Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by spin »

Secret Alias wrote:Kajanto's tome on Latin cognomina had a six page review on Jstor. Six fucking pages where the main criticism was the reviewer didn't like the way he referenced things.

And unlike most "hobby horses" at the forum this is a completely esoteric subject. Who the fuck argues to the death the question of whether gentilic adjectives in Latin can or cannot be developed from praenomina?

As far as I can tell you the once self described "anarchist" are arguing for absolutely rigid rules for the formation of these adjectives. Why I have absolutely no idea when (a) you're a smart guy (b) you have great familiarity with ancient languages and (c) a guy who specializes in cogmenina says that Marcianus can be formed from either the praenomen Marcus or the nomen Marcius.
You can say whatever you like, but to what avail? In the end you need evidence. The Finn might be right. I don't know and, it seems, neither do you. If he's right, how? All I've seen so far is the superficial stuff that shows no interest in morphology.
Secret Alias wrote:But maybe it's my turn to feel your wrath ...
Drama?
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Secret Alias »

I found something by Kajanto ... written by the author in Italian! Not exactly on the subject but interesting (to me at least):
Ma tra i Romani un altro fatto contribuì alla rapida diffusione del nome di famiglia, e cioè la crescente importanza della gens, una grande famiglia ovvero un gruppo di famiglie. Il tipo più comune del gentilicium era il patronimico derivato con il suffisso d'appartenenza -ius o -ilius, sicché per es. Marcius significò «figlio di Marcus» e Lucilius «figlio di Lucius». Quando questi patronimici, invece di denotare una sola generazione, passarono a tutte le generazioni seguenti reputate come discendenti da un progenitore, il nome di famiglia era nato.
I wonder if by this logic - i.e. Marcius = 'son of Marcus' then Marcii (and then by translation into Greek Μαρκίων) means 'sons of Marcus.' No need for you to respond. Just speculating out loud. Trying to understand where he is coming from. Still working on uncovering his argument. Have ordered his book from the library.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Secret Alias »

Der Beiname "Marcianus" kann nach Kajanto398 sowohl vom praenomen "Marcus" als auch vom gentilicium "Marcius" abgeleitet sein. Er gehört der Meinung des finnischen Onomastikers399 entsprechend zu den häufigsten römischen cognomina. Der Autor zählt allein im corpus inscriptionum 350 Beispiele römischer Bürger (dazu noch vier Sklaven und Freigelassene), die diesen cognomen tragen400. Perin401 hält das cognomen bei Männern für "satis frequens", für sehr häufig aber bei Frauen. Der Umstand ist nicht ohne Bedeutung, da es laut Kajanto402 in der Kaiserzeit Mode war, einen Mutternamen zu erben. Als allgemeine Regel waren jedoch (letzterem Autor zufolge) die cognomina auf "-anus" freigewählt, selbst wenn sie ursprünglich einmal von einem gentilicium abgeleitet waren. Die Kinder wurden mit ihnen benannt, ohne daß man noch an Bedeutung und Herkunft des cognomen dachte403.
Not much more help but a little useful I guess.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by iskander »

Secret Alias wrote:...
Not much more help but a little useful I guess.
Have you read what Kajanto has written?

There was a time in the history of Rome when any individual was known by only a personal singular name .

Apparently about 700 BC the binominal system made its appearance, that is individual had a praenomen and nomen gentilicium .

During the late republic and early empire the tria nomina made its appearance in the history of Rome , praenomen, nomen gentilicium, and cognomen.

From the 4th century AD to the 7th century the nomen gentilicium was displaced by the cognomen.


Is the book of K an study of this evolutionary process?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Secret Alias »

It would seem that scholarship takes Marcianus as an -ianus cognomen and part of a group of cognomina that became increasingly commonplace in the second and third centuries part of a trend of former slaves attempting to 'reshape' themselves into respectability:
Besides the controversy over whether some cognomina can be specified as servile in origin, there is the corresponding question whether some cognomina can be considered to have a distinctively freeborn or even upper-class connotation - the so-called ' cognomina ingenua ' and ' cognomina equestria. The Familia Caesaris might be thought to have an illustrative role here, especially with those rare freedman members who were elevated to equestrian status. The test case is the cognomen 'Marcianus' taken by the freedman Icelus on his gaining equestrian rank under Galba. The sources are three passages: Tacitus, Hist. i. 13, Plutarch, Galba 7, and Suetonius, Galba 14.1 Of these Tacitus and Plutarch agree that the name ' Marcianus ' was freely chosen by Icelus and not conferred in any formal sense (vocitabant, KocXouhevos), whereas Suetonius implies the latter (cognomine ornatus). The priority and weight of authority are in this case with Tacitus and Plutarch, deriving from their unknown common source, and not with Suetonius.2 Icelus of his own choice adopted a name which in the first century still had upper class associations and in taking this new personal name ' Marcianus' he presumably intended to drop his former one with its servile associations.

But Icelus was a degenerate who later paid heavily for his pretensions. The earlier cases of Pallas, Narcissus, Callistus, Epaphroditus and others, and the eloquent silence on the personal name of Claudius Etruscus' father, when similarly but more justifiably elevated to equestrian rank, show that Icelus was an isolated case and was not following or setting a fashion. We hear little of such changes of personal name in the Familia Caesaris even in cases where they might be expected, if not condoned. When freedmen of privati tried to claim illegally equestrian status, presumably by methods involving a change of name, Claudius checked the practice with some sternness.4 Much writing on the lower classes also has been based on the same assumption of a discernible difference between distinctively 'freeborn' personal names (cognomina ingenua) and those that are distinctively ' servile' (cognomina servilia). These latter Duff5 goes so far as to describe as 'the most tell-tale evidence of a man's servile extraction'.

The evidence of the personal of the personal nomenclature of the Imperial slaves and freedmen is particularly valuable here. In the Familia few problems of status determination ...

For Latin cognomina a slightly clearer picture emerges. The last of the names claimed as ' cognomina ingenua ', Marcellus, Marcella, Rufus, Verus, as well as others often cited as such, e.g. Celer, Capita, Florus, Fronto, Probus, etc., can all be illustrated by more than one example from the Familia Caesaris, in most cases dating from the end of the first century ad and later.2 Similarly, cognomina either identical with or derived from the names of emperors themselves or of the Imperial family are constantly appearing, e.g. Titus, Domitianus, Traianus, Geta; Domitia, Faustina, Agrippina; Iulianus, Claudianus, Flavianus, Ulpianus, Antonius, Agrippa, Pertinax, etc.3 These names at best provide vague termini post quem, but of no specific chronological value, e.g. Ulpianus, Flavianus, Aurelianus.

More significant is the general chronological distribution of personal names ending in -ianus (to be distinguished from second cognomina (agnomina) in -ianus), e.g. Cornelianus, Iustianus, Licinianus, Maecianus, Marcianus, Maximianus, Priscianus, etc. Few cognomina of this type can be securely dated to the first century. But they become increasingly common throughout the second century and by the early third century actual nomina are being used as personal cognomina by Imperial slaves and freedmen alike, e.g. Antonius, Cassius, Domitius, Flavius, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&h ... anus%27%22
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by spin »

Secret Alias wrote:
Der Beiname "Marcianus" kann nach Kajanto398 sowohl vom praenomen "Marcus" als auch vom gentilicium "Marcius" abgeleitet sein. Er gehört der Meinung des finnischen Onomastikers399 entsprechend zu den häufigsten römischen cognomina. Der Autor zählt allein im corpus inscriptionum 350 Beispiele römischer Bürger (dazu noch vier Sklaven und Freigelassene), die diesen cognomen tragen400. Perin401 hält das cognomen bei Männern für "satis frequens", für sehr häufig aber bei Frauen. Der Umstand ist nicht ohne Bedeutung, da es laut Kajanto402 in der Kaiserzeit Mode war, einen Mutternamen zu erben. Als allgemeine Regel waren jedoch (letzterem Autor zufolge) die cognomina auf "-anus" freigewählt, selbst wenn sie ursprünglich einmal von einem gentilicium abgeleitet waren. Die Kinder wurden mit ihnen benannt, ohne daß man noch an Bedeutung und Herkunft des cognomen dachte403.
Not much more help but a little useful I guess.
For me the last idea is quite significant. Children would be given derived names (in -anus) without considering significance or origin. That I would take as a warning to you concerning your desired trajectory.

(Whoever wrote the passage seems to be citing Kajanto re "Marcus" without adding any support of their own!)
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by spin »

Secret Alias wrote:It would seem that scholarship takes Marcianus as an -ianus cognomen and part of a group of cognomina that became increasingly commonplace in the second and third centuries part of a trend of former slaves attempting to 'reshape' themselves into respectability:
Besides the controversy over whether some cognomina can be specified as servile in origin, there is the corresponding question whether some cognomina can be considered to have a distinctively freeborn or even upper-class connotation - the so-called ' cognomina ingenua ' and ' cognomina equestria. The Familia Caesaris might be thought to have an illustrative role here, especially with those rare freedman members who were elevated to equestrian status. The test case is the cognomen 'Marcianus' taken by the freedman Icelus on his gaining equestrian rank under Galba. The sources are three passages: Tacitus, Hist. i. 13, Plutarch, Galba 7, and Suetonius, Galba 14.1 Of these Tacitus and Plutarch agree that the name ' Marcianus ' was freely chosen by Icelus and not conferred in any formal sense (vocitabant, KocXouhevos), whereas Suetonius implies the latter (cognomine ornatus). The priority and weight of authority are in this case with Tacitus and Plutarch, deriving from their unknown common source, and not with Suetonius.2 Icelus of his own choice adopted a name which in the first century still had upper class associations and in taking this new personal name ' Marcianus' he presumably intended to drop his former one with its servile associations.

But Icelus was a degenerate who later paid heavily for his pretensions. The earlier cases of Pallas, Narcissus, Callistus, Epaphroditus and others, and the eloquent silence on the personal name of Claudius Etruscus' father, when similarly but more justifiably elevated to equestrian rank, show that Icelus was an isolated case and was not following or setting a fashion. We hear little of such changes of personal name in the Familia Caesaris even in cases where they might be expected, if not condoned. When freedmen of privati tried to claim illegally equestrian status, presumably by methods involving a change of name, Claudius checked the practice with some sternness.4 Much writing on the lower classes also has been based on the same assumption of a discernible difference between distinctively 'freeborn' personal names (cognomina ingenua) and those that are distinctively ' servile' (cognomina servilia). These latter Duff5 goes so far as to describe as 'the most tell-tale evidence of a man's servile extraction'.

The evidence of the personal of the personal nomenclature of the Imperial slaves and freedmen is particularly valuable here. In the Familia few problems of status determination ...

For Latin cognomina a slightly clearer picture emerges. The last of the names claimed as ' cognomina ingenua ', Marcellus, Marcella, Rufus, Verus, as well as others often cited as such, e.g. Celer, Capita, Florus, Fronto, Probus, etc., can all be illustrated by more than one example from the Familia Caesaris, in most cases dating from the end of the first century ad and later.2 Similarly, cognomina either identical with or derived from the names of emperors themselves or of the Imperial family are constantly appearing, e.g. Titus, Domitianus, Traianus, Geta; Domitia, Faustina, Agrippina; Iulianus, Claudianus, Flavianus, Ulpianus, Antonius, Agrippa, Pertinax, etc.3 These names at best provide vague termini post quem, but of no specific chronological value, e.g. Ulpianus, Flavianus, Aurelianus.

More significant is the general chronological distribution of personal names ending in -ianus (to be distinguished from second cognomina (agnomina) in -ianus), e.g. Cornelianus, Iustianus, Licinianus, Maecianus, Marcianus, Maximianus, Priscianus, etc. Few cognomina of this type can be securely dated to the first century. But they become increasingly common throughout the second century and by the early third century actual nomina are being used as personal cognomina by Imperial slaves and freedmen alike, e.g. Antonius, Cassius, Domitius, Flavius, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&h ... anus%27%22
This material is certainly not helping your case but explaining how derived names are shorn of their significance and origin, pilfered for their sound of acceptability.

(And no, this is another who is rolling the stem vowel into the suffix. The German gets it right with -anus. The above seems to be wrong with -ianus, despite the popular rendering. Corneli-, Iusti-, Licini-, Maeci-. These are all straight -anus.)
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Secret Alias »

Just trying to demonstrate that I am interested in a wide range of opinion
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Secret Alias »

T. Flavius Paccius

Yet I do not think that all double nomina can be explained in so simple a way. The very fact that double nomina were much more popular in the Christian than in the pagan material militates against it. Considering the rapid disuse of nomina in Christian times, it would be strange if the practice of inheriting nomina from both parents had gained so enormously in popularity. In a large number of cases the second nomen was very likely nothing but a nomen used as a cognomen. There are examples of this usage in the pagan material. Thus C VI 9661 = ILSlbil gives the following family stemma: Ulpius Eutyches — Ulpia Secundina I Ulpius Secundinus, Ulpia I u l i a, Ulpia Secundina, Ulpius Iustus Two of the children bear a cognomen taken over from the mother, the others have cognomina different from those of the parents. Iulia has here quite as good a right to be considered a cognomen as Iustus. The following example from Gaul is all the more valuable because all the persons recorded were slaves, and slaves did not bear nomina proper *,

C XIII 2533 = ILS 7452:
Valentinus
— Sacrobena I Valerius

The cognomina of parents and children often belong together etymologically (see p. 52); in the example above the son had been named Valerius to recall the name of his father. I shall give one more case in which a nomen used as a cognomen etymologically belongs together with other cognomina current in a family, C III 8018 = ILS 7247:

Iul. Herculanus — ltd. Vivenia
| Iul. Marcianus, Iul. Marcellinus, Iul. Marcia, lul. Eraclia

The cognomina of the three first children accordingly derive from the same root, Marcus, Marcius. The true nature of double nomina is also proved by the fact that the second nomen does not pass on unchanged to children, as genuine nomina should do. To cite an example, C XIV 2289 = ILS 2427, the father is called Sept(imius) Licinius, the son Sept(imius) Licin[ia]nus. The first nomen was the actual family name and was inherited unchanged by the son; the second was an individual cognomen and passed on to the son after having been extended, as often happened to cognomina (see p. 52), by the suffix -anus. There are cases in Christian inscriptions in which the nomina used as cognomina do not pass on to the sons at all, e.g. C VIII 9973 = Diehl 3691Cadn: the father is [Iu]lius Aemiliu, the sons Iuliuonatus and Honorius.

Though the use of double nomina was firmly established in pagan times, our statistics suggest that the use became much more in Christian material. This is quite natural, for after the importance of the nomina had declined, still less reluctance was felt in giving them to children as cognomina. The greater frequency of this form in women's names was due to the fact that a number of the cases were genuine double nomina, with the second nomen inherited from the mother, and these were more popular with women from the very beginning. But even those double nomina in which the second nomen functions as a freely chosen individual cognomen seem to have been more popular with women. Because women had borne double nomina from the very beginning, the use of a nomen as a cognomen originated and was more common in female nomenclature. The above makes it possible for us to understand the popularity of single nomina in Christian epigraphic material. In pagan inscriptions, women's single nomina could be classed as an early name form (see p. 19), but in Christian inscriptions no similar interpretation is likely. The mere survival, still less a strengthening, of the ancient name system over the centuries is not probable. This is corroborated by the fact that there are only three examples of the masculine equivalent, the praenomen and nomen form, in our Christian material (see table 3, p. 9). Further, single nomina were almost as frequent with men, but cannot possibly be interpreted as an ancient name form. It is, then, probable that apart from a few occasional cases of disputable interpretation 1 single nomina found in Christian inscriptions were individual cognomina. This is also proved by the fact that like the double nomina, the transmission of single nomina in general observes the same rules as that of cognomina. 1 C X 603 = DlehL 3204, the name Julia, belonging to the wife of a certain M. Annaeus Agatho — notice the tria nomina — may be a genuine nomen, but it is also possible that it was an individual cognomen. Though a single nomen may occasionally pass on to children, e.g. C V 1631 = Diehl 4625, where the father is Aurelius, the mother Prima, and the daughter Aurelia, we should remember that cognomina, too, were often inherited unchanged by children. Diehl 4493 is significant in this respect: the father is Ulpius, the mother Felicitas, and the sons Ulpius and Aelianus. Only the elder son bears the same name as his father; had Ulpius been a genuine nomen, designating family relationship, both sons should have borne it. Otherwise a single nomen does not pass on to children, e.g. C VI 34728b = Diehl 3745, , where the father is Sestiliuis], the mother [Feli]cissima, the daughter Adeodata, or if borne by a child, is not found as the name of the parents, e.g. RO 1576 = Diehl 3253, where the father is Ursus, the mother Seberane, and the daughter Iulia. Etymology is also observed: a nomen may recall a cognate cognomen borne by the parents, e.g. C III 9586 = Diehl 1523: there the father is Flavianus, the mother Archelais, and the daughter Flavia. The table on p. 18 shows that women bore single nomina slightly more often than men. The explanation of this disproportion is the same as that in regard to double nomina: the origin of the use of nomina as cognomina in female nomenclature. . A few significant facts are revealed by the following table, in which I give the frequencies of the most popular nomina
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Secret Alias »

Not exactly what I am looking for. hard to locate this volume on line
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply