1001 5th/6th century pr(i)m(icerius) pe(n)sorum ? 3 257 Basilius 1003 5th c ? ? 3 258 Basilius 1007 483 Praefectus praetorio, agens patricius 1 262-263 vices praecellentissimi regis Odovacris Basilius 1011 510/511 senator ? 1 265-266 Basilius 1013 523 ? ? 2 266 Basilius 1014 546 ? Son of 1 266 consul? Basilius 1016 Mar/Apr 559 defensor sedis nostrae ? 0 267 Basilius 1018 Feb 599 ? ? 5 268 Basilius 1019 Oct 598?-May 599 ? magnitud 2 268-269 o, vir clarissim us? Bassus 1001 bef 383/384 praefectus urbis Romae ? 1 271 Bassus 1002 aft 395 consul (408) ? 1 271 Aristocra tic Bassus 1003 425-435 comes rei privitate (425), aristocrat 3 272 praetorian prefect, consul ic; (431) presum. Consular post-431 Bassus 1007 4 April 553 ? v(ir) 2 275 c(larissi mus) Bauto 1001 384 magister militaris, comes ? 4 276 Beator 1001 Feb 603 quasi comes privatorum ? * 276 Beatus 1002 509-bef 512 ? aristocrat 1 277-278 ic Bedeulfus 1001 Aug 502-Oct 502 maior domi (regiae) ? 1 278 Belisarios 536-551 magister militum, consul patricius 5 279-281 (ειι ) 1001 Bellicius 1001 btw 374 and 397 ? ? 4 282-283 Ben[…] 1001 btw 571/2 and 586/7 ? ? 3 283 Benedictus 1007 btw 590 and 604 notarius, defensor ? 1 291 Carseolani Benenatus 1002 btw 492 and 496 ? municeps 5 292 Benenatus 1004 btw early 5th c and ? ? 2 293 mid-6th c Benerosus 1001 4th/5th c fossor? ? 1 296 Benivolus 1001 386-bef 410 magister memoriae ? 3 298-299 Bernaclus 1001 4th c fossor? ? 1 300 Betancus 1001 508?-512? comes ? 4 300 Biator 1001 2nd half of the 4th fossor? ? 1 300 c.? Biaturinu(s) 1001 5th c? fossor? ? 1 300 Bibulus 1001 btw 571/2 and 586/7 ? ? 3 301

~~258~~

Bicator 1001 4th c fossor? ? 1 301 Bictorinus 1001 4th c? fossor? ? 1 301 Bictorius 1001 6th C. ? ? 5 302 Biktor ( ) 4th c ηε , ? 1 302 1001 ι Blanca 1001 Aug 599 conductor vir 6 303 clarissim us Blidin 1001 btw 542 and 546 comes ? 2 311-312 Boethius 1001 504?-525† consul, magister officium patricius 4 312-316 Bonifatius 1001 4th c ?, possibly a bishop ? 8 317 Bonifatius 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 2 317 Bonifatius 1016 btw 501 and 513 ? of good * 330 birth Bonif[atius] 1022 mid-6th c? ? ? 2 332 Bonifatius 1024 bef 575 ? ? 1 333 Bonifatius 1027 Sept 590-bef numerarius ? 1 334 Nov/Dec 598† Bonifatius 1032 Apr 593 ? vir 6 339-340 clarissim us Bonifatius 1034 Jul 593 ? ? 6 340-341 Bonifatius 1035 bef Sept-Oct 594 notarius ? * 341 Bonifatius 1036 Oct 598 ? ? 6 341 Bonifatius 1038 Feb/Apr 599-Feb notarius ? 1 342 603? Boninus 1001 Jul 599 defensor ? 1 343-344 Bonosu[s] 1004 5th/6th century def(ensor) s(an)c(t)ae ? 3 345 eccl(esiae) Terg(estinae) Bonus 1007 572 bracarius v(ir) 2 349 h(onestus ) Bonus 1008 bef Jul 593 ? ? 2 349 Bonus 1010 btw 590 and 602 tabellio civitatis ? 2 350 Rav(ennatis) Brumarius 1001 btw 492 and 496 ? spectabili 5 351 s vir Burco 1001 458/9 ? ? 4 351-2 Burdo 1001 426 fossor ? 1 352 Busa 1001 12 Mar 595 scribo ? 1 352 C[…] 1002 4th/5th c fossor? ? 1 353 Caelianus 1001 510/11 senator magnific 1 375 us et patricius vir Caesonius 1001 late 5th c ? v(ir) 2 376 d(evotus) Calevius 1001 400 fossor? ? 1 378 Callepius 1001 bef 355 ? ? 4 or 5 379

~~259~~

Calligonus 1001 Feb-Apr 386-bef praepositus cubiculi ? 4 380 388†? Calligonus 1002 4th c fossor ? 1 380 Callinicus 1001 Spring 597-601/2 exarchus Italiae patricius 2 380-383 Callixenus 1001 Nov 598-Jul 599 ? ? 6 383-384 Camasius 1001 4th c ? ? 1 386 Campanianus bef May 591† proprietor ? 6 387 1001 Candidianus 1001 btw 374 and 397 ? ? 0 387 Candidus 1002 3rd/4th c fossor ? 1 388 Candidus 1007 Jun 594-Oct 598 defensor ? 6 392 Candidus 1010 oct 596 servant ? 6 394 Candidus 1013* 4th c ? ? 0 394 Caninus 1001 398 ? ? 1 395 Carbonarus 1001 6th C. ? ? 1 397 Carellus 1001 Mar/Apr 559 magister militum ? 2 398 Carpilio 1001 4th/5th c ? sen(ior?) 3 400 Carterius 1002 bef 583/584 possessor ? 5 401 Cassiodorus 1002 506-aft 550 praefectus praetorio, senator patricius 5 403-409 Castalius 1001 551 ? ? * 411 Castinus 1002* early 5th c ? ? 2 412 Castorius 1001 Jan 491 ? v(ir) 2 412 c(larissi mus) Castorius 1005 Feb 593 defensor ? 2 415 Castorius 1006 593/4 ? aristocrat 2 415 ic Castorius 1008 * bef 526 ? ? 5 418 Castrensis 1001 * ? ? ? 5 419 Castus 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 3 420 Castus 1004 Jul 593-Jun 595 magister militum ? 1 421 Catellus 1003 Sep/Oct 594 palatinus ? * 423 Catellus 1004 May 597 ? ? 5 423 Catulinus 1001 358 agens in rebus ? 9 425 Celerinus 1002 400 fossor ? 1 426 Cerealis 1001 402-bef 410 ? ? 1 428 Cethegus 1001 509-559 consul (504), magister patricius 1 428-430 officiorum, caput senatus Cethegus 1002 Nov/Dec 598 ? vir 1 430 gloriosus Chrysaorius 1001 bef 590/91† ? vir 2 438 nobilis in Valeria provincia Citonatus 1002 Sep 590 ? vir 6 442 magnific us

~~260~~

Clamosus 1001 4th/5th c magister puerorum ? 3 443 Clarentius 1001 Mar/Apr 559 ? slave 5 443 Clarus 1002 5th c ? ? 3 445 Claudianus 1003 btw 395 and 404 tribunus et notarius, poeta ? 2 447 Claudius 1002 403 fossor? ? 1 448 Claudius 1004 btw 492 and 496 ? vir * 449 spectabili s Claudius 1007 * btw 432-440 ? patricius 1 452 Clementianus btw 374 and 397 ? ? 0 453 1001 Clementinus 1002 aft 25 Mar 534 ? ? 2 455-456 Co[…] 1001 6th C. ? ? 2 456 Comitaticius 1001 Nov 598-Feb/Apr comes ? 5 460 599 Comitiolus 1001 bef Jan 599 excubitor ? 5 460 Concordianus 4th/5th c ? ? 3 462 1001 Conc[ordi]us 1003 btw 571/2 and 586/7 ? ? 3 463 Conigastus 1001 527 ? vir 0 465 illustris Consentius 1001 Nov/Dec 598 ? ? 6 465 Consentius 1002 bef 599† defensor… patrimonii ? 5 465 Campaniae Constantinus 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 1 467 Constantinus 1008 558/9 defensor ? 5 471-472 Constantinus 1009 Feb 559 iudex ? 5 472 Constantius 1002 btw 374 and 397 ? ? 0 473 Constantius 1003 bef 382/3?-btw 397 ? ? 1 473 and 404 Constantius 1007 4th c ? ? 3 474 Constantius 1008 4th/5th c fossor? ? 1 474 Constantius 4th/5th c ε εε ? * 475 (ωι ) ω 1009 (an assessor of the Italian prefect) Constantius 1011 418† exvicarius, servus Dei ? 1 475 Constantius 1012 418-419 consul (414), imperator (r. patricius 1 475-476 421) (415- 421) Constantius 1014 37 Dec 480 ? v(ir) 2 476 d(evotus) Constantius 1019 494? ? vir 0 479 spectabili s Constantius 1020 5th c ? ? 3 479 Constantius 1024 btw 520 and Jun 521 ? v(ir) 2 480 d(evotus) [Co]nstantius mid-6th c? scol(aris) scole armaturae v(ir) 2 481 1026 d(evotus)

~~261~~

Constantius 1030 bef Jul 591 defensor ? 5 486 Constantius 1031 Jul 592 tribunus vir 5 486 magnific us Constantius 1038 late 4th/early 5th c ? ? 2 490 * Copiosus 1001 593-594 medicus ? 1 491 Cosmas 1001 bef Jul 593-Aug 594 Syrus in negotio (merchant) ? 9 492-493 Costantius 1001 mid-6th c? ? ? 2 493 Crescentius 1003 aft Aug 598-Jul 599 "functionary in the service vir 1 499 of the Byzantine clarissim Administration" us Crescentius 1005 btw 432-440 ? ? 0 499-500 * Cresconius 1001 Jan 396 ? ? 4 500 Cresconius 1003 Feb 559 ? vir 6 504 illustris Crihsogonus 1001 early 7th c cancell(arius) v(ir) 1 505 c(larissi mus) Crispinus 1006 * 5th c ? ? 0 508 Crysogonus 1001 5th/6th c def(ensor) s(an)c(t)ae ? 3 509 eccl(esiae) Aquil(eiensis) Ctesiphon 1001 415 ? ? 1 509-510 Cumquodeus 1001 593/4† advocatus ? 1 510 Currentius 1001 btw 382 and Aug ? ? 1 510 385 Currentius 1002 4th c? servus Dei ? 1 511 Cuss[…] 1001 btw 377 and 352 ? ? 1 511 Cynegius 1001 btw 393 and 396? ? ? 8 512 Cynegius 1002 bef 421† ? ? 5 512 Cyprianus 1002 aft 395-bef 425 poet ? * 513 Cyprianus 1007 13 Jan 552 defensor eccl. Ravennatis ? 2 515-516 Cyriacus 1002 4th c ? ? 3 521 Cyriacus 1005 Aug 591 ? ? 6 523 Cyridanus 1001 bef Nov 598- "imperial functionary" ? 6 526 Feb/Apr 599 D[…]us 1001 5th c ? ? 3 528 Dalmatius 1002 Mar 386 tribunus et notarius ? 0 529 D[al]matius 1003 4th/5th c ? ? 2 529 Damianus 1001 6th C. ? ? 3 530 Danihel 1001 551 spodeus ? 2 531 Debestus 1001 4th c montanarius qui laboravit ? 1 535 per omnium [ sic ] cimiterium (=gravedigger) Decentius 1001 394-bef 412/3† ? clarissim 2 535-536 (us) vir Decentius 1003 5th c ? ? 3 537 Decentius 1004 5th c ? ? 3 537

~~262~~

Decius 1002 510/11 ? magnific 1 539 us et patricius vir Decius 1003 18 May 544†? cubicularius hui[us ? 1 539 basilicae?] Decius 1004 Oct 584 ? patricius, 2 540 vir gloriosiss imus Decoratus 1001 btw 501 and 513-bef quaestor (sacrii palatii) ? 2 541-542 524† Decoratus 1002 btw 523 and 526 ? vir 0 542 devotus Decoratus 1003 Feb 559 ? patricius 0 542 Delfinus 1001 4th/5th c fossor ? 1 543 Delicatus 1001 5th c ? ? 1 543 Dem[etria]nus 5th c ? ? 3 544 1001 Demetrius 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 547 Demetrius 1003 6th c? ? ? 1 548 Deogratias 1001 511 fidelis portitior ? 1 549-550 Desiderius 1002 aft 393-bef 401 ? ? 1 551 Desiderius 1003 27 Dec 480 ? ? 2 551 Desiderius 1004 bef Dec 587 memorialis clarissim 1 551 us vir Deusdedet 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 1 552 Deusdedit 1003 5th/6th c defensor s(an)c(ta)e eclesie ? 7 553 Karalitane Deusdedit 1005 551-Jan 552 forensis civitatis Classis ? 2 553-554 Rav(ennatis) Deusdedit 1006 bef 557/9 ? notable' 1 554 Deusdedit 1007 Dec 587 notarius vir 1 554 honestus Deusdedit 1008 Oct 592 ? ? 5 554 Deusdedit 1009 bef 593-594† cobbler ? 1 555 Deusdedit 1013 6th c defensor s(an)c(t)e ecclesie ? 7 557 kar(a)litane Deuterius 1001 502-506 grammaticus ? 4 558 Deuterius 1003 * btw 432 and 440 advocatus ? 1 559 Diaconus 1001 359? ? ? 0 559 Diannius 1001 5th/6th c ? v(ir) 2 559 s(pectabi lis) Diodorus 1001 364/74† exagens in rebus ? 4 560 Diogenes 1003 4th c fossor ? 1 561 Diogenianus 1001 13 May 495 ? vir 1 562 spectabili s Dionysius 1003 btw 492 and 496 ? ? 5 566

~~263~~

Diophantus 3rd/4th c fossor? ? 1 570 (ι ) 1001 Dives 1001 498 praepositus ? 1 579 Dominicus 1003 btw 571/2 and 586/7 notarius ? 3 581 Dominicus 1006 May 591 secretarius ? 6 584-585 Domitianus 1002 Feb 593 ? ? 0 587 Domitius 1002 Nov/Dec 598- ? magnific 5 588 May/Jun 599? us vir Domnellus 1001 Jul 599-Aug 599 erogator ? 2 589 Dom ic [i]s 1001 early 7th c [o]ptio numer(i) v(ir) 2 590 [Se]rm[isi(ani)] c(larissi mus) Domnicus 1001 17 Sept 540 comes domesticorum exconsul * 591 et patricius Domninus 1004 btw 571/2 and 586/7 ? v(ir) 3 593 c(larissi mus) Domnius 1001 btw 571/2 and 586/7 caligarius ? 3 594-595 Donatianus 1002 6th c ? ? 3 595 Donatus 1004 410 ? ? 0 597 Donatus 1005 btw Apr and Sep ? ? 1 597 419 Donatus 1009 Jan 591-Oct 598 officialis ? 7 598 Donatus 1012 Jul 599 ? ? 5 599-600 Donatus 1014 6th c? ? ? 2 600 Drocton 1001 584-bef Jan 595† dux ? 3 603-604 Dulcitius 1007 557-559 defensor (in Apulia) ? 5 610 Dulcitius 1008 btw Sep 558 and ? vir 5 611 Feb 559 patricius Dulcitius 1009 Mar 600 agens vices [praefecto vir 5 611 praetorio] magnific us Edasius 1001 btw 501 and 513 ? aristocrat 4 615-616 Elpid(ius?) 1001 6th c ? ? 2 619 Emeritus 1001 Jul 535 defensor ? 8 619 E[mi]lianus 1001 25 Feb - 1 Apr 575 scr(i)n(iarius) gl(oriosae) v(ir) 2 620 s(edis) d(evotus) Encolpius 1001 aft 314 Donatist pretender to see of ? 8 620 Rome Epiphanius 1002 449 tribunus ? 1 641-642 Epiphanius 1024 6th c ? ? 5 654 Epiphanius 1025 early 7th c aurifex ? 1 654 Epiphanius 1029 * btw 432 and 460 ? aristocrat 1 655 Eraclius 1001 bef 410?† ? ? 0 657-658 Erculanius 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 658 Erculius 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 658 Erduic 1001 501-513 ? inlustris 4 658-659 vir

~~264~~

Esychius 1001 Mar-Apr 453 ? vir 8 or * 660 illustris Eucherius 1001 381 consul ? 1 666 Eucherius 1002 396-408† notarius et tribunus high (son 1 666-667 of Stilicho) Euclerius 1001 5th c? comes ? 0 667 Euentius 1002 4th/5th c cent(urio) ? 5 669 Eugenes 1001 506/7 quaestor palatii; magister ? 4 673 officiorum Eugenius 1004 2 Dec 537† ? servus 5 675 Eugenius 1005 Jan-Feb 599 notarius, rector patrimonii ? 2 675-676 Euila 1001 * 6th/7th c comes, Chr(ist)i famulus v(ir) 2 679 c(larissi mus) Eulogius 1003 20 Jun 519-21 Oct agens in rebus, tribunus et vir 9 684-685 520 notarius spectabili s Eumorphius 1001 bef 577/80 ? ? 1 685 Eunom[…] 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 686 Eupaterius 1001 598-599 dux Sardiniae, magister ? 7 687 militum Euplus 1002 bef May 591† conductor ? 1 688 Euplus 1003 Jul 594 ? ? 6 688-689 Eupsychius 1001 11 Aug 449 ? vir 9 689 honorabil is E[u]resius 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 2 689 Eurialus 1001 29 April 405 ? v(ir) 1 690 h(onestus ) Euse[…] 1001 aft 389 ? ? 1 690 [E]useb[es] 5th c ? ? 3 690 ([ ]ε [ ]) 1001 Eusebius 1005 Mar 392?-393? ? ? 4 703 Eusebius 1005b 396 praefectus ? 4 703 Eusebius 1010 5th c ? ? 3 705-706 Eusebius 1012 523/4 praefectus Urbis v(ir) 1 706-707 c(larissi mus) et inl(ustris ) Eusebius 1014 2nd half of the 6th c ? ? 9 707 Eusebius 1016 6th/7th c ? in(dignus 1 708 ) fa(mulus ) Euserius 1001 early 5th c? ? artisan 2 709 Eusignius 1001 23 Jan 386-28 Mar praefectus praetorio ? 4 709-710 386

~~265~~

Eustathius 1001 bef 410 ? ? * 712 Eutharicus 1001 519-bef 526† consul son-in- 2 720 law of King Theodori c Eutherius 1001 4th c ? ? 4 721 Eutherius 1002 bef Dec 590† ? vir 5 721 magnific us Euthicius 1003 6th c ? noble 5 722 Euthymius 1002 386-387 ? ? 4 723 Euthymius 1003 * btw 432 and 440 praefectus Urbis ? 1 723 Eutichius 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 723 Euticius 1001 4th c confessor ? 2 723 Euticus 1001 4th c ostiarius ? 1 724 Eutyches 1002 Feb/Apr 599 praefecturius vir 1 725 illustris Eutychianos bef 397† ε ? 1 725 (ι ) 1001 Eutychianus 1001 4th c Dei serv(u)s ? 1 725 Exhilaratus 1001 Sep/Oct 594-bef Jun secundicerius ? 1 727 597 Exsuperius 1001 395 ? ? 1 730 [Exu]perantius 4th/5th c fossor ? 1 731 1002 Exuperus 1001 4th c fossor (?) ? 1 733 Fabricius 1001 end of the 4th c ? ? 1 738 Fantinus 1001 bef May 591-Sep defensor et rector patrimonii ? 6 739-744 603 partium Panormitanarum Faustinus 1003 Mar 392?-394? ? ? 3 749 Faustinus 1004 Mar 392? ? ? 4 749-750 Faustinus 1005 bef Summer 398 ? ? 1 750 Faust[inus?] 1006 405 fossor ? 1 750 Faustinus 1009 late 5th/early 6th c ? ? 4 753 Faustinus 1010 bef 509? ? seemingl 4 753 y from 'l'élite provincia le' Faustinus 1012 bef Nov 594 - Sep miles ecclesiae Myriensis ? 5 753-754 597 Faustus 1003 btw 492 and 496 defensor ecclesiae Romanae ? 1 755-756 Faustus 1004 492-519 magister officiorum (?492- ? 1 756-759 494), quaestor palatii (503- 505), praefectus praetorio (509-512) Faustus 1005 505/506? consul (483), praefectus aristocrat 1 759 Urbis (475/482) ic Faustus 1007 Aug 591 cancellarius ? 6 760

~~266~~

Faustus 1008 bef Nov/Dec 598 ? magnific 1 760 us vir Faustus 1009 Jan-May 599 ? gloriosus 5 760-761 vir Felex 1001 5th c ? ? 3 761 Felicanus 1001 17 Apr 471 notarius ? 5 762 [Fe]licanus 1003 5th c ? ? 3 762 [F]elicissim[us?] 4th/5th c ? ? 3 764-765 1003 Felicissimus 1007 btw 492 and 496 ? vir 5 766 devotus Felicitas 1003 early 5th c "militaire" ? 3 768 Felithanc 1001 4 April 553 ? ? 2 769 Felix 1001 3rd/4th c? fossarius ? 1 769 Felix 1002 3rd/4th c fossor ? 1 769 Felix 1005 335-400† ? ? 1 770 Felix 1015 4th c fossor ? 1 774 Felix 1016 4th c? fossor ? 1 774 Felix 1017 4th/5th c fossor ? 1 774 Felix 1018 4th/5th c ? v(ir) 3 774 c(larissi mus) Felix 1022 428-430† magister militum, consul ? 1 776 (428) Felix 1029 483-86 defensor ecclesiae Romanae ? 9 778-779 Felix 1037 btw 492 and 496 ? ? 2 or 5 782 Felix 1040 496 ? ? 5 785 Felix 1044b 5th c ? ? 0 787 Felix 1046 511? v(ir) i(llustris) exconsul ? 1 788 ord(inarius) Felix 1050 541† [fa]mulus Dei ? 5 795 Felix 1051 bef 549? ? ? 2 795 Felix 1055 575-May 598 ? slave, 6 796-797 then freeman Felix 1056 578-bef Aug 593† scolasticus, advocatus nobility 5 797 (married ill. f., married daugter to a v.m.) Felix 1058 bef May 591† conductor slave 6 798 Felix 1062 bef Mar 591 defensor s(an)c(tae) eccl. ? 2 802-803 Romanae Felix 1065 Mar 592-Jan 599 chartularius both vir 6 804-805 clarissim us and vir magnific us

~~267~~

Felix 1067 Oct 592 ? ? 0 805 Felix 1068 bef Jun 593 ? ? 5 806 Felix 1069 Jun 593 defensor ? 5 806 Felix 1075 Feb 599 ? vir 5 810 magnific us Felix 1076 6th c? primus apostolicae…tenuit ? 1 810 scrinia sedis Felix 1077 6th c ? noble 2 810 Ferobasus 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 1 812 Ferrocinctus 1001 bef Jul 599† ? ? 2 812 Festus 1001 3rd/4th c fossor (?) ? 1 812 Festus 1002 490-512 consul (472), prior senatus ? 1 812-814 Festus 1003 btw 492 and 496 ? ? 2 814 Festus 1004 5th c ? ? 3 814 Fidelis 1001 527-537/8† praefectus praetorio ? 4 815-816 Filicissimus 1001 4th/5th c pecorarius (herdsman) ? 1 819 Filimoud 1001 Jun 591 ? ? 6 819 Filocalus 1001 354-btw 366 and papal scribe ? 8 or 9 820-822 386 Filotheus 1001 467/8 macedonianus (=userer?) ? 1 822 Filoxenus 1001 Sep/Oct 599 ? vir 7 822 magnific us Firmanus 1001 384-398-399? ? noble 4 823 [F]irmanus 1004 7th/8th c [se]rbu[s] D(e)i (pilgrim) ? 1 825 Flavianus 1001 377-394 praefectus praetorio (390- ? 8 827 92; 393-4), consul (394) Flavianus 1002 4th/5th c? ? ? 5 827-828 Flavianus 1003 btw 520 and 26 May ? v(ir) 2 828 521- 3 June 521 d(evotus) Florentinus 1001 375 ? ? 1 835 Florentinus 1004 Sep 592 defensor ? 6 836 Florentius 1011 5th c ? ? 3 841 Florentin 1001 5th c fossor ? 1 845 Florianus 1003 Sep 592 ? ? 6 846 Florus 1003 bef 410?† ? ? 1 850 Florus 1007 bef Sep 603† ? vir 1 853 magnific us Folox[enus?] 1001 457† Chr(ist)i [servus or famulus] ? 4 853 Fonteius 1002 * btw 432 and 440 expraefectus ? 1 855 Formo[…] 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 855 Fortunatus 1002 375 ? ? 1 858 F[o]rtu[natus] 4th/5th c ? ? 2 858 1003 Fortunatus 1009 5th c ? ? 3 863

~~268~~

Fortunatus 1010 5th c ? ? 7 863 Fortunatus 1015 bef 593/4 ? vir 2 866 nobilis Fortunatus 1017 bef Apr 593-Nov ? un 4 871 594 citoyen notable' Fortunatus 1021 Sep 598 tonsuratus, usurped ? 6 873 functions of the defensores in Sicily Fortunatus 1024 * bef 498 ? ? 0 874 Fortunio 1001 aft 389 ? ? 1 874 Fortunio 1002 5th/6th c tr(ibunus?) ? 1 874 Fortunius 1001 5th/6th c p(rae)p(ositus) ? 1 875 Frigianus 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 875 Frigiscus 1001 595-Oct 598 colonus eccl. (Romanae) ? 6 875 Fruniscendus Jun/Jul 599 ? ? 5 876 1001 Fuscus 1001 Aug 591 archiater (doctor: iatros) ? 1 879 G[…] 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 880 Gabianus 1001 340/1 comes ? 1 881 Gaianus 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 3 881 Gaianus 1002 btw 501 and 513 ? ? 4 881 Gallienus 1001 btw 378 and 381 friend of Jerome ? 0 884 Gallus 1001 mid-5th c exp(re)f(ectus) Urb(is) v(ir) 1 884 c(larissi mus) et inl(ustris ) Gallus 1003 May 599 nauclerus ? 6 885 Gattulus 1001 Jun 603 ? magnitud 2 885 o vir Gaudentianus 4th/5th c? servus Dei (professione ? 5 886 1001 cael[i]bi) Gaudentius 1006 4th c fossor ? 1 891 Gaudentius 1009 4th/5th c ? ? 2 891 Gaudentius 1010 aft Aug 410 ? ? * 892 Gaudentius 1016 27 Dec 480 ? v(ir) 2 893 c(larissi mus) [G]auden[ti]us 5th c ? ? 3 896 1022 Gaudentius 1024 502/3 or 517/8 consularis Flaminiae ? 2 897 Gaudiosus 1006 bef Sep 590-Jul 593 primicerius (defensor or ? 2 901-902 notarius?) Gaudiosus 1007 Jul 591 ? ? 5 902 Gaudiosus 1013 6th/7th c ? ? 1 904 Ge[…] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 905 Geberic 1001 btw 507 and 511 ? vir 0 905 spectabili

~~269~~

s [Ge]minianus 4th c ? ? 3 908 1002 Gemi[…] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 908 Genialis 1002 4th/5th c fossor ? 1 911 Gennadius 1001 bef 414/15 doctor ? 1 911 Gentio 1001 Nov/Dec 598 scribo vir 6 912 magnific us Georgius 1001 btw 507 and 512 ? ? 1 912 Georgius 1002 3 Jan 552-bef 13 Jan olosiricoprata (silk weaver?) ? 9 913 552 civ(itatis) Ra(vennatis), vir devotus Georgius 1003 Mar/Apr 559 comes agens vices vir 1 913 Marcellini vicarii clarissim us Georgius 1004 Feb 591-Mar 591 praefectus praetorio Italiae ? 2 913-914 Georgius 1005 Jun 596 ? ? 1 914 Georgius 1006 bef Apr 598 ? ? 2 914 Georgius 1007 6th c olosericus (silk merchant) ? 3 914 Georgius 1009 early 7th c opt(io) num(eri) ? 1 915 Theodosiac(i) Germanus 1002 btw 507 and 511 ? ? 0 918 Germinius 1001 btw 396 and 410 disciple of Gaudentius of ? 3 925 Brescia (unclear whether he took orders or was more loosely associated) Gerontius 1003 454-457 subadiuua ? 8 926-927 Gerontius 1006 467-523† paenitentialis v(ir) 2 928 c(larissi mus) Gordianus 1002 mid 6th c regionarius vir 1 936 clarissim us Gracchus 1001 376-77 praefectus urbis Romanae ? 1 936 Gratiosus 1001 4th/5th c serbus Dei ? 1 938 Gregorius 1007 Jan 491 ? v(ir) 2 944 c(larissi mus) Gregorius 1012 Apr 593?-Jun 595- praefectus praetorio noble? 1 951-953 Feb/Apr 599 Gregorius 1013 Feb/Apr 599 slave slave 5 953 Gregorius 1014 6th c referendarius sublimis 3 953 vir Guderit 1002 btw 571/2 and ? ? 3 955 578/87 Gudila 1001 Aug 502-Oct 502 mairo domi (regiae) ? 2 955-956 Gudiscalcus 1001 Feb 600 dux Campaniae ? 5 956-957 Guduin 1001 Dec 603 dux Neapolim ? 5 957 Gulfari 1001 May-Jun 599 magister militum ? 1 957

~~270~~

Gunderit 1001 aft 14 Feb 572 except(or) curiae ? 2 957 Rav(ennatis) Gundila 1001 aft Mar 537-bef Mar ? ? 2 957-958 545 Gurdimer 1001 Apr 559 comes ? 0 958 Heleusinus 1001 4th/5th c? ? ? 1 961 Heliocarus 1001 * btw 432 and 440 advocatus ? 1 965 Helpidius 1002 mid-5th c exquaestor v(ir) 2 968-969 c(larissi mus) Helvidius 1001 bef 374/bef 383 ? ? 1 974-975 Heorthasius 1001 496 ? vir 5 975 spectabili s Herculeus 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 980 Hermogenianus late 386 ? ? 0 981-982 1001 Hesychios 5th c ? ? 2 983 ( ) 1001 Hieronymous btw 590 and 604 defensor ? 4 983 1001 Hilarianus 1001 * 362 ? ? 2 984 Hilarianus 1002 * 4th c ? ? 1 984 H[i]lar[ius] 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 2 986 Hilarius 1003 bef Jul 415 ? ? 6 986-987 Hilarius 1007 Apr 593 ? ? 1 988 Hilarus 1001 4th/5th c fossor ? 1 988 Hilarus 1005 Jan 491 scrin(arius) scl (= 'sedis v(ir) 2 993 gloriae'?) d(evotus) Hilarus 1007 5th c ? ? 3 994 Hilarus 1010 515-516 notarius ? 1 995-997 Hilarus 1012 bef 590-602 chartularius, notarius ? 1 997-998 Hilarus 1013 bef May 596† ? ? 6 998 Hildevade 1001 1st half of the 6th c ? ? 1 999 Honoratus 1004 5th c ? ? 3 1007 Honoratus 1007 501-525 quaestor palatii ? * 1008 Honoratus 1009 541 scol(asticus) v(ir) 2 1009 c(larissi mus) Honoratus 1011 btw 571/72 and ? ? 3 1009- 586/87 1010 Honoratus 1017 * btw 432 and 444 ? patricius 1 1012 Honorius 1006 6th c? scholasticus ? 2 1014 Hortulanus 1001 bef 598† ? ? 7 1017 Hospitianus 1001 btw 352 and 366 ? ? 2 1018 Hospiton 1001 May 594 Dux Barbaricinorum ? 7 1018 Hostilius 1001 btw 492 and 496 com(es) ? 2 1018- 1019 Hymetius 1001 366-368 vicarius Urbis, proconsul ? 1 1019

~~271~~

Africae Hylarinus 1001 4th c? fossor ? 1 1020 Iacobus 1002 aft May 398-bef 404 comes et magister militum ? 3 1020- 1021 Ianuariu[s] 1001 btw 308 and 319 ? ? 3 1023 Ianuarius 1002 338? fossor ? 1 1023 [Ia]nuari[us] 1007 late 4th/early 5th c ? ? 3 1025 Ianuarius 1009 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1026 Ianuarius 1010 aft Apr-bef late Sep ? ? 1 1026 419 Ianuarius 1014 btw 492 and 496 some sort of administrator nobilis? 0 1027 Ianuarius 1015 btw 492 and 496 ? orphan 0 1028 Iconius 1001 4th/5th c fossor? ? 1 1037 Ilateuta 1001 early 5th c soldier ? 3 1037 Importunus 1001 550 de subdiaconorum et ? 1 1039 notariorum vel defensorum officio depositus Infan[…] 1001 late 4th/early 5th c ? ? 3 1040 Ingenuus 1001 Oct 598 ? ? 6 1042 Innocentius 1004 386-aft 388 aruspex ? 4 1044 Innocentius 1006 4th c fossor? ? 1 1045 Innocentius 1020 late 4th/early 5th c ? ? 0 1051 * Inportunus 1001 509-bef 526 praetorian prefect (483) member 1 1052 of Decii family Inportunus 1005 bef Nov 600 palatinus ? 2 1053 Ioannis 1002 4th/5th c ? v(ir) 3 1054 s(pectabi lis) Iobinus 1003 * late 4th/early 5th c ? noble 2 1056 Ioellus 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1057 Iohannes 1001 384/85 archiater (doctor: iatros) v(ir) 1 1058 p(erfectis simus) Iohannes 1002 394 praefectus praetorio Italiae; ? * 1059 tribunus et notarius Iohannes 1015 btw 492 and 496 ? illustris * 1067 Iohannes 1020 5th c ? ? 3 1071 Iohannes 1025 503-bef 527† praefectus praetorio ? 2 1074 Iohannes 1029 11 Nov 523 ? v(ir) 2 1081 c(larissi mus) Iohannes 1033 bef 536 vicarianus ? 1 1082 Iohannes 1035 540-Feb-Apr 559 magister militum patricius, 2 1083- caburtari 1084 us (=?) Iohannes 1038 550 de subdiaconorum et ? 1 1086- notariorum vel defensorum 1087

~~272~~

officio depositus Iohannes 1039 550 de subdiaconorum et ? 1 1087 notariorum vel defensorum officio depositus Iohannes 1040 Jan 552 proemptor v(ir) 2 1087 c(larissi mus) Iohannes 1046 btw 556 and 561 defensor ? 2 or 8 1094- 1095 Iohannes 1048 Feb 559 ? ? 0 1095 Iohannes 1050 Mar 559 defensor (ecclesiae) ? 6 1096 Iohannes 1051 Mar/Apr 559 magister militum exconsul 1 1097 Iohannes 1052 Mar-Apr 559 comes patrimonii ? * 1097 Iohannes 1052b btw 560 and 570† ? ? 4 1097 Iohannes 1056 bef 565-bef 576 ? celsus 3 1098- 1099 Iohannes 1058 btw 571/2 and 586/7 famulus sanctae martyris ? 3 1099 Eufemiae Iohannes 1059 btw 571/2 and 586/7 milis de numero equitum ? 3 1099 persoiustinianorum Iohannes 1060 btw 571/2 and 586/7 mil(es) de num(ero) ? 3 1099 Cadisiano Iohannes 1061 25 Feb 575 for(ensis) huius civ(itatis) v(ir) 2 1100 Rav(ennatis) h(onestus ) Iohannes 1062 25 Feb- 1 Apr 575 ? v(ir) 2 1100 st(renuus ) Iohannes 1064 btw 578 and 590-Jul ? ? 2 1101 596 Iohannes 1065 581-Jan 599 ? famulus 2 1101 iuris ecclesiast ici Iohannes 1067 589-594 tribunus ? 3 1101- 1102 Iohannes 1071 bet 590 and 604 notarius Illyricani ? 1 1103 Iohannes 1072 Mar 591 consiliarius ? * 1103 Iohannes 1075 bef May 591 notarius ? 6 1105 Iohannes 1081 Aug 592-May 593 notarius (nostrae) sedis ? 1 1110 Iohannes 1085 593-594 locum praefectorum servans vir 4 1111 magnific us Iohannes 1088 Nov 594 ecclesiae notarius ? 4 1112 Iohannes 1100 Nov 596 defensor (noster) ? 2 1124 Iohannes 1101 Jul 597 agrimensor ? 1 1125 Iohannes 1102 Jul 597-btw Feb and praefectus Urbis ? 2 1125 Apr 599 Iohannes 1104 Oct 597 servus servus 4 1126 Iohannes 1106 Apr 598 ? ? 2 1126- 1127

~~273~~

Iohannes 1107 Sep/Oct 598 praefectus ? 0 1127 Iohannes 1108 Oct 598 ? vir 6 1127 illustris Iohannes 1109 Jan 599 praefecturae vices… acturus ? * 1127 Iohannes 1110 Feb/Apr 599 palatinus vir 5 1128 clarissim us Iohannes 1111 btw Feb and Apr ? vir 1 1128 599 clarissim us Iohannes 1112 bef Mar 599† ? ? 5 1128 Iohannes 1113 Mar 599-Jul 599 tribunus Siponti ? 5 1129 Iohan[nes] 1118 6th c ? ? 3 1130- 1131 Iohannes 1119 6th c famulus Chr(ist)i ? 4 1131 Iohannes 1120 6th c ? v(ir) 3 1131 c(larissi mus) Iohannes 1122 Mar 600 praefectus praetorio Italiae ? 5 1131- 1132 Iohannes 1127 Nov 600 aregentarius ? 2 1134 Iohannes 1128 Dec 600 ? religiosu 1 1135 s Iohannes 1129 600? primicerius numeri felicum v(ir) 2 1135 Theudosiacus [ sic ] c(larissi mus) Iohannes 1130 600 negociator Syrus v(ir) 9 1135 h(onestus ) Iohannes 1131 600 except(or) inl(ustris) ? 2 1135 p(otestatis) Iohannes 1132 600? adi(utor) s(crinii?) ? 2 1135 Iohannes 1133 600? dom(esticus) num(eri) ? 2 1136 Dac(orum) Iohannes 1134 Jan 601 servus et actor ? 5 1136 Iohannes 1139 Aug 603 defensor ? 1 1139 Iohannes 1144 6th/7th c ? senatoria 1 1140 l Iohannis 1001 4th/5th c ? v(ir) 3 1141 s(pectabi lis) Iohannis 1002 5th c ? ? 3 1142 Ioh[an]ni[s] 1003 5th/6th c […] sanctae ecclesiae ? 3 1142 Tergestinae Iohannis 1004 5th/6th c ? ? 3 1142 Iohannis 1005 bef 3 Jul 521 virgarius ? 1 1142 Ioh[annis] 1006 6th c cubicularius t(i)t(uli) ? 1 1143 Iohannis 1007 6th c ? ? 3 1143 Ionathas 1001 bef Jul 591† ? ? 6 1143 Iordanes 1001 537-552 notarius ? 9 1144- 1145

~~274~~

Iordanes 1003 aft Apr 556-bef 16 defensor ecclesiae ? 1 1146 Apr 557 Ioseph ( η ) 5th c ? ? 9 1147 1001 Ioseph 1002 Mar 591 ? ? 5 1147 Iovin[ia]nus 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 2 1151 [Io]vian[us] 1003 4th/5th c ? ? 2 1152 Iovinus 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 2 1152 Iovinus 1003 Jan 491 notus ? 2 1153 Iovinus 1006 Oct 598 ? vir 6 1155 illustris Ioulianos 5th c ? ? 9 1155 (ι ) 1001 Ipolytus 1001 430 fossor ? 1 1155 [I]renia[n]us 1001 btw 571/72 and nota[rius] ? 3 1159 586/87 Isaac 1001 btw 366 and 378 ? ? 1 1159- 1160 Isacius 1001 2nd half of Jul 541 saponarius v(ir) 2 1161 h(onestus ) Isidorus 1001 bef Oct 598† ? illustris 6 1162 vir Istefanus 1001 6th/7th c famulu(s) Dei ? 1 1162 Iubianu[s] 1001 5th/6th c sarsor (=sartor) ? 3 1165 Iudas 1001 btw 492 and 496 ? ? 5 1167 Iulianus 1003 Oct 366 praefectus annonae ? 1 1174 Iulianus 1005 summer 394 ? ? 5 1174 Iul[ianus?] 1008 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1175 Iulianus 1016 5th c ? ? 3 1189 [I]ulianus 1017 5th c ? ? 3 1190 Iulianus 1022 507/11 ? ? 0 1191 Iulianus 1023 505-509 comes patrimonii vir 4 1191- illustris 1192 Iulianus 1025 aft 531/32-549 argentarius vir 2 1192- honestus 1195 Iulianus 1026 bef Mar 537 praetorianus ? 1 1195 Iulianus 1028 25 Feb 575 scribtor v(ir) 2 1198 h(onestus ) Iulianus 1030 586/87† secundus defensor eccl. ? 1 1198 Romae Iulianus 1032 Oct 598 ? vir 5 1199 clarissim us maior Iulianus 1033 May 599 ? vir 5 1199- eloquenti 1200 ssimus Iulianus 1034 bef Jan 603 ? high rank 6 1200 Iulinus 1001 c. 600 ? v(ir) 2 1201 h(onestus

~~275~~

) Iulius 1001 337-352 ? ? 1 1201 Iulius 1002 4th/5th c mansionarius ? 1 1202 Iulius 1004 5th c ? ? 3 1205 Iulius 1005 562-bef 592† ? patricius 6 1205 Iunillius 1001 btw 518 and 523?- ? clarissim 7 1206 bef Apr 548 us Iunius 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 1207 Iunius 1002 4th c fossor aventinus 1 1208 Iustinianus 1002 5th/6th c ? ? 3 1213 Iustinus 1004 btw 571/72 and notarius ? 3 1215- 586/87 1216 Iustinus 1005 bef Sep 590-May praetor Siciliae vir 6 1216- 593 gloriosus 1217 Iustus 1011 * 5th/6th c ? ? 0 1223 Iuvinus 1001 600? orrearius v(ir) 2 1224 h(onestus ) Karicus 1001 4th c notarius ecl(esiae) ? 1 1225 Kobouldeos 5th/6th c ? ? 6 1225 ( = Quodvultdeus) 1001 Kyriakos 4th/5th c ? ει 1 1226 ( ) 1001 Laetus 1001 btw 374 and 397 ? vir 1 1229 consulari s Lampadius 1001 btw 395 and 430 ? ? * 1229- 1230 Latinus 1002 aft 10/11 Jan 476 ? patricius, 1 1231 vir illustris Latronianus 1001 314 corrector Siciliae vir 6 1232 clarissim us Laudicius 1001 btw 492 and 495/96 ? ? 5 1232 Laurentius 1003 4th/5th c foss(or) ? 1 1235 Laurentius 1004 4th/5th c fossor? ? 1 1235 Laurentius 1005 4th/5th c ? v(ir) 3 1236 s(pectabi lis) [La]urentius 1006 4th/5th c ? ? 2 1236 Laurentius 1008 btw Dec 419 and Jul ? ? 0 1236 422 Laurentius 1018 btw 492 and 496 Romanae ecclesiae defensor ? 1 1242 Laurentius 1022 btw 497 and 526 brother' of Dionysius ? 0 1244 Exiguus (=monk?) Laurentius 1028 5th/6th c notarius ? 3 1248 Laurentius 1029 5th/6th c serb[us Dei?] ? 1 1249

~~276~~

Laurentius 1030 btw 501 and 513 ? sublimis 1 1249 vir Laurentius 1035 516-571† fam(ulus) Chr(ist)i v(ir) 4 1252 s(pectabi lis) Laurentius 1042 btw 541 and 553- ? religiosu 0 1254- 593/594 s vir 1255 Laurentius 1043 3 Jan 552-13 Jan gunnar(ius) (=leather v(ir) 2 1255 552 worker) h(onestus ) Laurentius 1044 4 April 553 ? v(ir) 2 1255 s(pectabi lis) Laurentius 1049 btw 571/72 and palatinus v(ir) 3 1257 586/87 c(larissi mus) Laurentius 1050 btw 571/72 and [mi]lis de n[umero] ? 3 1257 586/87 Travis[iano] Laurentius 1059 Nov/Dec 598-Apr ? vir 6 1263 599 clarissim us Laurentius 1060 600? exepod(ecta) civ(itatis) v(ir) 2 1263 Fanestr(is) str(ennus ) Lauricius 1001 bef 423-445/46 maior cubiculi Honorii v(ir) 2 1265- imperatoris i(nlustris 1266 ) Laurus 1001 6th c fossor ? 1 1267 Leo 1003 4th c fossor ? 1 1270 Leo 1006 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1271 Leo 1014 aft 22 Nov 545 ? vir 6 1274 illustris Leo 1015 Feb-Apr 559 praetor Siciliae vir 6 1275 magnific us Leo 1016 Sep 590-Aug 591 exconsul ? 6 1275 Leo 1022 596-Sep/Oct 598 cartarius ? 6 1281 Leo 1025 6th/7th c secundice[rius…] ? 1 1281 Leontius 1003 356 praefectus Urbis ? 1 1285 Leontius 1005 374 ? clarissim 4 1285- us vir 1286 Leontius 1006 btw 374 and 397 ? ? 3 1286 Leontius 1007 4th c fossor ? 1 1286 Leontius 1008 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1286 Leontius 1012 5th c ? ? 3 1287 Leontius 1013 5th/6th c ? v(ir) 2 1287 h(onestus ) Leontius 1014 mid-6th c? ? ? 2 1288 Leontius 1016 Jan 592 ? vir 2 1288 clarissim us

~~277~~

Leontius 1018 bef Aug 598-Sep exconsul vir 9 1289- 600 gloriosiss 1292 imus Leopardus 1003 4th/5th c fossor ? 1 1294 Leporius 1001 445/448 ? spectabili 3-4 1295 s Liberatus 1001 Sep. 590- May 591 negotiator ? 6 1297 Liberius 1004 bef 493-554 praefectus praetorio patricius 4 1298- 1301 Liberius 1005 5th c ? ? 3 1301 Liberius 1006 aft. 14 Feb 572 tabell(io) civ(itatis) ? 2 1301 Rav(ennatis) Liberius 1008 593/594 ? magnific 4 1302 us, vir nobilissi mus Libertinus 1003 bef May 593- Sep praetor Siciliae ? 6 1303- 600 1305 Liber(us) 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 1305 Libia[…] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1305 Licentius 1001 386-395 ? ? * 1306 Longinianus 1001 aft 395?-400/402 praefectus Urbis; praefectus ? 1 1310- praetorio 1311 Longinos 4th c fossor ? 1 1311 (ι ) 1001 Longinus 1001 592/593 strator vir 9 1311 clarissim us Luceianus 1001 494-542† defensor (ecclesiae?) ? 5 1312 Lucianus 1003 5th c ? ? 3 1321 Lucianus 1005 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 1322 586/587 Lucidus 1001 Feb 558 ? ? 1 1323 Lucillianus 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 1329 Lucilius 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 1330 Lucinus 1001 btw 571/572 and servus Chr(ist)i ? 3 1332 586/587 Lucius 1004 Mar/Apr 559 defensor in Aouliae ? 5 1334 provinciae patrimonium Luminosus 1001 503-bef 511 ? vir 4 1336- sublimis, 1337 magnitud o, aplitudo [Lu]picinus 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1340 Lupo 1001 6th/7th c s(er)b(us) D(e)i ? 1 1341 Ma[…] 1001 4th c ? ? 3 1342 Ma[…]uso 1001 early 5th c fossor? ? 1 1342 Macedonius 1002 383 magister officiorum ? 4 1344 Macarius 1002 397-bef 429/430† ? noble 1 1346- 1347

~~278~~

Macrinus 1002 5th/6th c [f]amolus [Christi] ? 3 1348 Madusius 1001 aft 10/11 Jan 476 ? spectabili 1 1349 s Magnus 1001 aft 397 orator urbis Romae v(ir) 1 1350 c(larissi mus) Maius 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 1354 Malchos 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1354 Manna 1001 25 Feb 575- bef 1 ? v(ir) 2 1356 Apr 575 d(evotus) Marcellinus 1004 14 Oct 410-13 Sep tribunus et notarius ? 2 1370 413† Marcellus 1004 4th-5th c ? ? 2 1376 Marcellus 1007 btw 507 and 512 ? ? 4 1377 Marcellus 1012 bef 593-594† ? ? 2 1379 Marcellus 1013 Jan 599 ? freed 5 1379 slave Marcianus 1008 late 5th c ? vir 2 1384 st(renuus ) Marcianus 1015 Oct 598 usurper defensor ? 6 1387 Marcius 1001 463/475-513/525† fa[mulus Dei] ? 5 1389 Marcus 1006 btw Apr 419 and ? ? 1 1391 late Sep 419 Marcus 1012 Feb-Mar 537 scholasticus ? 1 1392 Mareas ( ε ) 5th c ? ? 9 1395 1001 Marianus 1002 5th c? ? ? 4 1399 Marianus 1003 bef Nov 596-May defensor ? 4 1399 600 Marinianus 1003 422-btw 440 and exp(rafectus praetorio) et vir 1 1400- 461 cons(ul) ord(inarius) inl(ustris 1401 ) Marin[us] 1001 4th c ? ? 3 1409 Marinus 1005 bef Mar. 593 ? ? 5 1410 Marinus 600? ωι (banker) ? 2 1410 ( ) 1006 Marinus 1007 c. 600 ? v(ir) 2 1410 h(onestus ) Markianos 400-423† (ε ) ? 6 1413 (ι ) 1001 Martinianos aft. May 357-359 notarius ? 9 1415 (ιι ) 1001 Martinianus 1001 378 fossor ? 1 1415 Martinianus 1007 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 1417 586/587 Martinus 1006 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 1421 586/587 Martinus 1009 bef Jun 594† colonus ? 6 1422

~~279~~

Martius 1001 27 Sep 591 "chef militaire" gloriosus 2 1423 Martyrius 1003 late 4th/early 5th c? ? ? 0 1425 Martyrius 1005 5th/6th c fidelis spiritualis virgo ? 9 1427 Martyry[s] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1428 Mascator 1001 btw 501 and 513 ? ? 0 1428 Mascator 1002 aft 541-btw 579 and ? ? 5 1428 590 Mastallo 1001 btw 492 and 496 comes sacrarum largitionum vir 1 1428 illustris Mastallo 1002 May/Jun 599 ? "notable" 3-4 1429 Maternus 1002 btw 328 and ? v(ir) 6 1431 335/337- btw 343 c(larissi and Jan 350 mus) Matheus 1001 Apr 599 scholasticus vir 5 1431 clarissim us Maugurius 1001 * mid-4th c ? ? 3 1433 Maurentius 1002 Sep 590-May/Jun chartularius, magister vir 6 1433- 599 militum magnific 1435 us, vir gloriosus Mauricius 1001 late 4th c ? ? 2 1435 Mauricus 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1436 Maurillo 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1436 Maurillo 1002 bef Mar 591- expraefectus ? 1 1436 Nov/Dec 598 Maurus 1002 bef 438/439 ? ? 4 1437 Maurus 1003 btw 492 and 496 Beneventanae municeps ? 5 1437 civitatis Maurus 1010 Oct 597 servus (slave) servus 4 1440 Maurus 1011 Apr 598 Comes vir 5 1440 clarissim us Maurus 1012 Feb 559 merchant (?) ? 5 1440- 1441 Maurus 1013 Aug 599 ? ? 4 1441 Maxentius 1002 5th c ? ? 3 1443 Maxentius 1003 18 Mar 550 servant ? 1 1444 Maximianus 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1446 Maximianus 1004 510/511 ? illustris 2 1453 vir, senator Maximillianus btw 401 and 417 agens in rebus ? 5 1458 1001 Maximinus 1001 368-371 praefectus annonae, vicarius ? 1 1461 Urbis, praefectus praetorio Galliarum [Ma]ximinu[s] 4th/5th c fossor ? 1 1462 1003 Maximinus 1005 Nov 450 comes ? 0 1462- 1463

~~280~~

Maximinus 1009 Mar/Apr 559 ? ? 2 1464- 1465 Maximus 1005 btw 374 and 397 ? ? 3 1467 Maximus 1009 aft 389 ? ? 1 1469 Maximus 1017 btw 492 and 496 ? orphan 0 1474 Maximus 1018 5th/6th c notarius et def(ensor) ?; brother 3 1474 s(an)c(t)ae Aquil(eiensis) was eccl(esiae) clarissim us Maximus 1020 btw 503 and 512 ? vir 1 1476 spectabili s Maximus 1022 btw 571/572 and nauclerus (ship's captain) ? 3 1476 586/587 Maximus 1025 bef 593/594† ? ? 1 1477 Maximus 1026 Nov-Dec 598 palatinus privatorum vir 6 1478 clarissim us Maximus 1027 6th c ? ? 2 1478 [M]aximus 1028 6th c ? ? 3 1478 Maximus 1030 * bef 399 ? ? 1 1479 Maximus 1031 * btw 432 and 440 exconsul ? 1 1479 Memorius 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1495 Mena 1001 5th c n[otarius ec]lesia Romanae ? 1 1495 Menas 1003 Apr 599 notarius ? 2 1497 Mercator 1001 418-aft 431 servus Christi ? 0 1499- 1504 Mercurius 1003 btw 374 and 397 ? "très 3 1505 médiocre " Mercurius 1004 btw 492 and 496 ? ? 0 1505 Mercurius 1008 6th c ? ? 2 1508 Merobaudes 1001 435 scholasticus, magister ? 8 1509 militum, orator Messala 1002 btw 507 and 512 consul ? 1 1511 Michahelius 1001 bef Sep 590- Jul 593 defensor sedis [Romanae] ? 2 1511 Micinus 1001 426 fossor ? 1 1512 Mimiulf 1001 btw 584 and 590 ? ? 0 1513 Mocimus 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1519 Moderatus 1001 btw 492 and 496 conductor domus regiae ? 5 1519 Montanarius 1001 508 ? ? 2 1522 Montanianus 1001 Apr 559 ? son of a 0 1522 slave Montanus 1001 24 May 353-Jun 353 palatinus ? 4 1522 Montanus 1002 4th c fossor (?) ? 1 1523 Montanus 1004 564 ? vir 2 1523 st(renuus ) Muc[ianus] 1001 6th c ? ? 3 1524

~~281~~

Muscul[us] 1001 4th c fossor? ? 1 1526 Muscu[r]utio 1001 426 fossor ? 1 1526 Musicus 1001 aft 389 artisan ? 1 1526 Mutianus 1001 aft 550 ? vir 5 1528 disertissi mus Na[…] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1529 Narses ( ) bef 532-bef Jul 574 praepositus sacri cubiculi patricius 9 1529- 1001 1532 Nasas 1001 Bef May 593 ? ? 6 1532 Nectarius 1001 May 454 agens in rebus ? 1 1533 Niceforus 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1538 Nicentius 1001 4 Apr 397 extribunus et notarius ? 3 1538 [N]igas[…] 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1540 Nio 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 1540 Nonnosus 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1541- 1542 Nonnosus 1003 Feb 591 soldier? ? 1 1542 Nonnus 1001 btw 571/572 and famul(us) s(an)c(t)ae ? 3 1542- 586/587 martyris Eufemiae 1543 Nordulfus 1001 bef 590-Jun 595 military leader patricius * 1543 Nostamnus 1001 Oct 598 shipowner (?) ? 6 1543 Nuntius 1001 6th/7th c prep(ositus) ? 1 1545 Obsequentius 4th-5th c ? ? 2 1546 1001 Occila 1001 Jul 599 tribunus Ydrontinae civitatis vir 2 1546 magnific us Oceanus 1001 382/385-395-416 ? ? 1 1547- 1549 Oclatinus 1001 Mar/Apr 559 defensor sedis nostrae ? 1 1550 Olybrius 1001 Oct. 368-384 praefectus urbis Romae, ? 1 1551 consul Olybrius 1002 * late 4th/5th c ? ? 2 1551 Olympius 1002b late 396 ? ? * 1552 Olympius 1003 457 subadivua ? 9 1553 Olympius 1005 btw 492 and 496 ? ? 2 or 5 1553 Onasus 1001 aft 384? advocatus? Or sacerdos? ? 6 1554 Opilio 1003 522-bef 25 Mar advocatus, comes sacrarum ? 2 1556- 534† largitionum 1557 Opilio 1004 early 6th c praefectus praetorio patricius, 3 1557- v(ir) 1558 c(larissi mus) et inl(ustris ) Opilio 1005 Mar 559 defensor ? 6 1558 Opilius 1001 5th c ? ? 2 1558- 1559

~~282~~

Oportunus 1001 5th/6th c famulus Dei ? 4 1559 Oportunus 1003 Oct/Nov 601 ? ? 8 1559- 1560 O[p]tatus 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 2 1561 Optatus 1003 Jun 603 defensor, rector Nursini ? 2 1561- 1562 Otravstaguta 1001 early 5th c soldier ? 3 1566- 1567 Pacatus 1001 aft 22 Jun 431 ? vir 0 1569 illustris Palatinus 1001 btw 498-514 ? inlustris 1 1570 vir Palatinus 1002 Apr 590-Sep 600 ? gloriosus 1 1570- (vir), 1571 patricius Palladis 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1571 Palladius 1002 418 praefectus praetorio ? 1 1571- 1572 Palmatus 1001 bef 432-440 praefectus Urbis? ? 1 1574 Pancratius 1004 Feb/Mar 559 ? vir 2 1583 illustris Pansophius 1001 btw Mar 394 and ? ? 2 1585 Aug 394 Pansophius 1002 Feb-Mar 449 ι η ? 1 1585 (comes) Parthenius 1001 392? ? ? 0 1589 Parthenius 1002 bef Aug 449 ? ? 9 1589 Parthenius 1003 btw 501 and 513 ? ? 4 1589 Paschalis 1002 Feb 593 ? ? 2 1589 Paschalis 1003 Feb 603 exconsul ? 6 1590- 1591 Pascasinus 1002 Aug 599 conductor vir 6 1600 magnific us Paschasius 1001 bef 381 ? ? 1 1600 Pascentius 1002 448 ? ? 1 1609 Pascentius 1003 5th c ? ? 3 1610 Pastor 1003 Jul 591 ? ? 6 1612 Paterius 1001 btw 560 and 570 ? patricius 4 1612 Paterius 1004 * btw 432 and 440 exconsul ? 1 1614 Paternus 1001 393?-btw 396 and comes sacrarum ? * 1614 398? largitionum?, proconsul? Paternus 1002 4th c fossor ? 1 1615 Patricius 1003 515-519 ? vir 9 1615- spectabili 1616 s Patricius 1004 btw 521/523 and Christi famulus ? 2 1616 531/532 Paulinus 1003 400? ? ? 1 1658 Paulinus 1006 btw 414 and 416 ? ? 5 1659

~~283~~

Paulinus 1016 5th c ? ? 3 1664 Paulinus 1017 5th/6th c ? ? 3 1664 Paulinus 1018 Apr 519-aft 3 Dec defensor ecclesiae Romanae ? 1 1664- 519? 1665 Paulinus 1019 bef Sep 558/Feb 559 ? vir 2 1666 clarissim us Paulus 1001 late 3rd c-371/372- ? ? 3 1670 380/381? Paulus 1011 bef 408? ? ? 3 1673 Paulus 1014 early 5th c? ? ? 2 1673- 1674 Paulus 1015 438? ? v(ir) 1 1674 i(nlustris ?) Paulus 1025 ? ? ? 7 1677 Paulus 1033 14 Dec 556 defensor ecclesiae ? 1 1679 Paulus 1036 Mar 559 ? ? 2 1681 Paulus 1037 Sep 590-Sep 603 scolasticus ? 1 1681 Paulus 1041 Sep/Oct 598 ? ? 1 1684 Paulus 1045 6th c notarius ? 3 1685 Pelagius 1002 btw 492 and 496 laicus ? 2 1709- 1710 Pele[…] 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 1717 Peltrasius 1001 bef Sep 597† ? ? 5 1718 Perseverandus 455-520† pen(etens) v(ir) 4 1720- 1001 r(everend 1721 us?) Petronianus 1001 26 Aug 449 false deacon ? 1 1722 Petronius 1003 early 4th c praefectus praetorio ? 1 1723 Petrus 1001 3rd/4th c fossor ? 1 1726 Petrus 1004 4th c [f]ossor ? 1 1726 Petrus 1011 8 Oct 478 comes Placidiae vir 9 1731 spectabili s Petrus 1012 27 Dec 480 ? ? 2 1731 Petrus 1028 btw 492 and ? vir 5? 1738- 495/496-btw 508 spectabili 1739 and 511? s Petrus 1029 btw 492 and 496 ecclesiae defensor ? 1 1739 Petrus 1043 late 5th c ? v(ir) 2 1749 h(onestus ) Petrus 1047 bef 26 May 521 ? v(ir) 2 1751 d(evotus) Petrus 1058 535-551 defensor v(ir) 2 1755 r(everend us) Petrus 1066 btw 571/572 and famulus s. mertyris ? 3 1761 586/587 Eufemiae

~~284~~

Petrus 1067 btw 571/572 and notarius ? 3 1761 586/587 Petrus 1068 25 Feb 575 collictar(ius) v(ir) 2 1761 h(onestus ) Petrus 1072 bef 589/590† eccl. Familiae maior ? 1 1772 Petrus 1074 bef May 591-Sep conductor ? 6 1773 603 Petrus 1077 bef Sep 593† ? ? 7 1775 Petrus 1085 Bef Oct 598† ? ? 6 1779 Petrus 1086 bef Oct 598-Oct 599 ? ? 6 1779 Petrus 1087 Oct 598 ? gloriosus 6 1780 ? Petrus 1088 bef Nov 598† ? ? 6 1780 Petrus 1090 May 598?-Dec vice dominus… Rusticianae vir 6 1781 598/Jan 599 patriciae clarissim us Petrus 1091 Jan 599 ? vir 2 1781 magnific us Petrus 1092 Feb/Apr 599 defensor ? 6 1781 Petrus 1093 Apr-Jul 599 ? ? 7 1782 Petrus 1094 Jul 599 servus servus 5 1782 Petrus 1095 Sep/Oct 599 ? ? 7 1782 Petrus 1098 600? com(es) v(ir) 2 1783 c(larissi mus) Petrus 1106 * btw 432 and 440 servus servus 1 1785 Philippus 1001 391 praefectus Urbis ? 1 1786 Philoxenus 1002 458 agens in rebus ? 1 1796 Photius 1001 bef 21 Mar 537 ? ? 1 1796 Pierius 1001 488-10 or 11 Aug comes domesticorum vir * 1797 490† illustris Pinianus 1001 385 praefectus Urbis ? 1 1798 Pirata 1001 396/397 ? ? 4 1802 Placidus 1002 Feb 601 ? vir 6 1807 magnific us Pompeianus 1001 Dec 408-Feb 409† praefectus urbis Romae ? 8 1810 Potentinus 1001 4th c ? ? 1 1813 Potentius 1001 Mar 559 defensor ? * 1813 Potitus 1001 4th c serbus Dei ? 1 1813 Praetextatus 1001 367-btw 2 Sep 384 praefectus Urbis ? 1 1816- and 1 Jan 385 1817 Praetextatus 1003 510/511 senator senator 1 1817 Preiecticius 1001 398 fossor ? 1 1818 Primenius 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1820 Primitius 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 1822 Primus 1002 4th c fossor ? 1 1823

~~285~~

Primus 1004 aft Apr-bef late Sep ? ? 1 1824 419 Principius 1001 571-574/575 exepodecta (=susceptor, a ? 2 1825- collector of taxes, imposts, 1826 &c) Priscilianus 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 1 1826 Priscillianus 1001 btw 492 and 496 ? vir 5 1826 devotus Priscus 1002 btw 374 and 397 ? ? 1 1828 Probianus 1002 4th/5th c ? v(ir) 1 1835 i(llustris) Probinus 1001 501-btw 509 and consul patricius 1 1836- 512 1837 Probinus 1002 bef 26 May 521-6 ? v(ir) 2 1837 Jun 521 s(pectabi lis) Probus 1003 368-bef 388† praefectus praetorio "aristocra 4 1840- te" 1841 Probus 1005 btw 401 and 417 ? vir * 1842 illustris Probus 1008 5th c ? ? 3 1844 Probus 1010 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 1844 586/587 Procopius 1001 426-486† [famulus] Christi ? 4 1847 Profuturus 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1851 Proie[ctus?] 1001 4th/5th c fossor? ? 1 1854 Proiectu[s] 1007 4th/5th c serv[us Dei] ? 2 1859 Proiectus 1008 5th/6th c ? ? 1 1859 Pronuulfus 1001 588/589 comes ? 3 1859 Publicola 1001 bef 362-aft 408† praetor urbanus ? 1 1863- 1864 Pymenius 1001 btw 361 and 363 ? ? 1 1866 Qodratus 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 1867 Quertinus 1001 Sep/Oct 598 expraefectus ? 0 1869 Quintianus 1003 * bef 440 ? ? 1 1871 Quintilianus 1001 403† homo Dei ? 1 1871 Quintus 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 1872 Quintus 1004 * btw 498 and 514 advocatus ? 1 1873- 1874 [Q]uiriacus 1003 25 Feb-1 Apr 575 orr(earius) v(ir) 2 1874- h(onestus 1875 ) [Quo]dvuldeo 373 fossor ? 1 1875 1001 R[…] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1877 Redem[ptus] 1007 5th c (432, 484, 487, fossor? ? 1 1882 or 502) Redemptus 1012 bef Jul/Aug 592 ? ? 6 1884 Redemptus 1013 jul 594 ? ? 5 1885 Redemptus 1014 Sep/Oct 598 defensor ? 1 1885

~~286~~

Renatus 1001 btw 374 and 397 ? ? 3 1887 Renatus 1003 509/512-bef ? v(ir) 2 1888- 526/527 clarissim 1889 us et sp(ectabi lis) Reparatus 1003 527-539† praefectus praetorio Italiae ? 1 1891- 1892 Reparatus 1005 6th c ? ? 3 1892 Restitutus 1002 btw Apr and late ? ? 1 1894 Sep 419 Restitutus 1003 6 Nov 482 ? ? 9 1894 Riccitano 1001 25 Feb-1 Apr 575 ? v(ir) 2 1894- c(larissi 1895 mus) Ricimer 1001 bef 459-472† magister militum patricius 1 1895 Riggo 1001 543?-bef Dec 546 spatharius ? 5 1895- 1896 Rodanius 1001 506-507 ? ? 1 1897 Rodanus 1001 449-453 subadivua et domesticus ? 9 1897 Rodanus 1002 Jun 453 comes ? 1 1897 Rogatianus 1001 bef 392-395/396 ? ? 1 1897 Rogatianus 1002 4th c servus Dei ? 1 1897 Romanus 1001 sum 395-sum 397 ? ? 5 1898- 1899 Romanus 1002 bef 415 ? ? 0 1899 Romanus 1015 Dec 587 ? vir 1 1904 clarissim us Romanus 1016 Dec 587 tabellarius urbis Romae vir 1 1904 honestus Romanus 1017 589-bef 596/597 exarchus Italiae/per Italiam patricius 9 1905- 1907 Romanus 1018 btw 590 and 604 notarius Apuli ? 5 1907 Romanus 1019 bef Aug 591-Jan expraetor vir 6 1907 599 magnific us Romanus 1020 Jul/Aug 592-Aug defensor Siciliae ? 6 1908- 601 1913 Romanus 1024 bef Sep/Oct 598 ? clarissim 5 1915 ae (or spectabili s) memoria e vir Romanus 1026 Jun 603 ? "notable" 2 1915- 1916 Romulus 1001 btw 374 and 397 ? ? 4 1916- 1917 Romulus 1006 5th c ? ? 3 1918 Romulus 1007 btw 508/509 and ? ? 1 1919 523

~~287~~

Ru[…] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1921 Ruderic 1001 542-bef 546† comes ? 2 1921 Ruferius 1001 Oct 596 comes ? 7 1922 [Ru]finia[nus?] 5th c ? ? 3 1923 1001 Rufinus 1008 5th c ? v(ir) 3 1943 c(larissi mus) Rufinus 1009 5th/6th c custos ? 3 1943 Rufinus 1014 * 3rd/4th c ? ? 0 1945 Rufius 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 1945 Rumoridus 1001 384 magister militum ? 4 1946 Rusticianus 1001 5th/6th c ? v(ir) 3 1950 relig(iosu s) Rusticius 1001 bef 466 ? inlustris 4 1950 vir Rusticulu[s] 1001 4th c fossor? ? 1 1951 Rusticus 1001 380/381 silentiarius Gratiani Augusti ? 1 1951 Rusticus 1015 Nov/Dec 598 curator operum publicorum vir 5 1961 (?) clarissim us Rusticus 1020 * bef 337 ? ? 0 1963 S[…] 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1963 S[…] 1002 5th c ? ? 3 1963 S[…] 1003 532 prepositu(s) ? 1 1963 Sabin[…] 1001 6th c ? ? 1 1965 Sabinus 1004 btw 492 and 496 laicus ? 2 1974 Savinus 1010 May 593-bef Oct defensor Sardiniae ? 7 1979- 598† 1980 Savinus 1011 Sep 594-Jul 599 Lillibaei civitatis defensor ? 6 1980 Safargius 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 1981 Salianos 344 η ? 9 1982 (ι ) 1001 Sallustius 1001 384 or 387 praefectus Urbis ? 1 1982 Salpingus 1001 bef May 591† "homme d'affaires" ? 6 1983 Salventius 1001 533-534? praefectus Urbis v(ir) 1 1984 i(llustris) Salusius 1001 Jul 599 ? vir 5 1984 clarissim us Sambo 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1985 Sanctissimus 1001 Jul 592 ? ? 6 1985 Sanctulus 1004 1st half of 6th c venerator frater ? 0 1987 S[ap]rikios 5th/6th c ( ε) ? 6 1990 (ι ) 1002 Satius 1001 early 5th c? ? ? 2 1991 Saturninus 1004 549 consiliarius ? 1 1993

~~288~~

Saturninus 1005 bef Mar 559† ? illustris 6 1993 vir Saturninus 1006 may 591 ? ? 6 1994 Satyrus 1001 Dec 374-378?† advocatus ? 4 1995- 1996 Scolasticus 1001 Sep-Dec 592 Campaniae iudex vir 5 1997 magnific us Scolasticus 1002 bef Aug 594-Jul 599 defensor ? 2 1997- 1998 Scolasticus 1003 Oct 598 defensor ? 6 1998 Secundinus 1002 bef Dec 404 ? ? 1 2008- 2009 Secundinus 1005 Mar 559 defensor ? 1 2010 Sedulius 1001 btw 425 and 450 poeta ? 8 2018- 2019 Segetius 1002 Apr 559 defensor? ? 6 2019

Sempao[…] 4th/5th c fossor? ? 1 2020 Senarius 1001 bef 517-bef 523 comes patrimonii patricius, 2 2020- vir 2021 illutris Senilius 1001 Aug 493, 494, 495, ? vir 0 2025- or 496 honorabil 2026 is S[ep]timinus 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 2 2026 Septimus 1002 btw 492 and 496 servus servus 5 2027- 2028 Serenianus 1001 bef 26 Dec 418-Jan tribunus vir 1 2029 419 clarissim us Serges 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 3 2035 Sergios ( ι) 4th/5th c ω ? 5 2035 1001 Sergius 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 2035 Sergius 1003 btw Mar 559 and cancellarius ? * 2035 Mar 561 Sergius 1004 Nov 597-Jul 599 defensor Siponti ? 5 2036- 2037 Servilio 1001 btw 501 and 513 doctor, praeceptor ? 4 2039 Servulus 1001 bef 590/591† ? ? 1 2039- 2040 Sesi[…] 1001 5th/6th c cubicu[la]rius ? 3 2045 Seve[…] 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2045 Severianus 1001 514-516 c(omes sacri) c(onsistorii) v(ir) 9 2046- c(larissi 2047 mus) Severianus 1002 6th c ? v(ir) 2 2047 r(eligiosu s) Severinus 1003 25 Mar 534 ? inlustris 2 2049- et 2050

~~289~~

magnific us filius Severus 1005 Jun 386-412/413- lanius ? 4 2054 425? Severus 1007 4th/5th c fossor ? 1 2056 Severus 1009 407/408 ? ? 1 2056 Severus 1012 btw 461 and 468 ? ? 1 2057 Severus 1015 2 Jan 491 argentarius v(ir) 2 2058 h(onestus ) Severus 1018 bef 26 May 521-3 ? v(ir) 2 2060 Jun 521 s(pectabi lis) Severus 1019 bef 26 May 521-3 ? v(ir) 2 2060 Jun 521 l(audabili s) Severus 1021 4 Apr 553 for(ensis) civ(itatis) ? 2 2061 Rav(ennatis), scribtor Severus 1022 Mar 559 ? ? 5 2061 Severus 1028 Mar 595?-Aug 599 ? vir 6 2065 magnific us Sigibuld 1001 * bef 530 ? ? * 2066 Sigisuultus 1001 427/428-445/448 comes, consul, magister patricius * 2067 utriusque militiae Silvanio 1001 4th/5th c fossor ? 1 2068 Silverius 1002 aft 25 Mar 534 ? illustris 2 2069- et 2070 magnific us vir Simeonius 1001 btw 523 and 526 ? ? 5 2074 Simplicius 1001 late 375 vicarius Urbis ? 1 2080 Simplicius 1007 bef 507/511† ? ? 1 2082 Simplicius 1008 btw 507 and 512 ? ? 4 2082 Sinceris 1001 May 596 ? ? 6 2083 Sindila 1001 551 spodeus (=copyist in ? 2 2083 scriptorium?) Sindula 1001 Feb-Apr 559 magister militum ? 2 2083- 2084 Siricius 1003 4th c ? ? 1 2086 Sisinnius 1001 btw 374 and 397 ? ? 4 2087 Sisinnius 1003 Jul 592 iudex Samnii ? 5 2088 Sisinnius 1004 bef Nov 594-Sep defensor eccl. Messanensis ? 6 2089 597 Xystus 1006 * bef 417 ? ? 1 2092 Smaragdus 1002 585-608 exarchus et chartularius patricius 2 2093- sacri palatii, exarchus Italiae 2095 Solatius 1001 btw 507 and 512 ? ? 4 2095 Soricina 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2098 Sorillio 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2099

~~290~~

Sperantius 1001 btw 339 and 346- ? ? 1 2103 Jun 350† Spesindeo 1001 Easter 599-Oct 600 praeses Sardiniae ? 7 2104 Splendonius 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2104 Splendonius 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2105 Ste[…] 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 3 2105 Stefanio 1001 aft 507 ? ? 4 2107 Stephanus 1001 early 5th c artisan ? 2 2108 Stephanus 1005 btw 492 and 496 ? ? 0 2109 Stefanus 1011 5th/6th c c(ustos) ec(clesiae) ? 3 2114 Stephanus 1016 btw 507 and 511 ? ? 3 2117 Stephanus 1022 29 Apr 519 negotiator ? 1 2119 Stephanus 1024 536 ? notable 5 2120 (ι ) Stephanus 1026 550-551 ? ? 1 2121 Stefanus 1031 17 Jul 564 ? ? 2 2124 Stefanus 1032 btw 571/572 and naucl(erus) ? 3 2124 586/587 Stephanus 1033 bef 577/580† ? optio 1 2124 Stephanus 1035 590/591† ? inlustris 1 2125 vir Stephanus 1036 dec 590-Apr 596?- ? vir 5 2125 Oct/Nov 598? magnific us (?) Stephanus 1037 May 592-Jun 595 cartarius Siciliae ? 1 2125- 2126 Stephanus 1040 bef May 593† ? vir 7 2127 magnific us Stephanus 1042 May 597 ? ? 5 2128 Stephanus 1043 Dec 598/Jan 599 ? ? 5 2128 Stephanus 1045 Jan 599 ? ex-servus 5 2129 Stephanus 1047 Sep/Oct 599 ? vir 7 2130 clarissim us Stefan(us) 1049 6th c mili(s) n(u)m(eri) ? 3 2130 Ta[r]b(isiani) t(urmae) Iust(i)ni Stefanus 1051 600? com(es) v(ir) 2 2131 c(larissi mus) Stefanus 1053 early 7th c ? magnif(i 5 2131- cus) 2132 illustris grecus donator Stercorius 1002 5th c ? ? 3 2133 Stilicho 1001 Jan 395-22 Aug comes, magister militum ? 9 2133- 408† 2135 Storacius 1001 457 ? ? 1 2135

~~291~~

Studius 1001 btw 374 and 397 ? Judicial authority of some ? * 2136 kind Sucessus 1001 4th/5th c fossor? ? 1 2137 Suosteu (?) 1001 4th c fossor? ? 1 2138 Sustus 1001 5th c? fossor ? 1 2140 Symeonius 1001 btw 559 and 561 ? illustris 3 2142 (vir) Symmachus 1001 bef 374-402† praefectus Urbis Romae aristocrat 1 2142- 2143 Symmachus 1002 dec 418-apr 419 praefectus Urbis aristocrat 1 2143- 2144 Symmachus 1006 498-525 praefectus Urbis patricius 1 2146- 2147 Symmachus 1007 26 Aug 526 scholasticus Iudaeus ? 2 2147 Symmachus 1008 Jun 591 defensor ? 7 2147 Symmachus 1009 bef Feb 601 ? vir 1 2147 magnific us Tabula 1001 bef 364† servus Dei ? 1 2150 Tala[…] 1001 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 2150 586/587 Talitanus 1001 Aug 599 ? glorissim 1 2151 us (vir) Taurus 1001 359 praefectus praetorii v(ir) * 2153- c(larissi 2154 mus) Teia 1001 btw 492 and 496 comes ? 2 2155 Telesinus 1001 btw 492 and 496 ? vir 5 2156 clarissim us Terentianus 1001 483 ? vir 8 2156 clarissim us Terentius 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 2157 Te[re]ntius 1002 5th c propositus (=praepositus) ? 1 2157 Terinus 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2158 Tertius 1001 4th c conservus Dei ? 1 2158 Tertius 1002 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 2158 586/587 Tertullus 1001 4th/5th c sculptor ? 1 2159 Tertullus 1003 bef 541 ? patricius 1 2160 Theoctistus 1001 Jul 451 magistrianus ? 1 2161 Theoctistus 1002 btw Dec 558 and 2 ? vir 9 2161 Jan 559 illustris Theodatus 1002 early 7th c adorator numeri ? 1 2162 Theodosiac(i) Theodo[…] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2163 Theodo[…] 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2163 Theodolus 1001 3 Jan-13 Jan 552 olosiricoprata (silk weaver) v(ir) 2 2164 c(larissi mus)

~~292~~

Theodoros 6th/7th c ? ? 2 2166 (εω ) 1001 Theodorus 1003 382-399 praefectus praetorio Italie, originall 4 2167- consul y 2168 "obscure " Theodorus 1004 390-409 praefectus praetorio ? 0 2168 Theodorus 1005 4th c ? ? 3 2168 Theodorus 1011 5th/6th c ? ? 3 2170 Theodorus 1012 bef 19 Apr 526 exconsul senator 2 2170- 2171 Theodorus 1013 aft 17 Dec 546 ηω ? 1 2171 (=advocatus) Theodorus 1014 3 Jan-13 Jan 552 argentarius v(ir) 2 2171 h(onestus ) Theodorus 1015 Feb/Mar 559 consiliarius vir 1 2172 magnific us Theodorus 1017 Dec 590 palatinus ? 2 2172- 2173 Theodorus 1018 Jun 591-bef May dux Sardiniae, magister ? 7 2173 594 militum Theodorus 1019 bef Jan 593-Sep 600 consiliarius ? 1 2174 Theodorus 1022 Aug 597 ? ? 6 2175 Theodorus 1023 bef Oct 598-bef 599 curator Ravennae ? 2 2176 Theodorus 1024 Feb 592?-Nov/Dec maior populi vir 5 2176- 598 magnific 2177 us Theodorus 1026 6th c gregis decus…, dirigens ? 3 2178 praecamina Theodorus 1030 early 7th c? tabel(io) urb(is) Rom(ae) v(ir) 1 2178- h(onestus 2179 ) [T]heodosius 1002 25 Feb 575 mag(ister) l(itterarum) v(ir) 2 2181 d(evotus) Theodosius 1003 bef May 591† conductor? ? 6 2181- 2182 Theodosius 1006 May/Jun 599 ? ? 3 2183 Theodosius 1007 c. 600 tabell(io) urb(is) Rom(ae) ? 1 2184 Theogtis 1001 6th c? ? ? 4 2186 (Theo tis) Theophanius 1001 587/588† Centumcellensis urbis ? 2 2188 comes Theopompus 1001 Jul 516 comes domesticorum ? 9 2189- 2190 Theridius 1001 400? proprietor of a domus ? 1 2193 Theudule 1001 btw 374 and 397 ? servant 3 2194 [Th]omas 1001 5th/6th c prep[ositus] c[…] ? 1 2194 Thomas 1002 5th/6th c tribunus ? 3 2194 Thomas 1006 13 Jan 552-bef 25 defensor eccl. Ravennatis ? 2 2196 Feb 575

~~293~~

Thomas 1007 btw 571/572 and notarius ? 3 2196 586/587 Thomas 1009 Feb 595 ? ? 2 2197 Thomas 1010 Sep 595 notarius servus, 1 2197 then freeman Tiburtius 1005 * 4th c ? ? 1 2200 Tigrinianus 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 2201 Timarcus 1001 Sep/Oct 598 excubitor ? 6 2202 Timasius 1001 388 magister equitum et peditum ? 9 2202 Timasius 1002 413/415 servus Dei ? * 2202 Timotheus 1003 6th c ? ? 5 2205 Titianus 1001 bef 392 ? ? * 2207 Tofimus 1001 4th c fosro (=fossor) ? 1 2208 Toxotius 1001 364-bef 381† ? v(ir) 1 2209 c(larissi mus) Toxotius 1002 bef 381-385 ? v(ir) 1 2209 c(larissi mus) Traianus 1001 btw Apr and Sep ? ? 1 2209 419 Traianus 1003 498-533† ? v(ir) 1 2210 cl(arissi mus) et sp(ectabi lis) Tranquillinus 398 ? ? 1 2211 1001 Triuuila 1001 btw 509 and 512- praepositus cubiculi ? 2 2214 522/523 Trygetius 1001 452 ? vir 1 2215 praefecto rius Trigetius 1002 btw 492 and 496 ? ? 5 2215 T[r]ophimus 1001 4th c fossor ? 1 2215

Tullianus 1002 bef Nov 597† magister militiae ? 5 2217 Tutus 1001 484-485 defensor Romanae ecclesiae ? 1 2220 Unigildus 1001 6th c ? ? 1 2339 Uranius 1002 482 subadivua ? 9 2343 Uranius 1003 5th/6th c ? ? 3 2343 Urbanus 1003 Sep 515 sedis apostolicae defensor ? 1 2346 Urbicus 1003 493 universa palatii onera vir 2 2348 sustentans (= quaestor illustrissi palatii?) mus Urbicus 1005 bef Mar 591† ? ? 5 2349 Urbicus 1007 bef Feb 593† defensor de patrimonio ? 2 2351 Saviniensi atque Cartiolano Ursatius 1003 bef 22 Jun 431 ? vir 5 2353

~~294~~

clarissim us Ursinus 1003 4th/5th c? ? ? 1 2358 Ursus 1002 aft 389 ? ? 0 2359- 2360 Ursus 1003 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2360 Ursus 1006 403 fossor ? 1 2361 Ursus 1015 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 2366 586/587 Ursus 1018 6th c ? ? 3 2366 Ursus 1019 * ? ? ? 5 2366 Uualdaric 1001 Nov/Dec 598 ? ? 0 2367 Uuilandus 1001 Jul 592 ? ? 0 2367 Uuiliarit 1002 551 spodeus, bokareis ? 2 2368 Uuintarit 1001 Jun 603 ? magnitud 2 2369 o V[…] 404 fossor ? 1 2221 Val[…] 4th/5th c fossor (?) ? 1 2221 Valentinianus aft 392? ? ? 4 2223 1001 Valentinianus 5th/6th c ? ? 3 2224 1003 Valentinus 1001 354 ? ? 8 2225- 2226 Valentinus 1017 aft 569-bef Mediolanensis eccl. ? 4 2234 593/594† Defensor Valerianus 1002 bef Mar 417 servus Ariminensis ? 2 2239 Valerianus 1003 552-559 magister militum patricius 3-4 2239- 2240 Valerianus 1004 571-bef 593/594?† advocatus ? 1 2240 Valerianus 1005 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 2241 586/587 Valerius 1001 aft Mar 417- comes; actibus publicis vir 2 2242- 421/422? eidemque militaribus inlustris, 2245 occupato praestant issimus vir, sublimis vir Valerius 1002 aft Apr 428-bef late cubicularius ? 9 2245 429 Valerius 1004 5th/6th c ? ? 0 2246 Valgius 1001 409/410 marine ? 7 2247 Valilia 1001 17 Apr 471-bef 483 magister utriusque militiae ? 1 2247- 2248 Vassacius 1001 early 7th c ? v(ir) 2 2248 c(larissi mus) Vecta 1001 bef Nov 598† comes in Misenati castello ? 5 2249 Velox 1001 Sep 591 magister militum ? 2 2249- 2250

~~295~~

Venantius 1004 533? ? patricius 5 2253 Venantius 1007 591/592-Nov 602 ? patricius 6 2257- de 2258 Panormo Venantius 1009 Jan 601 ? ? 5 2260 Verecundus 1001 386/387-bef 389† grammaticus ? 4 2265- 2266 V[e]ricundus 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 2 2266 Vespula 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2267 Viator 1001 bef 343† ? ? 9 2268 Viator 1005 Feb/Mar 559 ? vir 2 2269 illustris Viator 1007 bef Jul 599 tribunus Ydrontinae civitatis ? 5 2270 Vibius 1001 3rd/4th c fossor ? 1 2271 Victor 1009 5th c ? ? 3 2276 Victor 1010 btw 501 and 513 ? sublimis 4 2276 et magnific us vir Victoranus 1001 4th c fossor? ? 1 2287 Victorinus 1001 354-Jun 362 rhetor urbis Romae ? 8 2289- 2293 Vi[c]torinus 1003 4th/5th c fossor ? 1 2293 Victorinus 1006 5th c ? ? 3 2294 Vigilantius 1001 5th/6th c tosor (barber) ? 3 2296 Vigilius 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2297 Vigilius 1007 551 frater ? 1 2300 Vigilius 1008 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 2300 586/587 Vigilius 1010 bef Jan 599 vices praefecturae gessit ? 4 2300- 2301 Vincentius 1005 4th/5th c ? ? 2 2307 Vincomalus 1001 Feb 595-bef Jun ecclesiae defensor ? 3 2311 596?† Vindemius 1004 6th c? ? [inl]ustri 1 2314 s Virinus 1001 * ? vir Dei ? 0 2317 Vitales 1001 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 2317- 586/587 2318 Vitalianus 1004 5th c? ? ? 4 2320 Vitalianus 1006 mid-6th c? coll(ectarius) v(ir) 2 2320 h(onestus ) Vitalis 1001 395 ? ? 1 2321 Vitalis 1009 3 Jan-13 Jan 552 arg(entarius) v(ir) 2 2330 c(larissi mus) Vitalis 1014 Aug 598-Sep 603 defensor Caralis ? 7 2332- 2334 Vitalis 1015 Apr 599 ? ? 1 2334-

~~296~~

2335 Vitalis 1016 600? tabellio civ(itatis) ? 2 2335 Rav(ennatis) Vitulis 1001 Mar 419 cancellarius ? 2 2336 Vitus 1001 Aug/Sep 558 defensor ? * 2336 Vitus 1002 Jan/Feb 599-Apr defensor ? 1 2337 599 Viventius 1001 Sep/Oct 366 praefectus Urbis ? 1 2337 Volusianus 1001 411/412-6 Jan 437† praefectus Urbis ? 1 2340- 2341 Volusianus 1002 445/448 qui tum patricii Segisuulti ? 2 2341 cancellis praeerat Volusianus 1003 510/511 senator magnific 2 2341- us et 2342 patricius vir Vult 1001 btw 542 and 546 comes ? 2 2369 Ysidorus 1001 Aug 592-May 593 ? vir 7 2372 excellent issimus, vir eloquenti ssimus Zabarda 1001 May 594 dux Sardiniae ? 7 2373 Zalla 1001 btw 541 and 552 ? ? 5 2375 Zebida 1001 6th c ? ? 3 2376 Zemarcus 1001 bef Dec 590† tribunus, comes clarissim 2 2376 us Zenobius 1001 Nov 386-410? ? ? 0 2378 Zenophilus 1001 * ? senator (vir) 1 2378 illustris Zimarcus 1001 6th c primicerius nomiri ? 3 2379 Tar(bisiani) Zittia 1001 May 600 magister militum ? 6 2379 Zosimos 5th/6th c ? ? 6 2379 (ι ) 1001 […]anco[…] 1001 5th c fossor ? 1 2385 […]anu[s] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2386 […]arias 1001 btw 565 and Aug ? patricius 2 2386 570 […]atiosus 1001 4th/5th c serbus Dei ? 1 2386 […]binus 1001 373† ? ? 2 2387 […]bius 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2387 […]clu[s] 1001 4th c fossor? ? 1 2387 […]crinianus 5th c ? ? 3 2387 1001 […]ctur[…] 1001 6th c ? ? 3 2387 […]eni[…] 1001 526†? ? [re]ligios 5 2389 us […]imius 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 3 2390

~~297~~

[…]itio 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2390 […]la 1001 551 defensor ? 2 2391 […]n[…] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2391 […]nati[…] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2392 […]ninu[s] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2392 […]nt[…] 1001 5th/6th c […]s(an)c(t)[ae…] ? 3 2393 […]ntius 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2394 […]nus 1001 4th/5th c fossor ? 1 2394 […]nus 1003 btw 571/572 and [cubicu]larius ? 3 2394 586/587 […]nus 1004 5th c ? ? 3 2395 […]oianus 1001 5th/6th c notar[ius] ? 4 2395 […]s 1001 4th/5th c famulus ? 3 2396 […]tinus 1001 4th/5th c fossor ? 1 2397 […]ulupo 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2398 […]ur 1001 380 fossor ? 1 2398 […]urius 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 3 2399

~~Part 3: Ecclesiastical Females~~

Name Dates Ecclesiastic Office Rank Location Page in Code PCBE A […] 1002 before 1 September nun ? 4 1 463† Acne 1001 4th/5th c. nun? ? 1 11 Adeodata 1001 5th c virgo ? 1 16 Adeodata 1003 Jan 599 nun ? 4 16 Adeodata 1004 April 599 abbatissa ? 0 17 Aemiliana 1001 9 Dec 489† sacra virgo ? 1 32 Aemiliana 1002 before 590/591† virgo sacra ? (of 1 32 noble family) Aestonia 1001 4th/5th c. virgo Chr(isti?) ? 0 36 Agapetilla 1001 4th/5th C. ancilla Dei ? 1 40 Agnela 1001 471-501† famula Chr(ist)i ? 4 58 Agnella 1001 btw 501 and 513 sancta vidua aristocrat 1 58 ic Agnella 1002 July 599 abbatissa ? 5 58 Agnes 1001 4th/5th c. sacra virgo ? 1 71 Agnes 1002 5th/6th C [famula] Chr(ist)i ? 4 71 Albina 1002 before 385-431† famula Dei senatoria 1 75-77 l Alexa[…] 1001 449† virgo sacra ? 1 89 Aluminosa 1001 Sept-Oct 598 ancilla Dei ? 1 92 Ambrosia 1001 Mar 392? Domini sacra ? 4 101-102

~~298~~

Ampelia 1001 6th c velamine casto crinibus ? 4 107 imposito Anastasia 1003 4th/5th c. puella dei ? 1 112 Anna 1002 6th C diac(onissa) ? 1 141 Annes 1001 4th/5th c. anc[illae Dei?] ? 1 141 Antiochia 4th/5th c. η ( ε) ? 6 151 (ι ) 1001 [Apol]lonia 1001 472-547†? sacra vi(rgo) ? 5 166 Apra ( ) 1001 1 May 435† η (ι ) ? 6 169 Asella 1001 before 334-404/5 virgo ? 1 199-200 Asella ( ) 5th/6th c [η ] ? 6 200 1003 Asther ( ) 4th/5th c. [] ι ? 1 213 1001 Athanasia 1001 4th c. vir(go) (Christi?) ? 1 213 Aventia 1001 5th c ancilla dei ? 4 218 Aufenia 1001 4th c. virgo benedicta ? 1 221 Autperga 1001 542-2 Nov 563† Chr(ist)i ancilla ? 5 236 Barbaria 1001 482-btw 492 and ascetic illustris 2 253-254 495/6 femina Bellicia 1001 4th/5th c. fedelissima virgo ? 1 282 Benedicta 1001 bef 593/4† sanctimonialis femina ? 1 283 ('moniale') Bictoria 1001 4th/5th c. fidelis virgo ? 1 301 Blesilla 1001 364/5-bef Aug 385† dedicated virgin of high 1 310-311 rank Bona 1002 Apr 599 abbatissa ? 0 316 Bonifatia 1001 aft 403 sacra [virgo?] ? 1 317 Caecilia 1001 6th c arratissa (=abbatissa) ? 1 353 Candida 1001 353-412/13 virgo ? 1 387 Capitulina 1001 bef Oct 599† abbatissa ? 6 397 Cassia 1001 btw 461 and 468 ? ? 1 402 Catella 1001 Jul 591 religiosa femina ? 7 422 Chrusis ( ) 4th c η ( ε) ? 1 436 1001 Chrysogonis 1001 * btw 432 and 440 consecrata ? 1 438 Claudia 1002 6th c religiosa femina ? 3 446 Coluba 1001 434-6 Aug 524† virgo sacra ? 2 459 Concordia 1001 4th c puella virgo D(ei?) ? 1 462 Constantia 1002 6th c? consecrated virgin ? 4 466 Constantina 1002 Sep 595 abbatissa ? 0 466 Cuttia 1001 bef 3 Jul 521 nonna… ancilla Dei ? 1 511 Daedalia 1001 4th/5th c. virgo sacrata Deo ? 4 528 Dafnen 1001 4th/5th c. vidua q(uae)… a(e)clesia ? 1 528 nihil gravavit Demetria 4th/5th c. ε [] η ? 6 544 (ηι ) 1001

~~299~~

Demetrias 1001 bef 401-btw 440 virgo Christi high 1 544-547 and 461† aristocra cy Desideria 1001 Sep 602 abbatissa ? 7 550 Diogenia 1001 5th/6th c widow (part of ordo ? 4 562 viduarum ) Domina 1001 bef May 598 abbatissa monasterii s. ? 6 581 Stephani quod in Agrigentino est territorio constitutum Dominica 1001 501-569† r(eligiosa) f(emina) high 2 581-2 (possibly member of ordo aristocra viduarum) cy Domnica 1003 Jul 597-Feb/Apr ? ? 1 590 599 Eu[…] 1001 505† famola Chr(ist)i ? 4 661 Eul[…] 1001 488† religiosa femina ? 6 679 Eunomia 1001 c. 399/400-407 consecrated virgin ? 1 686 Euprepia 1001 Oct 591 abbess (or founder of a ? 1 689 female mon. community?) [Eu]seb[ia] 1003 btw 571/2 and ? famul(a) 3 691 586/7 s(an)c(t)a e martyris Eufemiae Eustochium 1001 aft 364/5-bef 418/9† Christi virgo high 1 713-718 aristocra cy Extranea 1001 May 591 ancilla Dei ? 6 731 Exuperia 1001 6th c consecrated virgin ? 4 733 Feliciana 1001 Jun 384 consecrated virgin ? 0 762 Felicitas 1001 385 ascetic aristocrat 1 767 ic Felicitas 1002 4th/5th c? [sacra vi]rgo ? 5 768 Flabanella 1001 5th c ancilla Dei (virgo) ? 1 825 Flavia 1001 6th c velamine casto crinibus ? 4 826 imposito (sacra virgo) Flora 1002 5th c ? r(eligiosa 4 833 ) f(emina) Flora 1003 Jan 593 abbatissa ? 1 833 Galla 1001 btw 508 and 533 nun domina 1 882-883 illustris Gaudentia 1001 4th c sancta religiosa ? 1 886 Gavinia 1001 Bef Jul 599 abbatissa monasterii ss. ? 7 904 Gavinii atque Luxurii Genobia 1001 406-471† D(e)o sancta ? 4 912 Gordiana 1001 bef 590/91† virgo sacra noble 1 934 Gratiosa 1001 Aug 593 abbatissa ? 5 938 Gratiosa 1002 6th/7th c abbatissa ? 1 938 Greca ( ε) 1001 6th/7th c η ε ωη ? 7 941

~~300~~

Gregoria 1001 bef 555-593/94 sacra virgo, sanctimonialis ? 5 941-942 Herundo 1001 1st half of 6th c hermit ? 2 982 Hilara 1001 4th c sancta, religiosa ? 1 983 Ianuaria 1003 Jul 599 religiosa femina ? 7 1022- 1023 Inbenia 1001 5th/6th C famula D(e)i ? 7 1039 Indicia 1001 btw 374 and 397 virgo (consecrated) ? 3 1039- 1040 Io[…] 1001 304-24 Feb 345† virgo (consecrated) ? 1 1053 Irene 1001 bef 366† virgo (consecrated) ? 1 1159 Iuliana 1002 4th/5th c virgo (consecrated) ? 1 1169 Iuliana 1007 Mar 559 Deo consecrata ? 5 1172 Iuliana 1008 Jun 591 abbatissa, ancilla Dei ? 7 1172 Iusta 1001 9 Nov 461 sacra virgo ? 5 1208 Iustina 1003 484-1 Nov 569 abbatissa, fundatrix sancti ? 5 1212 loci Kyr[ak]es 4th/5th c η ( ε) ? 6 1226 () 1001 Labinia 1001 374-409† virgo Dei ? 1 1227 Labinia 1002 Bef Jun 591† ? religiosa 7 1227 femina Laurentia 1001 btw 264 and 284- concsecrated widow ? 1 1232- btw 366 and 384 1233 Laurentia 1002 4th c sacra vi[rgo] ? 1 1233 Laurentia 1004 4th/5th c puella Dei (consecrated ? 1 1233 virgin) Lea 1002 Oct/Dec 384 monasterii princeps, mater noble 1 1268 virginum Leontia 1002 6th c virgo (consecrated): ? 4 1284 velamine casto crinibus imposito Leoparda 1001 4th/5th c? sancta virgo ? 1 1293 Licinia 1002 6th c velamine casto crinibus ? 4 1306 imposito Lucilla 1001 4th/5th c [virgo] Dei ? 1 1329 M[…] 1001 432 or 454† sacr(a) virg(o) ? 5 1342 Macedo[nia] 1001 5th c [sac]ra virgo ? 1 1343 Macrina 1001 5th c virgo ? 3 1348 Marcella 1001 btw 339 and 346- ascetic widow "d'une 1 1357- aft Aug 410† famille 1362 illustre" Marcella 1003 4th/5th c virgo (consecrated): electa a ? 1 1362 Deo Marcellina 1001 bef 339/340- 4 Apr virgo Dei high 4 1365- 397 1366 Marcia 1001 Sep 594 sanctimonialis femina… ex ? 6 1380 monasterio Maria 1005 6th c virgo (consecrated) ? 4 1397 Marina 1001 4th c sa[ra virgo?] ? 1 1399 Marta 1002 510† ? r(eligiosa 4 1414

~~301~~

) f(emina) Matrona 1001 4th c vidua Dei ? 1 1431 Maxentia 1001 * mid 4th c widow, later ascetic ? 3 1442 Maximilla 1001 339-389† virgo, ancilla Dei ? 9 1461 Melania 1001 340?-bef 408† ascetic/pilgrim senatoria 1 1480- l family 1483 Melania 1002 380?-31 Dec 439† ascetic, pilgrim senatoria 1 1483- l family 1490 Melissa 1001 btw 503 and 512† virgo (consecrated?) ? 4 1492 Micina 1001 4th c puella Dei ? 1 1511 Modesta 1001 5th/6th c castam bixit Chr(ist)o ? 5 1519 (prolly = consecrated virgin) Montana 1001 Sep 595 slave, then nun slave, 1 1521 then freedwo man Nicella 1001 4th c virco Dei (prolly ? 1 1538 consecrated) Olibula 1001 btw 492 and 496 religiosa femina (solitary) ? 2 1550- 1551 Pacatula 1001 aft Aug 410 probably consecrated virgin ? 1 1569 Pascentia 4th/5th c () (consecrated) ? 6 1609 (ει ) 1001 Paterna 1001 btw 374 and 397 ascetic ? 4 1614 Paula 1001 5 May 347-26 Jan monacha christiana ? 1 1617- 404 1626 Paula 1003 bef 402-aft 439 virgo Christi ? 1 1627- 1628 Paula 1004 550-21 Oct 556 sacra d(omi)ni famulata in ? 5 1628 aula Pelagia 1001 470-530† famula Chr(ist)i ? 4 1687 Petronella 1001 Sep 593 nun ? 5 1721 Petronia 1002 6th/7th c abb(a)t(issa) m[onasterii…] ? 1 1722 Philoumene 4th/5th c ε ? 6 1795 (ιεη ) 1001 (=virgo sacra) [P]raetextata 1001 7 Aug 464† virgo sacra ? 1 1816 Praetiosa 1001 12 Jun 401 ancilla Dei et Chr(ist)i ? 1 1818 Principia 1001 385-412 virgo Christi ? 1 1825 Proba 1005 btw 508 and 523 Christi virgo ? 1 1834 Processa 1001 btw 492 and ancilla Dei ? 5 1847 495/496 Quartua 1001 5th c vidua… quem [ sic ] omnes ? 3 1868 eclesia diligebat Redempta 1001 bef 577/580-bef in sanctimonali habitu ? 1 1878 591/592 consitiua Redemta 1001 2nd half of 6th c abb(atissa) monast. s. ? 7 1885 Laurenti Reparata 1001 512-20 Oct 542 sacra virgo, famula Dei ? 5 1890 Rigina 1001 4th/5th c vidua (part of an order ? 1 1895 thereof)

~~302~~

Ro[ma]na 1001 5th c sacra virgo ? 4 1898 Romula 1001 bef 577/580-bef in sanctimoniali habitu ? 1 1916 591/592 Rufi[na] 1003 aft 403 sacra [virgo] ? 1 1923 Rusticula 1002 513-527† famula Christi, virgo devota ? 4 1951 Deo Scolastica 1001 1st half of 6th c sanctimonialis femina ? 2 1996- 1997 Serena 1002 429-514† s(acra) v(irgo), abbatissa ? 1 2029 Silvia 1001 btw 385/386 and virgo (?sacra) ? 3 2072 409 Simplicia 1001 4th/5th c sacra virgo ? 1 2074 Sirica 1001 4th c vidua (perhaps part of an ? 1 2085 order) Sirica 1004 Bef jul 599† abbatissas monasterii ss. ? 7 2085- Gavini atque Luxurii 2086 Sofrosyne 1001 12 Apr 402† sacra virgo ? 1 2095 Sophronia 1001 aft Aug 410 ascetic (widow?) noble 1 2097 Speciosa 1001 btw 501 and 513 ascetic ? 4 2099- 2100 Staphania 1001 bef or btw 507 and sanctae viduitatis fulgor ? 1 2106 512 Syncletica 1001 5th c sacra virgo et ministra noble 0 2148 Tarsilla 1001 bef 590/591† virgo sacra ? 1 2152 Taurina 1001 6th c sacrata (=virgo sacra) ? 4 2152 Tecla 1001 Nov 598 abbatissa monasterii s. ? 5 2154 Mariae … Neapolim Theodora 1002 4th/5th c ascetic ? 1 2164 Theodora 1003 491-539† diaconissa ? 4 2165 Theodosia 1001 May 593-Sep 594 member of female ? 7 2180 community Theodule 5th c ? 6 2184 (εη ) 1001 Therasia 1001 aft 380/381- ascetic ? 8 2190- 409/415? 2193 Titiana 1001 bef 394/395† ascetic ? 1 2206- 2207 Tucza 1001 Mar/Apr 559 in conversationis officium… ? 1 2216 commorata Victora 1001 4th c birgo Dei ? 1 2287 Victoria 1002 Sep 594 nun ? 6 2288 Victorina 1001 380-402† virgo fidelis ? 1 2288 Vindicia 1001 12 Apr 402 sacra virgo ? 1 2315 Ypatia 1001 4th/5th c sacra virgo ? 1 2371 […]antia 1001 5th c virg[o] ? 4 2385 […]fera 1001 4th/5th c sacra [virgo] ? 1 2390 […]lic[i]tas 1001 547-9 Feb 553† honesta virgo (=sacra ? 5 2391 virgo?) […]or 1001 4th/5th c [fid]elis virgo (=sacra v.?) c(larissi 1 2395 ma)

~~303~~

~~p(uella)~~

~~Part 4: Lay Females~~

Name Dates Office/Occupation Rank Location Page in Code PCBE Acricia 1001 5th C. ? ? 3 13 Addo 1001 4th/5th c. ? ? 1 13 Adelfia 1001 6th C. (?) ? c(larissi 6 14 ma) f(emina) Adeodata 1002 Aug. 598-Sept. 600 ? gloriosiss 6 16 ima, illustris Aetia 1001 before July 591 ? ? 1 38 Agapita 1001 btw. 507 and 511 ? spectabil 0 41 is femina Agathosa 1001 July 596-Feb 601 ? ? 6 55 Agneta 1001 btw 571 and 572- ? ? 3 71 586/7 Agrippina 1001 4th/5th C ? ? 3 72 Albina 1001 384-before 387/389 ? unknown 1 74 or 393† , but high* Albul[a] 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 3 82 Alexandria 1001 before June/July ? ? 5 89 599† Amara 1001 5th C. ? ? 3 100 Amphelis 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 1 109 Anapsychia 1001 411/12 ? ? 1 110-111 Anastasia 1001 btw 366 and 384 ? c(larissi 1 111 ma) f(emina) Anastasia 1002 btw 440 and 461 ? in(lustris 1 111 ) fe(mina) Anastasia 1004 5th/6th c ? ? 3 112 Anes 1001 5th C. ? ? 3 138 Animula 1001 4th/5th C ? ? 2 140 Antistia 1001 btw 492 and 496 formerly called to the ? 5 152 propositum viduitatis Antonina 1001 4th/5th c vidua ? 1 152 Antonina 1002 btw 492 and 496 vidua ? 0 153 Antonina 1003 536-537 ? patricia 9 153 Antonina 1004 Feb 559 ? patricia 1 154 Antonina 1005 btw 571/2 and 586/7 ? ? 3 154 Antonina 1006 Aug 599-Aug 601 ? patricia? 6 154-155 Apodemia 1001 btw 501 and 513 ? ? 8 165-166

~~304~~

Aproniane 1001 4th c ? wife of 2 171 priest Arethusa 1001 bef 593-Oct 600 ? clarissim 4 185 a femina Asella 1002 4th/5th C ? ? 1 200 Atelia 1001 5th c. ? ? 3 213 Attica 1001 5th C. ? clarissim 1 216 a Augusta 1001 5th/6th C p(res)b(yter)a ? 1 221 Augustula 1001 4th c ? ? 1 223 Avita 1001 bef 399/400-Jan 407 ? noble 1 228-229 (husband was senator) Aureliana 1001 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 232 586/587 Aurora 1001 403-463† ? penetens 4 236 et spectabili s f(emina) Barbara 1001 aft 502-bef 513 ? aristocrat 4 252 e' Barbara 1002 Aug 599-Aug 601 ? patricia? 6 252-253 Basilia 1001 6th c. ? religiosa 3 257 femina Be[…] 1001 4th/5th C ? ? 3 276 Bona 1001 btw 571/2 and 586/7 ? ? 3 316 Ca[l]ifronia 1001 8 May 369† ? ? 1 378 Calliope 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 1 383 Calventia 1001 late 4th/early 5th c virgo ? 2 384 Campana 1001 bef 591† ? patricia 1 386-387 Caretosa 1001 537-17 Sept 565† ? ? 5 398 Castorina 1001 374? ? ? 3 412 Catella 1002 Jun 593 ? slave 5 422 Celantina 1001 bef 410? ? aristocrat * 425 ic Clarissima 1001 4th/5th C ? ? 3 443 Claudia 1001 4th c ? noble 1 445 (appar.) Clementina 1001 Dec 590-Mar 600 ? patricia, 5 454 gloriosa femina Concordia 1002 5th C. ? ? 3 462 Conditaria 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 1 464 Constantia 1001 4th/5th C ? ? 3 465 Constantina 1001 bef 354† ? daughter 1 466 of Constanti ne I

~~305~~

Constantina 6th/7th c ? ? 2 466 (ω ) 1003 Crescentia 1001 4th/5th C ? ? 3 496 Cynegia 1001 504-bef 509/512† ? aristocrat 1 511 ic Daim[…] 1001 5th c? ? ? 3 528 Decentia 1001 5 Sept 424 ? ? 2 535 Decentiana 1001 btw 571/2 and 586/7 ? ? 3 535 Decia 1001 Feb 559 ? ? 1 537 Decian[a] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 538 Deuteria 1001 411-432† ? ? 4 558 Diugenia 1001 6th c ? ? 3 580 Domna 1001 Aug 594 nutrix ? 0 589 Domnica 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 589 Domnica 1002 5th/6th c ? ? 3 590 Dulcitia 1001 btw 555 and 560 ? famula 5 605 Epiphania 1001 4th/5th c ? c(larissi 1 636 ma) v(irgo?) Erene 1001 599 ? gloriosa 5 659 (femina) Eudoxia 437-aft 462? Augusta high 9 667-668 ( ) 1001 (daughter of Theodosi us II) Eufemia 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 3 671 Eufimia 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 671 Eugenia 1001 btw 571/2 and 586/7 ? ? 3 673 Eusebia 1001 25 May 475 ? ? 1 691 Eusebia 1002 5th c ? ? 3 691 Eutropia 1001 btw 339 and 346- ? sister of 1 724 350/1† Constanti ne Fabiola 1001 btw 386 and 395-bef ? noble 1 734-735 400† (and rich) Fabiola 1002 402?-422-452? ? ? 1 735-736 Fadilla 1001 btw 507 and 512 ? ? 1 739 Fausta 1001 bef 558† ? ? 2 745 Fausta 1002 2nd half of 6th c ? inlustris 3 745 fem(ina) Faustina 1001 4th/5th c ? conserva 1 745 Dei Faustiniana 1001 4th/5th c famula Dei c(larissi 3 745-746 ma) f(emina) Feliciana 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 5 762

~~306~~

Felicissima 1001 4th c ? ? 4 764 Felicissima 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 2 764 Felicitas 1004 5th c ? ? 3 768 Felicitas 1005 6th c ? ? 1 768 Felicitas 1006 6th c ? ? 2 768 Fidentia 1001 Jan 599† ? ? 0 817 Firmana 1001 between 492 and ? illustris * 823 495-513 femina Flacilla 1001 379-386† Augusta ? 8 826 Flavianilla 1001 4th c ? ? 5 826-827 Flora 1001 bef 421 ? filia 8 833 religiosis sima Flora 1004 Nov/Dec 598 ? gloriosa 1 834 femina Florentia 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 4 834 Florentia 1002 529-531† ? ? 4 835 Focaria 1001 bef 438/9 ? ? 4 853 Fortuna 1001 Jul 594 ? ? 5 855 Fugitiva 1001 5th/6th c famula Chr(ist)i ? 4 877 Furia 1001 395-409 ? high 1 878-879 nobility Gala[…] 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 882 [G]audentia 1002 aft 549? ? ? 2 886 Gaudiosa 1001 407-447† ancilla Dei c(larissi 1 899 ma) f(emina) Gelliane 1001 3rd/4th c ? ? 2 906 Gemella 5th c η ε ? 2 906 (ε ) 1001 Geminia 1001 4th c ? ? 1 907 Germana 1001 17 Jul 564 ? clarissim 2 915 a femina Germana 1002 6th/7th c bidua ? 1 915 Glaphyra 1001 early 6th c ? high rank 1 932 ('grande dame') Guntelda 1001 6th c ? famula 4 958 Chr(ist)i, sp(ectabi lis) f(emina) Haelia 1001 btw 571/2 and ? ? 3 960 578/587 Helena 1001 bef 312?-330 Augusta Augusta 1 960-961 Helisea 1001 btw 504 and 513 ? from 3 967-968 notable family Helpis 1001 ? virgo ? 1 974

~~307~~

Hemiliana 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 1 975 Herelevua 1001 454-btw 492 and regina ? 2 981 496 Hilara 1002 4th/5th c bidua ? 1 983 Hilara 1003 4th-5th c ? ? 3 983 Hilaria 1001 Feb 559 ? ? 0 984 Hilaritas 1001 3rd/4th c ? ? 5 985 Hildevara 1001 11 Nov 523 ? ? 2 999 Himeria 1001 late 4th c ? ? 3 999 Hlodosvina 1001 bef 569 ? princess 8 1001 Ho[nes?]ta 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1004 Honorata 1001 382 ? c(larissi 1 1004 ma) f(emina) Honorata 1002 471-476 ? ? 4 1004- 1005 Honorata 1003 Jul/Aug 592 ancilla Dei ? 6 1005 Honorata 1004 Jul 594 ? ? 6 1005 Honoria 1001 424-450† Augusta Augusta 9 1012 Honoria 1002 464-484† ? famula 4 1012 Dei Honoria 1003 2nd half of 6th c ? ? 3 1013 Ianuaria 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 2 1022 Ianuaria 1002 Oct 598 ? ? 6 1022 Immola 1001 4th/5th c ? c(larissi 3 1038 ma) f(emina) Innocen[…] 1001 late 4th/early 5th c ? ? 3 1043 Innocencia 1001 * mid-4th c ? ? 2 1043 Ioanna ( ) 5th c ? ? 3 1053 1001 Iohanna 1001 Mar 559 ? low 0 1057- (slave or 1058 colonata ?) [Io]hanna 1002 btw 571/72 and ? ? 3 1058 586/87 Iohanna 1003 Aug 591 ? ? 6 1058 Iosime 1001 5th c polla (=puella) Dei ? 1 1148 [I]politta 1001 480-535† famola Dei ? 4 1155 Isid[ora?] 1001 5th/6th c [anci]lles [ sic ] Dei ? 1 1161 Italica 1001 bef 402?-406-bef ? inlustris 1 1162- 414/15† femina 1163 Italica 1002 5th c ? wife of 1 1163- Urban 1164 prefect Italica 1003 587/88-bef Jan 601† ? patricia 6 1164- 1165 Italica 1004 Jul 599† ? ? 4 1165

~~308~~

Iuliana 1001 Mar 394 ? ? 4 1168 Iuliana 1003 406-417/18 famula Dei inlustris 1 1169- femina 1171 Iuliana 1004 bef 418/19† ? primaria 5 1171 femina Iu[liana] 1005 5th c [a]ncilla Dei ? 2 1171 Iuliana 1006 5th/6th c pr(esbyte)ra? ? 5 1171- 1172 Iuliana 1009 Jul 594 ? ? 5 1172 Iuliana 1010 * mid-6th c ? clarissim 5 1173 a femina Iusta 1002 Jul 594 ? ? 5 1208 Iusta 1003 6th c ? ? 5 1208 Iusta 1004 * 3rd/4th c ? ? 0 1209 Iustina 1001 bef 353-388† ? high 8 1209- station 1211 (wife of Valentin ain I) Iustina 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1211 Kale ( ) 1001 5th c ε ()(ε ) or ? 6 1225 ε ()(ι ) Laeta 1001 bef 402-bef 419 ? noble 1 1227- 1229 Laurentia 1003 late 4th c ? ? 1 1233 Laurentia 1005 5th/6th c ? ? 3 1233 Lau[rentia?] 1006 6th c ? ? 3 1234 Laurentia 1007 6th c ? ? 3 1234 Laurentia 1008 6th c famula Chr(ist)i ? 4 1234 Lea 1001 btw 374 and 397 ? ? 3 1268 Lea 1003 393† ? ? 1 1268 Lea 1004 5th/6th c ? vidu[a] 1 1268 Legitima 1001 btw 352 and 366 neofyta ? 2 1269 Leontia 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1284 Leta 1001 5th/6th c presbytera ? 5 1295 Licinia 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 1 1306 Livania 1001 bef 412 vidua ? * 1308- 1309 Livania 1002 498-528† ? ? 5 1309 Lucceia 1001 389 ? clarissim 1 1312 a femina Luciana 1001 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 1320 586/587 [Lu]cina 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1332 Luminosa 1001 472-476 ? gloriosiss 4 1335 ima femina Luminosa 1002 Dec 590 ? honesta 2 1336 femina

~~309~~

Luminosa 1003 May 602 ancilla Dei ? 4 1336 Lupercilla 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 1 1340 Macriana 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1348 Magetia 1001 btw 492 and 496 ? spectabili 2 1349 s femina Magna 1001 4th c ? ? 3 1350 Mammonia 1001 bef Nov 598† ? ? 6 1355 Mammula 1001 6th c ? ? 3 1356 Mar[…] 4th/5th c ? ? 6 1356 ( […]) 1001 Marcella 1002 385 ? ? 1 1362 Marc[ella?] 1004 5th/6th c ? ? 3 1363 Marcellina 1002 5th c ? ? 3 1367 Maria 1001 2 Jan 491 ? ? 2 1396 Maria 1002 5th/6th c ? ? 3 1397 Maria 1003 bef Apr 596† ? ? 5 1397 Maria 1004 Jan 599 ? ? 5 1397 Mariniana 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1400 Markia ( ) 4th c η [... ] ? 6 1413 1001 Marta 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1414 Martana 1001 5th ? ? 3 1414 Martyria 1001 572 ? h(onesta) 2 1424 f(emina) Mat[…] 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1429 Mathbe 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1431 Matrona 1002 5th c ? "senior" 3 1432 (to Matrona 1003) Matrona 1003 5th c ? "iunior" 3 1432 (to Matrona 1002) Matrona 1004 bef Jun 591-bef Oct ? ? 7 1432 600† Matura 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1432 Maxima 1001 490-525† [a]ncilla Christi ? 1 1445 Maxima 1002 btw 492 and 496 ? illustris 5 1445 et magnific a femina Ma[x]ima 5th/6th c ? ? 6 1446 ( []ι ) 1003 [M]axima 1004 5th?/6th c ? ? 5 1446 Maximella 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1446 Maximina 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1461 Megaris 1001 Mar 599 ? ? 5 1479

~~310~~

Mela[ni]a 1003 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1490 Mel[li]ta 1001 571/572 and ? ? 3 1492 586/587 Memoria 1001 4th c ? ? 3 1495 Micina 1002 Mar 559 ancilla ancilla 2 1512 Morena 1001 bef Jul 591† ? gloriosa 5 1524 femina Mulia 1001 4th c fossatrix ? 1 1524 Murtos ( ) 4th/5th c η [ ε] ? 6 1525 1001 Musa 1001 bef 593/594† ? ? 1 1525 Nereida 1001 598 ? clarissim 7 1537 a femina Niaru 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1537 Nitiana 1001 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 1541 586/587 Nonnita 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 4 1541 Nonnosa 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1541 Nuntia 1001 319-389† matrona diaconis ? 1 1545 Olynpias 1001 4th/5th c anc(illa) Dei ? 1 1554 Orestina 1001 3rd/4th c ? ? 2 1562 Palatina 1001 Mar 591-Jul 591 ? illustris 5 1569- femina 1570 Palumba 1001 477-10 Feb 537 diacona ? 5 1574 Panaciria 1001 late 5th/early 6th c ? ? 4 1584 Pansophia 1001 394-aft 23 Aug 406 ? wife of 2 1584- clarissim 1585 us Pascasia 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1591 Pateria 1001 Mar 591 ? ? 5 1612 Paula 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 5 1626 Paula 1005 Aug 597 ? ? 6 1628- 1629 Paulina 1001 late 396† ? ? 1 1629- 1630 Paulina 1002 4th c ? ? 3 1630 Penetia 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 1718 Perpetua 1001 5th c ? ? 0 1720 Petronia 1001 472† levitae coniunx ? 1 1721 Pientia 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1797 Placidia 1001 419-450† Augusta Augusta 1 1803- 1806 Placidia 1002 btw 492 and 496 ? illustris 5 1806 femina Pollita 1001 480-535† famola Dei ? 4 1809 Pompeiana 1001 bef 591-603 ? religiosa 7 1809- femina 1810 Praeiecta 1001 Oct 598 ? ? 6 1813 Preimeigeneia 4th c ? ? 1 1818

~~311~~

(ειειεει ) 1001 [P]resentina 1001 5th c ? ? 3 1819 Prima 1001 4th/5th c bidua ? 1 1820 Primitiva 1001 4th c ? ? 1 1822 Proba 1001 351-btw 366 and ? clarissim 1 1831 384 a femina Proba 1002 388/395?-bef 432† famula Dei clarissim 1 1831- a femina 1833 Proba 1003 btw 492 and 496 ? ? 1 1833 Proba ( ) 5th c η (ε ) ε ? 6 1833 1004 Probina 1001 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 1836 586/587 Procula 1001 5th c ? sp(ectabi 2 1847 lis) f(emina) Protadia 1001 469-524† ? religiosa 4 1861 femina Qu[…] 1001 526†? episcopa [ve]nerab 2 1867 ilis fem[ina] Quintiana 1001 2 Jul 410† famlila Christi ? 1 1870 Quintiane 1001 4th c famula Dei ? 1 1870 Ranilo 1001 4 Apr 553 ? subl(imis 2 1877 ) f(emina) Renata 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 3 1887 [Re]verentia 1001 4th/5th c fa(mula?) ? 3 1894 Revocata 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 2 1894 Romana 1002 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 1898 586/587 Rufina 1001 329-341† casta virgo ? 1 1922 Rufina 1002 385-bef Jan 404† ? ? 1 1923 Rustica 1001 460† ? c(larissi 1 1946 ma) f(emina) Rustica 1002 453-513† vidua r(eligiosa 4 1947 ) f(emina) Rustica 1003 578-bef Aug 593† ? illustris 5 1947- femina; 1948 patriciae recordati onis Rusticiana 1001 524/525-546/547 ? high 2 1948 Rusticiana 1002 Apr 592-Feb 603 ? patricia 1 1949- 1950 Sabeina ( ε ) 4th/5th c η [ε] ? 6 1964 1001 Sabiana 1001 btw 507 and 512 ? ? 1 1964 Sabina 1001 4th c ? c(larissi 1 1964

~~312~~

ma) f(emina) Savina 1001 * 4th c? matrona ? 4 1964- 1965 Salunina 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 5 1984 Secund[a] 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 3 2008 Serena 1001 389?-408† ? very high 1 2028- (niece of 2029 Theodosi us I) Serenilla 1001 aft 393 ? ? 1 2030 Severa 1001 347-2 Apr 389† ? ? 1 2046 Severa 1002 5th ? ? 3 2046 Severa 1003 5th c ? ? 3 2046 Severa 1004 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 2046 586/587 Sever[i]a[na] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2046 Severina 1001 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 2047 586/587 Silvana 1001 4th c ? ? 5 2068 Silvia 1002 bef 577/580 ? ? 1 2072 Simplicia 1002 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 2074 586/587 Singledia 1001 btw 421 and 450 ? high 2 2084 Sirica 1002 4th/5th c ancilla Dei ? 1 2085 Sirica 1003 Jul 591 (ex-)ancilla (ex- 5 2085 )ancilla Sisiuera 1001 btw 590 and 602 (ex-)ancilla (ex- 2 2090 )ancilla, h(onesta) f(emina) Sora 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2097 Spectata 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2102 Stephania 1002 bef Jun 593 ? 5 2106- 2107 Stephania 1003 Oct/Nov 598-Jul ? ? 6 2107 599 Sucessa 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2137 Susanna 1001 * bef 498 ? ? 9 2140 Thecla 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 3 2160 Themotea 1001 Jan 592 ? illustris 1 2160- femina 2161 Theodelinda 1001 590-612 regina Langobardorum regina 3-4 2162- 2163 Theodora 1001 4th c ? ? 3 2164 Theodora 1004 btw 492 and 496 ? ? 5 2165 Theodora 1005 Jul 591 ? ? 5 2165 Theodora 1006 Oct 598 ? ? 5 2165 Theosebes 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2190

~~313~~

Tisamene 1001 409-410 ? ? 1 2206 Titia 1001 bef 408/409 ? clarissim 5 2206 a femina Titiana 1002 bef 565-574/575 ? ? 3 2207 Toribius 1001 4th/5th c ? c(larissi 3 2208 ma) f(emina) Urbica 1001 4th c ? ? 3 2347 Ursa 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2351 [U]rsa 1002 5th c ? ? 3 2352 Ursa[cia?] 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2352 Valentina 1001 4th/6th c ? ? 2 2222 Valeria 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 4 2236 Valeria 1002 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2236 Valeria 1003 5th c ? ? 3 2236 Valeria 1004 524-546† famula Chr(ist)i ? 4 2237 Valeria 1005 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 2237 586/587 Valeriana 1001 btw 571/572 and ? ? 3 2237 586/587 Venantia 1001 btw 518/519 and ? noble 0 2250 523 Veneria 1001 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2261 Veneria ( εε ) 405/406 ? ? 1 2261 1002 Vera 1001 5th/6th c ? femina 4 2265 religiosa Vestina 1001 btw 401 and 417† ? inlustris 1 2267- femina 2268 Vicencia 1001 * 343 ? ? 2 2272 Victoria 1001 468-21 Oct 548† ancilla Dei ? 5 2287 Victorina 1002 4th c ? ? 1 2289 Victorina 1003 4th/5th c ? ? 3 2289 Vitula 1001 bef Jun 591† ? ? 7 2236 Viviana 1001 Mar 591 vidua ? 5 2338 Xantippe 1001 early 7th c ? gl(oriosis 1 2370 sima) f(emina) […]ana 1001 503-573† ? ? 5 2385 […]ania 1001 5th c ? ? 3 2385 […]entia 1001 4th/5th c bidua ? 1 2389 […]fa[…] 1001 5th/6th c ? ? 3 2389 […]na 1001 489?† ? ? 4 2392 […]nes 1001 4th/5th c ancilla D[ei] ? 1 2392 […]odote ( ) 4th c? [η ? ε] ? 1 2395 1001 […]orica 1001 396 or 402?† ? ? 1 2396 […]tata 1001 3rd/4th c ? ? 1 2397

~~314~~

~~BIBLIOGRAPHY~~

~~Primary Sources~~

~~Acta synodorum habitarum Romae . Monumenta Germanie Historica. Auctores antiquissimi. Volume 12.~~

~~Benedict of Nursia. Regula Benedicti, Cum Commentariis . In PL 66, edited by J.P. Minge, 215D – 932D. 1848.~~

~~Damasus papa. Epigrammata Damasiana . Edited by Antonio Ferrua, S.J. Città del Vaticano: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1942.~~

~~Eberle, Luke, trans. The Rule of the Master . Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1977.~~

Gregorius Magnus. Registrum Epistolarum . Edited by Dag Norberg. CCSL 140. 2 volumes. Brepols: Turnhout, 1982.*

~~Gregorius Turonensis. Historiarum libri X . Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2010.~~

~~-----. The History of the Franks . Translated by Lewis Thorpe. London: Penguin Books, 1974.~~

~~John Chrysostom. Sur la vaine gloire et l'éducation des enfants . Edited and translated by Anne-Marie Malingrey. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1972.~~

~~Leo Magnus. Tractatus septem et nonaginta . Edited by A. Chavasse. CCSL 138. 2 volumes. Turnhout: Brepols, 1973.~~

~~Mommsen, Theodor, and Jean Rougé, eds. Le code Théodosien . Translated by Jean Rougé. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2005.~~

~~Paulinus Nolanus. Thesaurus Paulini Nolani . Edited by. Wilhelm von Hartel. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000.~~

~~Paulus Diaconus. Historia Langobardorum . Edited by G. Waitz. MGH SS. rer. Germ. 48. 1848.~~

~~-----. History of the Lombards. Translated by William Dudley Foulke. Edited by Edward Peters. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003.~~

~~Sulpicius Severus. Vita sancti Martini Turonensis . Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2010.~~

-----. The Life of St. Martin . In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church , series 2, vol. 11. Translated and Edited by Alexander Roberts. New York: 1894; reprint, New York: Cosimo Press, 2007.

~~315~~

~~Talbert Richard J.A., et al. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World . Princeton [NJ]: Princeton University Press, 2000.~~

~~Thiel, Andreas, ed. Epistolae Romanorum pontificum . Volume 1. Braunsberg: Nachdr. d. Ausg., 1868. Reprint, New York: Olms, 1974.~~

~~Verheyen, Boniface, OSB. The Holy Rule of St. Benedict . http://www.ccel.org/ccel/benedict/ rule.toc.html~~

~~Secondary Sources~~

~~Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.~~

~~Ashby, Thomas and S. Rowland Pierce. “The Piazza Del Popolo: Rome. Its History and Development.” The Town Planning Review 11, no. 2 (Dec. 1924): 75-96.~~

~~Bagnall, Roger. “Conversion and Onomastics: A Reply.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Bd. 69 (1987): 243-250.~~

~~-----. “Religious Conversion and Onomastic Change in Early Byzantine Egypt.” The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 19 (1982): 105-124.~~

~~Beech, George T., Monique Bourin, and Pascal Chareille, eds. Personal Names Studies of Medieval Europe: Social Identity and Familial Structures . Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2002.~~

~~Bodenhom, Barbara, and Gabriele vom Bruck, eds. The Anthropology of Names and Naming. Cambridge [UK]: Cambridge University Press, 2006.~~

Bodenhom, Barbara, and Gabriele vom Bruck. “’Entangled in Histories:’ An Introduction to the Anthropology of Names and Naming.” In Bodenhorn and vom Bruck, The Anthropology of Names and Naming , 1-30.

Bourin, Monique, Jean-Marie-Martin, and François Menant, eds. L’anthroponymie: Document de l’histoire social des mondes méditerranées médiévaux. Palais Farnèse, Rome: École française de Rome, 1996.

~~Brown, Peter. The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity . New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.~~

~~-----. “Christianization and Religious Conflict.” In The Late Empire, A.D. 337-425 , edited by Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey, 632-664. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.~~

~~316~~

~~-----. The Cult of Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity . Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1981.~~

~~-----. The Making of Late Antiquity . Cambridge [MA]: Harvard University Press, 1978.~~

~~-----. Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.~~

~~Brown, T.S. Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power in Byzantine Italy AD 554-800 . Hertford: Stephen Austin and Sons, 1984.~~

~~Brown, Warren C., Marios Costambeys, Matthew Innes, and Adam J. Kosto, eds. Documentary Culture and the Laity in the Early Middle Ages . Cambridge [UK]: Cambridge University Press, 2013.~~

Caillet, Jean-Pierre. L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie et à ses marges: d’après l’épigraphie des pavements de mosaïque (IVe – VIIe siècle) . Rome: École française de Rome, 1993.

~~Chareille, Pascal. “Methodological Approaches in a Quantitative Approach to Changes in Naming.” In Beech, Bourin, and Chareille, Personal Names Studies of Medieval Europe , 15-27.~~

~~Chastagnol, André. Le Sénat romain sous le règne d'Odoacre: Recherches sur l'Épigraphie du Colisée au Ve Siecle . Bonn: Habelt, 1966.~~

~~Christie, Neil. The Lombards . Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.~~

~~Clark, Cecily. “Onomastics.” In Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. II, 1066-1476 , edited by Peter Jackson, 456-462. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.~~

~~Conant, Jonathan. Staying Roman: Conquest and Identity in Africa and the Mediterranean, 439-700 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.~~

~~Croke, Brian. “Justinian, Theodora, and the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers , vol. 60 (2006): 25-63.~~

~~Dalarun, Jacques. “Dis-moi comment tu t’appelles je te dirai qui tu es.” In Bourin, et al., L’anthroponymie: Document de l’histoire social des mondes méditerranées médiévaux , 1-5.~~

García Moreno, Luis A. “Prosopography and Onomastics: the Case of the Goths.” In Keats-Rohan, Prosopography Approaches and Applications: A Handbook , 337- 351. Oxford: Unit for Prosopographical Research, Linacre College, 2007.

~~317~~

~~Geary, Patrick. Living With the Dead in the Middle Ages. Ithaca [NY]: Cornell University Press, 1994.~~

~~-----. The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.~~

~~Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.~~

~~Horsley, G.H.R. “Name Change as an Indication of Religious Conversion in Antiquity.” Numen 34 (June, 1987): 1-17.~~

~~Humphrey, Caroline. “On Being Named and Not Named: Authority, Persons, and The Names in Mongolia.” In Bodenhorn and Bruck, The Anthropology of Names and Naming , 157-176.~~

~~Jarnut, Jörg. “Petronaci qui Flavipert: Der Name als sozialer und kultureller Indikator.” In Ludwig and Schilp, Nomen et Fraternitas , 99-105.~~

Jones, A.M.H., J.R. Martindale, and J. Morris, eds. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire . 3 vols. Cambridge [UK]: Cambridge University Press, 1971- 1992. de Jong, Mayke. In Samuel’s Image: Child Oblation in the Early Medieval West . Leiden [Netherlands]: E.J. Brill, 1996.

~~Kajanto, Iiro. The Latin Cognomina . Helsinki [Finland]: Helsingfors, 1965.~~

~~-----. Onomastic Studies in the Early Christian Inscriptions of Rome and Carthage . Helsinki [Finland]: Tilgmann Press, 1963.~~

~~Keats-Rohan, K.S.B, ed. Prosopography Approaches and Applications: a Handbook . Oxford: Unit for Prosopographical Research, Linacre College, 2007.~~

Le Jan, Régine. “Personal Names and the Transformation of Kinship in Early Medieval Society (Sixth to Tenth Centuries).” In Beech, Bourin, and Chareille, Personal Names Studies of Medieval Europe , 31-50.

~~Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.~~

~~Llewellyn, Peter A.B. “Names of the Roman Clergy, 401-1046,” Rivista di storia delle chiesa in Italia 35, no. 2 (1981): 355-370.~~

~~-----. “The Roman Church During the Laurentian Schism: Priests and Senators.” Church History 45, no. 4 (1976): 417-427.~~

~~318~~

~~-----. “The Roman Clergy During the Laurentian Schism (498-506).” Ancient Society 8 (1977): 245-275.~~

Ludwig, Uwe and Thomas Schilp, eds. Nomen et Fraternitas: Festschrift für Dieter Geuenich zum 65. Geburtstag. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 62. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008.

~~Oruch, Jack B. “St. Valentine, Chaucer, and Spring in February.” Speculum 56, no. 3 (Jul. 1981): 534-565.~~

~~Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State . Translated by Joan Hussey. 2nd edition. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1969.~~

~~Pietri, Charles and Luce Pietri, eds., Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire , 2. Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne 313-604 . 2 vols. Rome: École Franc ise de Rome, 1999-2000.~~

Sartre, Maurice. “The Ambiguous Name: the Limitations of Cultural Identity in Graeco- Roman Syrian Onomastics.” In Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics , edited by Elaine Matthews, 199-232. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007.

~~Salway, Benet. “What’s in a Name: A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700.” The Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994): 124-145.~~

~~Skinner, Patricia. “'And her name was...?' Gender and Naming in Medieval Southern Italy.” Medieval Prosopography 20 (1999): 23-49.~~

~~Smith, Janet Charlotte. “The Side Chambers of San Giovanni Evangelista in Ravenna: Church Libraries of the Fifth Century.” Gesta 29, no. 1 (1990): 86-97.~~

Smythe, Dion C. “‘A Whiter Shade of Pale’: Issues and Possibilities in Prosopography.” Keats-Rohan, Prosopography Approaches and Applications: A Handbook , 127- 137. Oxford: Unit for Prosopographical Research, Linacre College, 2007.

~~Solin, Heikki. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der griechischen personennamen in Rom . Helsinki [Finland]: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1971.~~

~~-----. Die griechischen personennamen in Rom: ein Namenbuch . 2nd edition. 3 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003.~~

~~Townsend, W.T. “The so-called Symmachian Forgeries.” The Journal of Religion 13, no. 2 (April 1933): 165-174.~~

~~Wagner, Norbert. “Die Langobardennamen Rodanus , Ahald * und Potilus .” Beiträge zur Namenforschung 29, no. 4 (1996): 416-417.~~

~~319~~

~~Ward-Perkins, Bryan. The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization . Oxford [UK]: Oxford University Press, 2005.~~

~~Watkins, Basil, OSB, ed. The Book of Saints: A Comprehensive Biographical Dictionary . 7th edition. London: A&C Black Publishers, 2002.~~

~~Wickham, Chris. Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society, 400-1000 . Totowa [NJ]: Barnes & Noble Books, 1981.~~

~~-----. Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800 . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.~~

~~Wilson, Stephen. The Means of Naming: A Social and Cultural History of Personal Naming in Western Europe . London: UCL Press, 1999.~~

Wipszycka, Ewa. “La valeur de l'onomastique pour l'histoire de la christianisation de l'Egypte. A propos d'uneétude de R. S. Bagnall.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik , Bd. 62 (1986): 173-181.