76 Holger Pedersen: Anm. af alleged praenomina are undoubtedly cognomina which occur in late inscriptions in the position of praenomen because of the imperial confusion of names. Some praenomina are antiquated, partly appearing in the name of only a single individual; of these antiquated praenomina three are acknowledged by the author as being possibly survivals of original Indo-European names: Aostus might be a shortened form of a compound of /ostis meaning «stranger» (cp. the Greek compounds of ξένο-ς); Julus might be a shortened form of a compound of Jovis; but in this case the trisyllabic pronunciation of the word is very strange; the proposed etymology would only explain a trisyllabic *Diulus or ἃ dissyllabic *Ju/us; we should therefore be obliged to regard Julus as a purely artificial form (the author does not even mention this difficulty); finally Vo/ero might be a shortened form of a name analogous to the Greek ὔβουλος etc. Some of the usual praenomina have the appearance of having first arisen as early cognomina: Gnaeus (Gnaivos) is an older form of the common noun naevus «birthmark»; Spurius, Quintus, Sextus, Decimus must originally have referred to circumstances of birth. But we find six praenomina which «differ radically from those of the cognomen class; they are not simple words out of the language, but are formed with derivative suffixes. Again, we shall see, when we look more closely at their meanings, that they are formed from words which do not criticise individual peculiarities, which are never derogatory or familiar, as is the case with the cognomina. On the contrary, they express either praise or a wish or hope for moral or physical distinction that might be intended as an omen for future greatness in the career of the man». These six praenomina, which are to be regarded as shortened Indo-European names, are the following: Servius, Mānius, Pūblius, Lūcius, Gajus, Mārcus. Servius is to be derived from serous in its original meaning of «keeper, preserver», Mänius from māänus «good», Gajus is connected with gaudeo (cp. Greek Γανυμήδης) etc. As to women’s praenomina, the common statement that Roman women had no praenomina is both true and untrue. The praenomina Gaja, Lūcia, Pūblia, Mānia (especially Gaja) are well established. According to the correct use of Cicero’s time women had nothing that could be properly called praenomina; but in the provinces and among the lower classes praenomina still survived, ready to come to the surface again in the social upheavals of imperial times. — The chief results of the paper might be recapitulated in the following way. Of the original Indo-European name system only the shortened forms survived; they were mixed up with names of quite another kind (nicknames, early cognomina such as Gnaeus). The gentilicium did not arise in the same natural way as the other names; it came about in a deliberate manner and in answer to the needs of a highly developed politi-