Am I Setting Myself Up For Problems?

gothicangel · May 29, 2011

After getting myself in a complete mess over Roman naming conventions, I'm now concerned that I might confuse any readers.

Basically in Roman naming conventions, the eldest son would carry the same name as his father. Now, last night I decided I wanted to have the eldest son of my protaganist in a chapter [only one].

Now, I don't feel it's confusing, but I'm concerned that a reader would think 'what the hell?' when suddenly faced with two characters with the same name.

Thoughts?

donroc · May 29, 2011

I am sure you, as many of us, had classmates or friends who had trouble with War and Peace because the characters had 1st, paternal, last, and diminutive names.

I have one minor character named Pepin and must make reference to four other Pepins in my 9th century WIP. I deal with it by adding appositives or their nicknames -- the Short, the Hunchback.

Why not try that?

gothicangel · May 29, 2011

donroc said:
I am sure you, as many of us, had classmates or friends who had trouble with War and Peace because the characters had 1st, paternal, last, and diminutive names.

I have one minor character named Pepin and must make reference to four other Pepins in my 9th century WIP. I deal with it by adding appositives or their nicknames -- the Short, the Hunchback.

Why not try that?

That's a great idea, thanks.

Pliny the elder/younger. Duh!

lachel · May 29, 2011

Can you research how common it was for people to not be called by their real name? Nowadays it's not uncommon for a father and son to share a name, and one pretty much always gets a nickname or goes by their middle name. If John Richard Smith Sr. and John Richard Smith Jr. live in the same house, having 2 is confusing, so among people I know in that situation, junior is almost always called Richard. And then if Richard has a son and names him John Richard Smith III, the baby is called Jack, to differentiate him from grandpa John and dad Richard.

That seems to be the basic convention that people follow today, so could you research what names people actually used back then?

Puma · May 29, 2011

I had the same situation with early 19th century Ohio - grandfather, father, and son all named the same. In my situation the father was always introduced first so took the main name (David), son became Davey, grandfather might have been Dave or Papaw or old David or ...

It really isn't that unusual to have names passed on in families. Donroc definitely has a good idea with his descriptors. Puma

gothicangel · May 29, 2011

Puma said:
I had the same situation with early 19th century Ohio - grandfather, father, and son all named the same. In my situation the father was always introduced first so took the main name (David), son became Davey, grandfather might have been Dave or Papaw or old David or ...

It really isn't that unusual to have names passed on in families. Donroc definitely has a good idea with his descriptors. Puma

That is a good point also. Really he should be introduced as 'son of . . .'

Cheers.

DianeL · May 29, 2011

Romans were great nicknamers, and also - precisely owning to exactly the issue you're facing - indulged in a lot of diminutives. Julia, Julilla - Livia, Livilla - Agrippina, Agrippinilla ...

Come to think of it, those are all feminine examples, so perhaps they didn't diminutize men so much, but the nickname route was clearly available to them, and they used the heck out of it. Even FAMILY names were descriptors, which might have been nicknames for someone once-upon-a-time up (... down?) the family tree.

I liked the way McCullough handled naming in her Masters of Rome series. She laid out a good author's note, clarified a very few crisp rules, and managed a horrendously large cast over generations pretty handily. I don't always use her writing as my guide, but her author's notes are personal favorites of mine.

gothicangel · May 29, 2011

DianeL said:
I liked the way McCullough handled naming in her Masters of Rome series. She laid out a good author's note, clarified a very few crisp rules, and managed a horrendously large cast over generations pretty handily. I don't always use her writing as my guide, but her author's notes are personal favorites of mine.

Thanks for that, I'll check out the books.

Alessandra Kelley · May 29, 2011

Germanicus was a nickname. So was Caligula (which was a diminutive, basically meant "little boots", and was given by soldiers when he was a toddler mascot in miniature uniform -- ugh.).

Don't know if it's true, but I heard that Roman girls all were named after their family, so that every daughter of a Julian was named Julia. Sounded pretty confusing.

I had trouble with Jane Austen because of those naming conventions -- seems like the first son was always named after the father and the first daughter after the mother. And then the first daughter was always referred to as either "Miss Bennett", with everyone knowing it was her, or as "Jane" by her closest intimates.

I'd go with nicknames.

mscelina · May 29, 2011

DianeL said:
Romans were great nicknamers, and also - precisely owning to exactly the issue you're facing - indulged in a lot of diminutives. Julia, Julilla - Livia, Livilla - Agrippina, Agrippinilla ...

Come to think of it, those are all feminine examples, so perhaps they didn't diminutize men so much, but the nickname route was clearly available to them, and they used the heck out of it. Even FAMILY names were descriptors, which might have been nicknames for someone once-upon-a-time up (... down?) the family tree.

I liked the way McCullough handled naming in her Masters of Rome series. She laid out a good author's note, clarified a very few crisp rules, and managed a horrendously large cast over generations pretty handily. I don't always use her writing as my guide, but her author's notes are personal favorites of mine.

Nicknames are the best way to go if you're looking for historical accuracy. Caligula (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus) is a good example. The Roman army latched that moniker on his when he was a kid and his father Germanicus (Julis Caesar Germanicus) took him to review the troops. Because the child was wearing a full legionnaire's outfit down to the boots, the army called him little boots--hence 'Caligula', a diminutive taken from 'caligas' which was the name for the army's boots.

That being said, this site http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/roman_names.html might prove exceptionally helpful as you try to muck your way through Roman naming practices.

gothicangel · May 29, 2011

mscelina said:
That being said, this site http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/roman_names.html might prove exceptionally helpful as you try to muck your way through Roman naming practices.

Cheers.

alex_falstone · May 30, 2011

Alessandra Kelley said:
Roman girls all were named after their family, so that every daughter of a Julian was named Julia. Sounded pretty confusing.

Romans got round this by suffixing: Julia Major, Julia Minor, Julia Tertia... Or by feminising the girl's father's cognomen: Dalmatica.

Nicknames were part of a person's name, and often formed their cognomen (either based on personal reference, eg: 'Strabo' = cross-eyed, Caesar = head of hair, or achievement, eg: Macedonicus for the general who conquered Macedonia). I remember above all Colleen McCullough writing that everyone in the policital level of Roman society always knew who was being talked about, so if someone mentioned 'Lucius Cornelius' those present knew from the context on this occasion it related to Lucius Cornelius Sulla. I can only add to the recommendation that you look at her Masters of Rome books - the First Man in Rome (being the first) has the fullest explanations about naming. And it should be remembered that although there were a lot of Lucius Corneliuses, there was only one Lucius Cornelius Sulla the Dictator, etc who appears to have been pretty unforgettable!

I also think McCullough's comment that everyone knew who they were talking about probably applies to all pre-modern society elites - who were after all a comparatively small group, but whose existence strongly depended on a very sure understanding of their own and each other individual's exact gradation in the heirarchy.

gothicangel · May 30, 2011

alex_falstone said:
Romans got round this by suffixing: Julia Major, Julia Minor, Julia Tertia... Or by feminising the girl's father's cognomen: Dalmatica.

Nicknames were part of a person's name, and often formed their cognomen (either based on personal reference, eg: 'Strabo' = cross-eyed, Caesar = head of hair, or achievement, eg: Macedonicus for the general who conquered Macedonia). I remember above all Colleen McCullough writing that everyone in the policital level of Roman society always knew who was being talked about, so if someone mentioned 'Lucius Cornelius' those present knew from the context on this occasion it related to Lucius Cornelius Sulla. I can only add to the recommendation that you look at her Masters of Rome books - the First Man in Rome (being the first) has the fullest explanations about naming. And it should be remembered that although there were a lot of Lucius Corneliuses, there was only one Lucius Cornelius Sulla the Dictator, etc who appears to have been pretty unforgettable!

I also think McCullough's comment that everyone knew who they were talking about probably applies to all pre-modern society elites - who were after all a comparatively small group, but whose existence strongly depended on a very sure understanding of their own and each other individual's exact gradation in the heirarchy.

Thanks. I think I'm going cross-eyed with this now!

alex_falstone · May 30, 2011

gothicangel said:
Thanks. I think I'm going cross-eyed with this now!

Apologies for the over-nerdish response.

Why not just park this as an issue to sort out in editing, and carry on with the writing? You may get a better feeling what's best as you progress. :Shrug:

BardSkye · May 30, 2011

alex_falstone said:
I also think McCullough's comment that everyone knew who they were talking about probably applies to all pre-modern society elites - who were after all a comparatively small group, but whose existence strongly depended on a very sure understanding of their own and each other individual's exact gradation in the heirarchy.

Unfortunately, the average modern reader isn't part of the group and will still find Roman naming customs confusing. :tongue

Speaking strictly as an average modern reader who isn't familiar with those customs, I would probably find nicknames the only way to keep track of everyone.

gothicangel · May 30, 2011

BardSkye said:
Unfortunately, the average modern reader isn't part of the group and will still find Roman naming customs confusing.

Speaking strictly as an average modern reader who isn't familiar with those customs, I would probably find nicknames the only way to keep track of everyone.

Thanks for the input. I would prefer to keep things as short as possible.

Am I Setting Myself Up For Problems?

gothicangel

Toughen up.

donroc

Historicals and Horror rule

gothicangel

Toughen up.

lachel

Puma

Retired and loving it!

gothicangel

Toughen up.

DianeL

gothicangel

Toughen up.

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

gothicangel

Toughen up.

alex_falstone

gothicangel

Toughen up.

alex_falstone

BardSkye

Barbershoppin' Harmony Whore

gothicangel

Toughen up.