MDMD(1): Pitt's Anachronism?

[Matthew P Wiener]

>From davemarc:

> From: Holger Wenzel <hw at itm.rwth-aachen.de>

>> They are named after Pliny (the Elder and Younger) and Pitt (the Elder
>> and Younger). But if my notion of their age is right, Pitt the younger
>> is only 15 or 16 at the time they were born (Pitt t.Y. born 1759, the
>> Twins approximately 1774). I doubt that he and his father are already
>> known as the Elder and the Younger by that time, so the explanation
>> for the names of the twins would be somewhat senseless.

>> Can someone supply more and more accurate data about this?

>I can't give you any citations, but I don't see any reason why prominent
>father/son namesakes wouldn't be known from the start that way, as
>Elder/Younger.

It should be noted that William Pitt Junior first joined Parliament in 1781,
and began making waves immediately.  With such a spectacularly quick start,
I presume that his future career (and cognomen) was pretty much obvious even
when he was a teenager.  His older brother was also involved in politics,
but at a more typical, sedate pace.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba at sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)