Roman Nomenclature

Interesting that Roman women did not acquire names (as opposed to "the big daughter from the Balbus branch of the Atius clan who is married to one of the Marcii") until the very end of the Republic:

Roman Nomenclature: [F]emale children of citizen families were named with the feminine form of the clan into which they were born; hence, all women whose fathers had the nomen Julius were named Julia, and all women whose fathers had the nomen Cornelius were named Cornelia. In public, they would be identified by the possessive form of their father's cognomen (e.g., Julia Caesaris, “Julia, the daughter of Caesar”), or if married by the possessive form of their husband's cognomen (e.g., Clodia Metelli, “Clodia, the wife of Metellus”). If families had more than one daughter, they were distinguished by the words maior and minor (“elder” and “younger”), or prima, secunda, tertia, etc.

However, by the late Republic these conventions were changing slightly, in that elite Roman woman were sometimes designated by the feminine form of their father's nomen plus the feminine form of his cognomen, sometimes in the dominutive (e.g. Livia, who married Octavian and became Rome's first empress, was often referred to as Livia Drusilla, since her father was a noble named Marcus Livius Drusus). Starting with Augustus, names of the most prominent women did not necessarily follow the Republican convention, but rather reflected the family connections that were most significant to the namers. For example, the two daughters of Augustus' daughter Julia, who was married to Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, would normally have been named Vipsania; instead one was called Julia and the other Agrippina. When Agrippina married Nero Claudius Germanicus (grandson of Livia), her three daughters were named Agrippina, Drusilla, and Julia Livilla (referring to the family lines of both of their distinguished great-grandparents) instead of Claudia, which would refer to their father's nomen.

So why, in "Rome," is Atia called "Atia Julii" rather than the proper "Atia Balba Marcii" (after her second husband Lucius Marcius Philippus)? Presumably for the same reason that Pompey and Caesar are called "co-consuls" rather than proconsuls. The consuls for the years 50 and 49 were L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, C. Claudius Marcellus, and L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus...

Comments

[Buce]

A number of classical texts discuss women without naming them. A famous example is Herodotus' story of Gyges and Candaules, where the queen learns that the slave has seen her naked and sets him up to kill the king. The queen is clearly the protagonist, but she is never named.

I'm pretty sure you get the same phenom in one or more of Lysias' court speeches in cases involving women.

[Gene O'Grady]

I thought all consuls were co-consuls; Pompey's sole consulship in the late 50's bc being the exception that proved the rule? I'm curious where Professor DeLong came across the term co-consul.

As to the question about Atia, I suspect there was some leaway as to which man a woman was known by the connection to, and the ultimate criterion was the relative prestige of the men involved -- rather as Hilary Clinton will be known as Bill's husband and Chelsea Clinton will likely be known as Bill's daughter rather than Mrs. Jones or whatever.

[Brad DeLong]

Cn. Pompeius Magnus was consul in 70 and 52. C. Iulius Caesar was consul in 59, and thereafter proconsul and governor of Illyria and Gaul for a decade. In "Rome," Cato refers to Pompey as "consul" and asks him where his "co-consul" Julius Caesar is. It's pretty clear that the year in which that scene takes place is 50, when Pompey was proconsul and governor of Spain, forbidden to enter the city without laying down his office (although hanging out in his villa just outside the city walls).

Clearly the writers and directors decided that they had to take short cuts...

[Buce]

And re naming folks secunda, etc.--happens to men, too. Where do you suppose we got Luicius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar? The "hero"--well, protagonist-- of Middlemarch is "Tertius" Lydgate, and the name is a calculated irony.

British brothers at the same public school would go as "major" and "minor."

And we all remember the great prize fighter, Secundo Carnera.

[rea]

And re naming folks secunda, etc.--happens to men, too. Where do you suppose we got Luicius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar? The "hero"--well, protagonist-- of Middlemarch is "Tertius" Lydgate, and the name is a calculated irony.

British brothers at the same public school would go as "major" and "minor."

An example is in Prof. Delong's list of the consuls for 50 and 49. He lists 3 names, "L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, C. Claudius Marcellus, and L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus." But of course, there were 4 consuls during that period. Two of them--two different guys--were named C. Claudius Marcellus. I believe the first was "Minor," and the second, "Major." although I'm writing this from memory . . .

[rea]

"Hilary Clinton will be known as Bill's husband"

I rather doubt that . . .

[Paul Weimer]

And of course,even Julius Ceasar's Praenomen
isn't that well known.

Ask the average person what's Julius' Ceasar's "first name" is, and you will get funny looks. Few would be able to tell you its Gaius.

Oddly, enough though, Cicero's name usually is stated as Marcus Cicero, rather than Tullius Cicero.

[jim]

"Clearly the writers and directors decided that they had to take short cuts."

I think they weren't that interested in the high characters. Like Shakespearean history plays, Rome has a set of high characters and a set of low characters. They interact and enact double plots. In many ways, writers prefer low characters. The high characters have to do the things history records them doing. This makes it hard to build suspense and puts a considerable constraint on the actions and dialogue you come up with. There's no such constraint on the low characters and audiences often prefer them: viz Falstaff. Shakespeare kept the focus on the high characters; Milius et al. on the low characters. Rome, after all, isn't called The Julii. It's not just that Ray Stevenson gets first place in the credits. The Pullo/Vorenus set of stories is the driver for much of the narrative. In Henry IV, the interactions between Hal and Falstaff are there to shed light on Hal's character. Sometimes it seems that the interactions between say Octavian and Pullo or Anthony and Vorenus are plot devices to move the low story along.

So if your main interest is figuring out how to motivate Vorenus's relationship with his children, you aren't going to pay much attention to the naming conventions and titles of the aristocrats.

[John]

And what the heck is the "dominutive"? A typo for diminutive? Or is this some queer grammar in Latin I've not heard of yet. Nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, ablative, and vocative, yes. But dominutive? Hmm.

[Buce]

"Dominutive" is a demeaning nickname imposed by a person who has power over you, like "turd blossom."

[marcel]

Nah. Dominutive is an interesting freudian slip on BdL's part. My interpretation is that it says something about his subconscious (unconscious?) views of women. Something like Thurber.

[Gary]

' "Hilary Clinton will be known as Bill's husband"

I rather doubt that . . .'

Just like Caesar: every woman's husband and every man's wife