Xanathar's 18 Pages of What??

[Yaarel]

I notice you wrote:

Julius Gaius Caesar.

His Roman name is: Gaius Julius Caesar.

For him in his day, you noted, Julius is his clan name. Gaius is his personal name. The fathers name Caesar is used for the distinguishing name.

Western moderns might think of this as:
• ‘first name’: Gaius
• ‘middle name’: Caesar
• ‘last name’: Julius

 

[cbwjm]

I notice you wrote:


His Roman name is: Gaius Julius Caesar.

For him in his day, you noted, Julius is his clan name. Gaius is his personal name. The fathers name Caesar is used for the distinguishing name.

Western moderns might think of this as:
• ‘first name’: Gaius
• ‘middle name’: Caesar
• ‘last name’: Julius

That was just a mistake because i was focusing on Julius so put it first accidentally.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

For example, the dictator Gaius Julius Caesar has two sisters. Both are named Julia. Neither is named Caesar nor Caesaris. So, Caesar isnt a ‘family’ name.

Have you noticed how I've been speaking specifically of male children and male relatives this whole time? It's not because I've been a sexist jerk. It's because the Romans were sexist jerks and had different naming conventions for men and women. And for the purpose of this conversation, we've been looking at the men's convention, because that's the one where the clan/family distinction I've been trying to show you appears. You can't draw conclusions about one ruleset by looking at a dramatically different ruleset.

Now, I repeat: all of the dictator's patrilineal male relatives had the name Caesar. Your claim that only the legitimate male heir got it is incorrect. It identifies a genetically related group of men: brothers, fathers, sons, uncles, cousins. All of these men were expected to receive the name by convention. It makes a lot more sense to call this a "family name", since it identifies a family, than a "personal name", since it does not identify a person. And this family identified by the name was distinct from, albeit a subunit of, the clan that is identified by the name Julius. Hence, family names are not the same as clan names. Quod erat demonstrandum.

One might expect that their name would be: Julia Julius.

Nobody familiar with the Latin language or Roman culture would expect this.

 

[briggart]

It's been a long time since I had to study these things, but if I remember correctly, part of the confusion is due to the fact that Roman history covers more than 1000 years, during which customs and traditions changed, sometime back and forth. The 3 name structure evolved as well, and was not the only one. There were people with multiple praenomina and/or multiple cognomina. The cognomen started as a personal name, but by the time of the middle republic, some of the largest and/or more political active gentes had started using cognomina as a family name, to distinguish between different branches of the clan. Ad that point cognomina became hereditary *by tradition*, so they were sort of in between the modern ideas of personal names and surnames. Things changed again in imperial time, when praenomina first, and nomina later, started to lose importance and cognomina went back to be a more personal name. On top of this, Caesar is an atypical cognomen, and during the history of the Empire it evolved to become a de facto title with later emperors, who were not part of the dictator's family by either blood or adoption, adding it to their names when they took power.

 

[Shasarak]

One thing I like about Roman naming conventions is how they get new names from their victories, for example Scipio added Africanus after he defeated Hannibal.

 

[Yaarel]

The cognomen started as a personal name, but by the time of the middle republic, some of the largest and/or more political active gentes had started using cognomina as a family name, to distinguish between different branches of the clan.

In this context, I am assume you misspoke and meant praenomen. As the cognomen doesnt become the personal name until the empire.

Also, the term ‘family name’ is misleading because in modern English, it means the sir name, the clan name. The nomen is the clan name. It implies that everyone in the ‘family’ has this name, when this would be incorrect. It implies that it is a formal or even legal term, when it was informal and inconsistent.

I am glad you called out Caesar as ‘atypical’. Because while giving a child a fathers name is common, it is also common giving a child the mothers name.

 

[Yaarel]

For the sake of cautious accuracy, it seems ok to characterize the naming customs as follows.

During the Roman republic and empire, it was common to name the cognomen after the father or the mother. Certain families used the cognomen as a patrilineal name for the male descendant, especially for the firstborn legitimate male. The family of Julius Caesar extended this to other males beside the firstborn. Under his influence, and the influence of his adopted son, the first emperor Caesar Augustus, several families related to them adopted this custom. At this time of the empire, this patrilineal cognomen also served as the personal name. But other emperors and imperial families had different naming customs.


The case of emperor Vespasianus is instructive.

• Generation 1: Titus Flavius Petro
• Generation 2: Titus Flavius Sabinus
• Generation 3: Titus Flavius Sabinus, Titus Flavius Vespasianus
• Generation 4: Titus Flavius Vespasianus, Titus Flavius Domitianus

Here in generation 3, the eldest brother is named after the father Sabinus, while Vespasianus is named after the mother Vespasia.

Again, when Vespasianus has kids, his eldest son is named after him the father, while his younger son Domitianus is named after the mother Domitilla.

 

[Yaarel]

Both ‘Julius Caesar’ and ‘Caesar Augustus’ have the same name.

• Gaius Julius Caesar

However, ‘Julius Caesar’ used the praenomen Gaius as his personal name, while his son ‘Caesar Augustus’ used the cognomen Caesar as his personal name. Here between these two generations, we see an example of the shift from praenomen to cognomen as the personal name. Eventually, the praenomen will fall out of use entirely.

 

[Yaarel]

I think one of the factors that causes confusion is the anachronism.

Romans themselves have their own relatively diverse naming conventions.

Historians who talk about Romans have a different naming convention. The historians invent names to keep track of all the different people who have the same name. The historians also invent names to keep track of how these people are related to each other.

 

[MoonSong]

I think one of the factors that causes confusion is the anachronism.

Romans themselves have their own relatively diverse naming conventions.

Historians who talk about Romans have a different naming convention. The historians invent names to keep track of all the different people who have the same name. The historians also invent names to keep track of how these people are related to each other.

Speaking of anachronic use of names, the "Imperator" title is severely overrated by modern audiences. It wasn't entirely unimportant, but it wasn't what made Roman Emperors Roman Emperors. "Imperator" was the title held by one of the consuls that meant power over the army, for Roman generals in campaign and as a name they could use after victory. I would say that their combined powers as tribunes, quasi-censors, and princeps were the keys to their power. As they meant control over the senate, public finances, and the legal system. Caesar Augustus got away with no having actual absolute imperium and not being a consul for several years, yet controlled the Roman Empire through those years. And of course becoming the Augustus meant they had the full package already.

It actually inspired me to have a similar empire in one of my settings. In it existed an original great empire that was actually a loose coalition of kingdoms that all paid respect to a single religious figure known as "The empress of light" a title passed from mother to daughter through the years that had no actual real power. The multiple empresses of light would instead hold political and real power on the territories they held under personal union, and thus the actual kingdoms under them would vary form generation to generation. In fact the core territory and de facto capital of the empire was a Republic, that just kept reelecting the empress in turn as ruler, first as a genuine election, later as a mere formality. It is only after a great calamity that a military leader claims the loyatlty of multiple kingdoms and legitimazes himself by marrying the would be empress of light that the empire formally unifies under a sole rule.