![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
An Onomastic Puzzle
Mar. 12th, 2008 10:23 amI'm reading Tom Holland's Rubicon, and that's gotten me to thinking about Roman names.
First, a little background. In the period under consideration - the late Republic and early Empire - a Roman man typically had three names, the praenomen, nomen, and cognomen. The praenomen was analogous to our given name. There were only a handful of praenomina - few enough that the initial was usually enough to identify it. (There were two pairs of exceptions: Gaius/Gnaeus and Tiberius/Titus.) The nomen and cognomen were more like our surnames, both being (usually) inherited. The nomen was the name of one's gens, or clan; the cognomen identified a family within the gens.
Now, I've been thinking about the names by which famous Romans are usually referred to in modern English. It's rare for someone to be remembered by his praenomen, but it does happen: the emperors Tiberius and Titus are examples. Set those aside. Usually the choice is between the nomen and the cognomen, and it seems more reasonable to use the cognomen, since the nomen is shared by an entire gens and the cognomen only by the family. That is, indeed, the commonest case: Caesar, Cicero, Cato, Sulla, Scipio, Brutus - most of the great generals and statesmen are remembered that way. On the other hand, people who gained fame in other ways - poets and such - tend to be known by their nomen (or some anglicized version): Virgil, Ovid, Horace, Sallust, Pliny. Is it, perhaps, that they came from less distinguished families, and were therefore likely to be the only notables with that nomen? (Tacitus is best known as a historian, but his family was notable - enough so that he married the daughter of a consul - and he is known by his cognomen.) (Wild card: there was a time when Cicero was frequently referred to as Tully, from his nomen, "Tullius". I seem to recall that some Renaissance writers thought that Tully and Cicero were two different people.)
Is a puzzlement.
First, a little background. In the period under consideration - the late Republic and early Empire - a Roman man typically had three names, the praenomen, nomen, and cognomen. The praenomen was analogous to our given name. There were only a handful of praenomina - few enough that the initial was usually enough to identify it. (There were two pairs of exceptions: Gaius/Gnaeus and Tiberius/Titus.) The nomen and cognomen were more like our surnames, both being (usually) inherited. The nomen was the name of one's gens, or clan; the cognomen identified a family within the gens.
Now, I've been thinking about the names by which famous Romans are usually referred to in modern English. It's rare for someone to be remembered by his praenomen, but it does happen: the emperors Tiberius and Titus are examples. Set those aside. Usually the choice is between the nomen and the cognomen, and it seems more reasonable to use the cognomen, since the nomen is shared by an entire gens and the cognomen only by the family. That is, indeed, the commonest case: Caesar, Cicero, Cato, Sulla, Scipio, Brutus - most of the great generals and statesmen are remembered that way. On the other hand, people who gained fame in other ways - poets and such - tend to be known by their nomen (or some anglicized version): Virgil, Ovid, Horace, Sallust, Pliny. Is it, perhaps, that they came from less distinguished families, and were therefore likely to be the only notables with that nomen? (Tacitus is best known as a historian, but his family was notable - enough so that he married the daughter of a consul - and he is known by his cognomen.) (Wild card: there was a time when Cicero was frequently referred to as Tully, from his nomen, "Tullius". I seem to recall that some Renaissance writers thought that Tully and Cicero were two different people.)
Is a puzzlement.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}