Colleen McCullough and female cognomen in the Roman Republic
If you've been reading non-scholarly articles or wikipedia on the Roman Republic, you've probably encountered such names as "Julia Caesaris," "Aurelia Cotta," "Servilia Caepionis," and others in a similar fashion: a feminine form of a nomen + a feminine form of a male cognomen.
Almost all such names are incorrect. The trend originated from Colleen McCullough's series of novels, "Masters of Rome." It crept onto wikipedia and spread to other places.
I've been seeing these names more and more often (google "Aurelia Cotta" and you'll see what I mean), and it's starting to bug me. I wanted to make a post about it, but my knowledge wasn't sufficient to undertake such a complex subject. I asked my friend for help (she has a PhD on the history of ancient Rome) and the following is her explanation translated into English by me.
First of all, there are four points that need to be mentioned:
1. In Rome, there were no formal and rigid rules for assigning names. The names were determined by a) generally accepted customary norms, b) familial and personal taste and circumstances (for example, the existence and usage of additional name could be influenced by whether or not a woman had sisters or other female relatives, the meaning of her father's cognomen, its prominence, etc.), and c) certain linguistic characteristics.
2. All of the following are only applicable to the wealthy classes: senators and equestrians. The rules were much less rigid in the lower strata. Freedwomen could have practically any cognomen since their former slave names performed the function; oftentimes, they were non-Latin names.
3. For the period under review, especially its beginning, we have very little precise evidence on formal female names. Only inscriptions can be considered precise evidence. Usually, mentions of women in literary sources only reflect how these women were called in daily life or a convenient way to call them to make it clear who the author was talking about. We can't be certain that we know the full names of every woman mentioned in the sources. On the contrary, there are instances when this is clearly not the case (for example, Crassus' wife is only known to us as Tertulla, but she undoubtedly had a nomen).
4. During the period under review, the naming convention was going through changes (not only for women, but for men as well). At the start of it (the end of the 2nd century BC), the customs of the mid-Republic were more or less observed, but at the end of it (the 40s of the 1st century BC), the imperial tendencies were already well evident. The evidence is too scarce to assess the progress with more accuracy.
It's better to view the picture over time. The customs of the mid-Republic, which remained in force until the end of the 2nd century BC, are documented even less than those of the subsequent period, but it's pretty safe to say that in this period, a woman would usually inherit only her father's nomen (ex., Cornelia, daughter of Publius Cornelius Scipio).
If there were several girls in the family, they were distinguished by Maior (Elder) and Minor (Younger). Judging by later sources, these identifications were not a formal part of the name, i.e., they were not mentioned in the inscriptions. Based on the available data, it's hard to say how strongly they were tied to a nomen and how often they were used; in any case, they are not uncommon in literary sources.
An alternative way to distinguish sisters was a sequence number (Tertia, Quarta, Quinta, etc.). The same is true for such names as Paulla or Polla ("little," i.e., the younger sister) and Postuma ("born after the death of her father"). These names could "stick" to a woman and apparently, would often become a part of her official name. Sometimes they would even supplant her nomen in everyday life (especially Tertia, for some reason). These names persisted in the late Republic and held out until the Empire.
Around the era of Marius, women started to inherit their father's cognomen more often (or perhaps it's simply the changing nature of our evidence), and this fashion became a common occurrence by the Imperial period. Apparently, the Romans thought that (in the same spirit as nomen) a female name should represent the feminine form of her father's cognomen, so they couldn't take whichever cognomen but only specific ones: adjectives of 1st and 2nd declension (i.e., those that have different masculine and feminine forms: ex., Pulcher – Pulchra, Lepidus – Lepida, i.e., masculine and feminine forms of the word "beautiful"); nouns of 2nd declension that have meaningful correspondence in feminine form (Camillus – Camilla; camilli and camillae served in sacred rites); cognomen of 2nd declension whose meaning was probably not clear even to the Romans (ex., Metellus – Metella, Marcellus – Marcella).
Initially, adjectives of the 3rd declension (ex., Felix, which means "happy" and doesn't have masculine and feminine forms) and nouns of all declensions, except the 2nd one (ex., 1st declension – Messalla, Sulla, Cotta; 3rd declension – Scipio, Caepio, Cicero, Caesar; I can't remember cognomina of 4th and 5th declensions off the top of my head, but it most likely applies to them too) could not turn into female cognomen.
Towards the end of the Republic, female cognomen began to be formed through diminutive suffixes, at first out of 2nd declension cognomen (Drusus – Drusilla, Plancus – Plancina, Paullus – Paulina). Later, under the rule of Augustus, women (or their fathers) extended this trend to male cognomen of the 1st declension: Agrippa – Agrippina, Messalla – Messalina, etc. But, as far as I remember, nobody came up with a way to form female cognomen from nouns of the 3rd declension. At least until the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. However, adjectives of the 3rd declension are sometimes found as female cognomen (although usually in the lower strata).
Gradually, more serious deviations start to occur: women acquire prenomen (the first known example is Fausta Cornelia, the daughter of Sulla); women take their mother's nomen and not their father's (the first known example is Domitia, the daughter of Lucius Cornelius Bibulus); women take two nomen, one of which is formally a cognomen but serves as the main name (ex., Vipsania Julia aka Julia Minor, Augustus' granddaughter, the daughter of Julia Maior and Agrippa); women combine their father's nomen with their maternal grandfather's cognomen (Appuleia Varilla, the daughter of Sextus Appuleius and granddaughter of Quinctilius Varus), etc.
So, in the absence of strict rules at any given time, only guesses about women's nomen would be justified, but not about their cognomen (for example, we can be sure that in the late Republic a daughter of a man named M. Caellius Rufus was named Caelia, but we can't be sure if she was called Caelia Rufa, Caelia Rufina, or Caelia Rufilla, even though all of these options are possible in theory). If a woman's cognomen is not documented in the sources, then we can't know it, and there may well not be one. The closer we are to the beginning of the period, the more likely it is that there was no cognomen.
This was the first part of my friend's answer. Complicated subject, isn't it? Expounding on specific examples would help! So I asked her to break down the following names:
a) "Aemilia Scaura," "Aurelia Cotta," "Cornelia Cinna" and her sister "Cinnilla," "Julia Caesaris," "Julilla," "Mucia Scaevola," "Servilia Caepionis." These are some of the names that you can encounter in McCullough's books.
b) "Cornelia Sulla" (Sulla's eldest daughter), "Pompeia Magna" (Pompey's daughter), Caecilia Metella, "Licinia Crassa Maior," "Licinia Crassa Minor." In an article on the Roman naming convention, wikipedia lists these women as those who had a cognomen. I also saw "Pompeia Strabonia" on wiki. The first two are also in McCullough's books. I can't remember if others are.
c) Sulla's other two daughters, Fausta Cornelia and Cornelia Postuma.
The following is my friend's answer:
McCullough gives cognomina to practically all of her female characters, apparently to make it easier for her readers to distinguish between them. Almost all of them are made-up (i.e., not documented in the sources), many are unlikely based on the customs of the era, and many are incorrectly constructed based on the rules of the Latin language. The same is true for the names on wikipedia (I'm not sure if all of them are taken from McCullough, but it's clearly her influence).
• "Aemilia Scaura" (daughter of M. Aemilius Scaurus): Documented as Aemilia in the sources. Cognomen Scaurus could take the form Scaura, but, as far as we know, no aristocratic woman of this family was called that (perhaps because scaurus meant "club foot").
• "Aurelia Cotta" (daughter of L. Aurelius Cotta): Documented as Aurelia in the sources. Cognomen Cotta is the 1st declension and can't take feminine form. In this period, its inheritance by the daughter is highly unlikely. As far as I know, it was exclusively male among the Imperial aristocracy, and no feminine version was formed.
• Caecilia Metella (daughter of Caecilius Metellus): The name is correct. Documented for many women in this family.
• "Cornelia Cinna" (daughter of L. Cornelius Cinna): Documented as Cornelia in the sources. Cognomen Cinna is the 1st declension. In this period, its inheritance by the daughter is highly unlikely. As far as I know, it was exclusively male among the Imperial aristocracy, and no feminine version was formed.
• "Cinnilla" (daughter of L. Cornelius Cinna): Documented as Cornelia in the sources. In theory, the female cognomen Cinnilla could have been formed through a diminutive suffix in the early Imperial period. But in reality, it is not documented for women in this family.
• "Cornellia Sulla" (daughter of L. Cornelius Sulla Felix): Documented as Cornelia in the sources. Cognomen Sulla is the 1st declension and can't take feminine form. In this period, its inheritance by the daughter is highly unlikely. As far as I know, it was exclusively male among the Imperial aristocracy, and no feminine version was formed.
• Fausta Cornelia (daughter of L. Cornelius Sulla Felix): Documented as Fausta in the sources. Fausta is a personal name that was given to her by her father, contrary to existing customs, to commemorate his own happiness. Judging by the name of her twin brother, whose name was Faustus Cornelius Sulla, the name Fausta served as a prenomen and not a cognomen.
• Cornelia Postuma (daughter of L. Cornelius Sulla Felix): Documented as Postuma in the sources. A personal cognomen indicating that the daughter was born after the death of her father.
• "Julia Caesaris" (daughter of C. Julius Caesar): Documented as Julia in the sources. Cognomen Caesar is the 3rd declension and can't take feminine form (this can be stated quite confidently because, had it been possible, many women of Imperial dynasties would have received such a name). Caesaris is the genitive of Caesar. The phrase "Julia Caesaris" was possible, but it was not a name. In this period, it would mean "Julia, wife of Caesar."
• "Julilla" (daughter of C. Julius Caesar; a different Caesar): Documented as Ilia in the sources (possibly a mistake in the manuscript). If she was a Julia, then Julilla is the diminutive form. It could be used as a nickname, but not as a formal name. Such cognomen was possible in the Imperial period (similar to the names Livilla and Junilla).
• "Licinia Crassa Maior," "Licinia Crassa Minor" (daughters of L. Licinius Crassus): In the sources, both of them are documented as simply Licinia. Cognomen Crassus could take the form Crassa, but, as far as we know, no aristocratic woman of this family was called that (perhaps because crassus = "fat"). Maior, Minor were possible identifications for older and younger sisters. Formally, it was not a part of the name, and it's not documented for these particular women.
• "Mucia Scaevola" (daughter of Q. Mucius Scaevola): Documented as Mucia Tertia in the sources. Cognomen Scaevola is the 1st declension and can't take feminine form. Not only during the Republican era but, as far as I know, during the Empire, too.
• "Pompeia Strabonia" (daughter of Pompeius Strabo): In the sources documented without a name, but she undoubtedly bore the nomen Pompeia. The formation of female cognomen from Strabo (3rd declension) is hardly possible. In the middle Imperial period, the name Strabonia/Strabonius existed as a nomen, but it is not documented among the aristocracy.
• "Pompeia Magna" (daughter of Cn. Pompeius Magnus): Documented as simply Pompeia in the sources. Cognomen Magnus could take the form Magna, and there is evidence that this woman's daughter had the cognomen Magna.
• "Servilia Caepionis" (daughter of Q. Servilius Caepio): Documented as Servilia in the sources. Caepio is the 3rd declension and can't take feminine form. Caepionis is the genitive of Caepio. The phrase "Servilia Caepionis" was possible, but it was not a name. In this period, it would mean "Servilia, wife of Caepio."
I'd like to thank my friend for explaining this subject to me and for letting me share it!
Be very careful any time you meet a female name of the Republican era that consists of nomen + cognomen, especially on wikipedia. Chances are, that name is incorrect.
If you've been reading non-scholarly articles or wikipedia on the Roman Republic, you've probably encountered such names as "Julia Caesaris," "Aurelia Cotta," "Servilia Caepionis," and others in a similar fashion: a feminine form of a nomen + a feminine form of a male cognomen.Almost all such names are incorrect. The trend originated from Colleen McCullough's series of novels, "Masters of Rome." It crept onto wikipedia and spread to other places.
I've been seeing these names more and more often (google "Aurelia Cotta" and you'll see what I mean), and it's starting to bug me. I wanted to make a post about it, but my knowledge wasn't sufficient to undertake such a complex subject. I asked my friend for help (she has a PhD on the history of ancient Rome) and the following is her explanation translated into English by me.
***
First of all, there are four points that need to be mentioned:
1. In Rome, there were no formal and rigid rules for assigning names. The names were determined by a) generally accepted customary norms, b) familial and personal taste and circumstances (for example, the existence and usage of additional name could be influenced by whether or not a woman had sisters or other female relatives, the meaning of her father's cognomen, its prominence, etc.), and c) certain linguistic characteristics.
2. All of the following are only applicable to the wealthy classes: senators and equestrians. The rules were much less rigid in the lower strata. Freedwomen could have practically any cognomen since their former slave names performed the function; oftentimes, they were non-Latin names.
3. For the period under review, especially its beginning, we have very little precise evidence on formal female names. Only inscriptions can be considered precise evidence. Usually, mentions of women in literary sources only reflect how these women were called in daily life or a convenient way to call them to make it clear who the author was talking about. We can't be certain that we know the full names of every woman mentioned in the sources. On the contrary, there are instances when this is clearly not the case (for example, Crassus' wife is only known to us as Tertulla, but she undoubtedly had a nomen).
4. During the period under review, the naming convention was going through changes (not only for women, but for men as well). At the start of it (the end of the 2nd century BC), the customs of the mid-Republic were more or less observed, but at the end of it (the 40s of the 1st century BC), the imperial tendencies were already well evident. The evidence is too scarce to assess the progress with more accuracy.
It's better to view the picture over time. The customs of the mid-Republic, which remained in force until the end of the 2nd century BC, are documented even less than those of the subsequent period, but it's pretty safe to say that in this period, a woman would usually inherit only her father's nomen (ex., Cornelia, daughter of Publius Cornelius Scipio).
If there were several girls in the family, they were distinguished by Maior (Elder) and Minor (Younger). Judging by later sources, these identifications were not a formal part of the name, i.e., they were not mentioned in the inscriptions. Based on the available data, it's hard to say how strongly they were tied to a nomen and how often they were used; in any case, they are not uncommon in literary sources.
An alternative way to distinguish sisters was a sequence number (Tertia, Quarta, Quinta, etc.). The same is true for such names as Paulla or Polla ("little," i.e., the younger sister) and Postuma ("born after the death of her father"). These names could "stick" to a woman and apparently, would often become a part of her official name. Sometimes they would even supplant her nomen in everyday life (especially Tertia, for some reason). These names persisted in the late Republic and held out until the Empire.
Around the era of Marius, women started to inherit their father's cognomen more often (or perhaps it's simply the changing nature of our evidence), and this fashion became a common occurrence by the Imperial period. Apparently, the Romans thought that (in the same spirit as nomen) a female name should represent the feminine form of her father's cognomen, so they couldn't take whichever cognomen but only specific ones: adjectives of 1st and 2nd declension (i.e., those that have different masculine and feminine forms: ex., Pulcher – Pulchra, Lepidus – Lepida, i.e., masculine and feminine forms of the word "beautiful"); nouns of 2nd declension that have meaningful correspondence in feminine form (Camillus – Camilla; camilli and camillae served in sacred rites); cognomen of 2nd declension whose meaning was probably not clear even to the Romans (ex., Metellus – Metella, Marcellus – Marcella).
Initially, adjectives of the 3rd declension (ex., Felix, which means "happy" and doesn't have masculine and feminine forms) and nouns of all declensions, except the 2nd one (ex., 1st declension – Messalla, Sulla, Cotta; 3rd declension – Scipio, Caepio, Cicero, Caesar; I can't remember cognomina of 4th and 5th declensions off the top of my head, but it most likely applies to them too) could not turn into female cognomen.
Towards the end of the Republic, female cognomen began to be formed through diminutive suffixes, at first out of 2nd declension cognomen (Drusus – Drusilla, Plancus – Plancina, Paullus – Paulina). Later, under the rule of Augustus, women (or their fathers) extended this trend to male cognomen of the 1st declension: Agrippa – Agrippina, Messalla – Messalina, etc. But, as far as I remember, nobody came up with a way to form female cognomen from nouns of the 3rd declension. At least until the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. However, adjectives of the 3rd declension are sometimes found as female cognomen (although usually in the lower strata).
Gradually, more serious deviations start to occur: women acquire prenomen (the first known example is Fausta Cornelia, the daughter of Sulla); women take their mother's nomen and not their father's (the first known example is Domitia, the daughter of Lucius Cornelius Bibulus); women take two nomen, one of which is formally a cognomen but serves as the main name (ex., Vipsania Julia aka Julia Minor, Augustus' granddaughter, the daughter of Julia Maior and Agrippa); women combine their father's nomen with their maternal grandfather's cognomen (Appuleia Varilla, the daughter of Sextus Appuleius and granddaughter of Quinctilius Varus), etc.
So, in the absence of strict rules at any given time, only guesses about women's nomen would be justified, but not about their cognomen (for example, we can be sure that in the late Republic a daughter of a man named M. Caellius Rufus was named Caelia, but we can't be sure if she was called Caelia Rufa, Caelia Rufina, or Caelia Rufilla, even though all of these options are possible in theory). If a woman's cognomen is not documented in the sources, then we can't know it, and there may well not be one. The closer we are to the beginning of the period, the more likely it is that there was no cognomen.
***
This was the first part of my friend's answer. Complicated subject, isn't it? Expounding on specific examples would help! So I asked her to break down the following names:
a) "Aemilia Scaura," "Aurelia Cotta," "Cornelia Cinna" and her sister "Cinnilla," "Julia Caesaris," "Julilla," "Mucia Scaevola," "Servilia Caepionis." These are some of the names that you can encounter in McCullough's books.
b) "Cornelia Sulla" (Sulla's eldest daughter), "Pompeia Magna" (Pompey's daughter), Caecilia Metella, "Licinia Crassa Maior," "Licinia Crassa Minor." In an article on the Roman naming convention, wikipedia lists these women as those who had a cognomen. I also saw "Pompeia Strabonia" on wiki. The first two are also in McCullough's books. I can't remember if others are.
c) Sulla's other two daughters, Fausta Cornelia and Cornelia Postuma.
The following is my friend's answer:
McCullough gives cognomina to practically all of her female characters, apparently to make it easier for her readers to distinguish between them. Almost all of them are made-up (i.e., not documented in the sources), many are unlikely based on the customs of the era, and many are incorrectly constructed based on the rules of the Latin language. The same is true for the names on wikipedia (I'm not sure if all of them are taken from McCullough, but it's clearly her influence).
• "Aemilia Scaura" (daughter of M. Aemilius Scaurus): Documented as Aemilia in the sources. Cognomen Scaurus could take the form Scaura, but, as far as we know, no aristocratic woman of this family was called that (perhaps because scaurus meant "club foot").
• "Aurelia Cotta" (daughter of L. Aurelius Cotta): Documented as Aurelia in the sources. Cognomen Cotta is the 1st declension and can't take feminine form. In this period, its inheritance by the daughter is highly unlikely. As far as I know, it was exclusively male among the Imperial aristocracy, and no feminine version was formed.
• Caecilia Metella (daughter of Caecilius Metellus): The name is correct. Documented for many women in this family.
• "Cornelia Cinna" (daughter of L. Cornelius Cinna): Documented as Cornelia in the sources. Cognomen Cinna is the 1st declension. In this period, its inheritance by the daughter is highly unlikely. As far as I know, it was exclusively male among the Imperial aristocracy, and no feminine version was formed.
• "Cinnilla" (daughter of L. Cornelius Cinna): Documented as Cornelia in the sources. In theory, the female cognomen Cinnilla could have been formed through a diminutive suffix in the early Imperial period. But in reality, it is not documented for women in this family.
• "Cornellia Sulla" (daughter of L. Cornelius Sulla Felix): Documented as Cornelia in the sources. Cognomen Sulla is the 1st declension and can't take feminine form. In this period, its inheritance by the daughter is highly unlikely. As far as I know, it was exclusively male among the Imperial aristocracy, and no feminine version was formed.
• Fausta Cornelia (daughter of L. Cornelius Sulla Felix): Documented as Fausta in the sources. Fausta is a personal name that was given to her by her father, contrary to existing customs, to commemorate his own happiness. Judging by the name of her twin brother, whose name was Faustus Cornelius Sulla, the name Fausta served as a prenomen and not a cognomen.
• Cornelia Postuma (daughter of L. Cornelius Sulla Felix): Documented as Postuma in the sources. A personal cognomen indicating that the daughter was born after the death of her father.
• "Julia Caesaris" (daughter of C. Julius Caesar): Documented as Julia in the sources. Cognomen Caesar is the 3rd declension and can't take feminine form (this can be stated quite confidently because, had it been possible, many women of Imperial dynasties would have received such a name). Caesaris is the genitive of Caesar. The phrase "Julia Caesaris" was possible, but it was not a name. In this period, it would mean "Julia, wife of Caesar."
• "Julilla" (daughter of C. Julius Caesar; a different Caesar): Documented as Ilia in the sources (possibly a mistake in the manuscript). If she was a Julia, then Julilla is the diminutive form. It could be used as a nickname, but not as a formal name. Such cognomen was possible in the Imperial period (similar to the names Livilla and Junilla).
• "Licinia Crassa Maior," "Licinia Crassa Minor" (daughters of L. Licinius Crassus): In the sources, both of them are documented as simply Licinia. Cognomen Crassus could take the form Crassa, but, as far as we know, no aristocratic woman of this family was called that (perhaps because crassus = "fat"). Maior, Minor were possible identifications for older and younger sisters. Formally, it was not a part of the name, and it's not documented for these particular women.
• "Mucia Scaevola" (daughter of Q. Mucius Scaevola): Documented as Mucia Tertia in the sources. Cognomen Scaevola is the 1st declension and can't take feminine form. Not only during the Republican era but, as far as I know, during the Empire, too.
• "Pompeia Strabonia" (daughter of Pompeius Strabo): In the sources documented without a name, but she undoubtedly bore the nomen Pompeia. The formation of female cognomen from Strabo (3rd declension) is hardly possible. In the middle Imperial period, the name Strabonia/Strabonius existed as a nomen, but it is not documented among the aristocracy.
• "Pompeia Magna" (daughter of Cn. Pompeius Magnus): Documented as simply Pompeia in the sources. Cognomen Magnus could take the form Magna, and there is evidence that this woman's daughter had the cognomen Magna.
• "Servilia Caepionis" (daughter of Q. Servilius Caepio): Documented as Servilia in the sources. Caepio is the 3rd declension and can't take feminine form. Caepionis is the genitive of Caepio. The phrase "Servilia Caepionis" was possible, but it was not a name. In this period, it would mean "Servilia, wife of Caepio."
***
I'd like to thank my friend for explaining this subject to me and for letting me share it!
Be very careful any time you meet a female name of the Republican era that consists of nomen + cognomen, especially on wikipedia. Chances are, that name is incorrect.
Comments
Post a Comment