Stray notes on roman names in Greek documents (original) (raw)
Related papers
The variating presentations of Roman names in Greek primary sources reflect the depth of the Roman cultural impact on Greek-speaking communities. However, this variation also may render it more difficult – and sometimes impossible – to firmly establish the social standing of the Roman citizens in these records. This article explores problems related to this through ten selected name catalogues from the early imperial period. Geographically the catalogues range from Magna Graecia to Western Asia Minor, and they differ from each other in social context and purpose. In some catalogues certain patterns seem to emerge in the use of cognomina, praenomina or genitive attributes, or the hierarchical nature of a catalogue may facilitate interpretation; however, in many cases the lacking evidence leaves the social standing of some persons ambiguous or unknown.
M. Nowak, A Łajtar, J. Urbanik (eds.), Tell Me Who You Are: Labelling Status in the Graeco-Roman World (U SCHYŁKU STAROZYTNOSCI STUDIA ZRÓDŁOZNAWCZE, 16), Warsaw, 2017
This paper investigates the use of maternal names in the Roman world, in particular cases where the maternal nomenclature was deliberately preferred over the paternal one. In the typical scenario Roman children, as a rule, would automatically receive their father’s nomen. Sometimes, however, one encounters cases where they bear the maternal name instead. The reason was often of legal nature, as illegitimate children, for instance, would take their status — and subsequently their name — after their mother. Adoption, manumission, and other such legal reasons could also dictate the choice of the name. In some cases, however, it seems that children born of a legal union were voluntarily named after the maternal branch of the family — sometimes with no traces of the paternal nomenclature apart from the filiation. Such cases are mainly found in the senatorial class, where social and political prestige played an important role in this respect. Furthermore, the phenomenon of completely abandoning the paternal nomenclature in favour of the maternal seems to have primarily pertained to women. The first part of the survey briefly tackles the legal reasons, in other words cases where there was no other choice than the using of the maternal nomen. After this, the discussion proceeds to the voluntary favouring of the maternal nomenclature. Here several illustrative samples from the senatorial ordo are presented and discussed in detail. The final part of the survey explores the possibility of such onomastic practices outside the senatorial class. Here some possible, yet sporadic evidence representing provincial elite is discussed.
This article offers the first complete survey of aunts (amitae and materterae) in the Latin epigraphical dossier. All 94 inscriptions are listed and commented on, as they offer the potential for intriguing case stories. The set of data is not only used to ask questions about consistent use of terminology, geographical distribution, ages, and patterns of commemoration. The material is also studied in the broader context of the demography of the Roman family, of Greek and Latin family terminology, literary sources, law, papyrology and Greek epigraphy. In the conclusion, this study asks broader questions about the study of the Roman family, and how it relates to questions as Romanisation and modes of funerary expression.
J.Linderski, Review of D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature (1976), in Phoenix 31, 1977, 372-375 = RQ 1995, 420 + addendum 666.