Zompist Bboard Again

Posted: **Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:18 am**

A while ago, I read a German history book about 17th- and 18th century European royalty and aristocrats, Das Europa der Könige: Macht und Spiel an den Höfen des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts [something like The Europe of Kings: Power and Games at the Courts of the 17th and 18th Century], by Leonhard Horowski. I can't recommend it without reservations, even if you speak German - the style is often fairly dry, and Horowski has a habit of writing at length about one person or thing, then, when he mentions another person or thing in the course of doing that, starting to write at length about that other person or thing, then, when he mentions a third person or thing in the course of doing that, starting to write at length about that third person or thing, and so on, so that reading the book sometimes feels like reading Wikipedia with a special device that tracks your eyeballs and automatically opens every link to another Wikipedia page the moment you read it.

But in the introductory remarks, he writes some things about naming conventions and name usage that I find quite interesting. So I've translated a few paragraphs:

The correct treatment of personal names is one of the most important ways to test the quality of history books and historical writings, because few things say as much about a society as its naming conventions - someone who doesn't know by what names historical figures called each other has not listened to them carefully enough. That goes especially when dealing with rulers and aristocrats, who are notorious for their complicated ornamental names for good reasons; their naming systems contain a whole worldview, and so it seems to make sense when modern historical writings often enough adapt such names to our very different view of the individual. And in fact one can't really do without a certain amount of adaptation. For instance, if one wants to speak about the Spanish ambassador at the court of Louis XV, one can hardly say Don Fernando de Silva y Álvarez de Toledo Beaumont Portocarrero Enríquez de la Cerda Acevedo y Zúñiga Fonseca y Ayala, Duque de Huescar, Conde de Galve etc. every time, especially since this list of inherited families is more a collection of property deeds than a name, anyway.

But there are not just practical reasons to adapt the names a bit more, than, for instance, many screen- or novel writers do, who have people appointed or arrested "in the name of His Majesty King Louis XV of France". For people who know the field, that sounds about as authentic as a conversation in the present day would be in which someone would talk about "the Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Dr. Angela Dorothea Merkel née Kasner (CDU)". Of course that does not mean that one should never list full titles or names - it is often necessary for purposes of historical explanation and therefore occurs in this book, too.

But in all eras, the everyday usage of names was very different from listing the full version. Therefore, to know this everyday usage is not just useful for those who want to recognize such persons in contemporary texts. Above all, it tells us a lot about which traits of a person were seen as how important or unimportant in which day and age, and therefore mentioned or left out. The way how, consequently, the aristocracy of the early modern period always saw feudal and functional titles as more important than, for instance, given names (and which excessive forms that could take) will be explained in more detail in Chapter 12.

Here it will be sufficient to note that we will consciously do the unavoidable simplification of names in accordance with the everyday usage of the time in question. To use Angela Merkel as an example once more, one might imagine what modernizing history books might call her in a hundred years. Angela Kasner, because the victory of moderate feminists will have completely abolished the use of married names? Angela Herlindstochter [Herlindsdaughter], because somewhat more radical feminists will have taken over? Or, on the contrary, Frau Prof. Dr. Joachim Sauer, because there will have been a comeback of the Patriarchy? Fortunately, that doesn't matter for our question, because all three versions have one thing in common, no matter how likeable or unlikeable we might otherwise find them - they give a wrong impression of the society in which the Chancellor lived.

To avoid comparable mistakes, we will therefore call all historical figures, at least from the second time we mention them onward, by the shortest version of the name or title which was already used as the short form of their name during their live time. When talking about the many aristocrats who, especially in Western Europe, used geographical feudal titles, we will use those - so we will, for instance, call Henri-Charles de La Trémoille, Prince de Talmond simply "Talmond", Charles Fitzroy, Duke of Grafton simply "Grafton", and call Stéphanie-Félicité du Crest de Saint-Aubin, Comtesse de Genlis "Madame de Genlis". We will only use family names as short names in cases where, as, for instance, in Germany, the feudal titles were identical with the family names. The complete names of all those people will consequently only appear in the text in exceptional cases, but can be looked up in the index of names at the end of the book, which also contains all lifespans, the page numbers of all appearances, and the birth names of women.

(I hope this excerpt is short enough to be covered by Fair Use.)

So what do you think? Do you agree with his views on names and how to use them? And what interesting naming conventions or ways of using names from various languages and societies, past or present, do you know about?

Posted: **Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:07 am**

The "geographical title rather than name" thing is very striking when looking at that period, yes. Although it's not always fixed - Shakespeare, for instance, sometimes uses one placename in place of another, for variety or poetry. In Richard II, for instance, the future Henry IV is referred to as "Hereford", because he's the Earl (later Duke) of Hereford, but he's also sometimes referred to as "Bolingbroke", because he was born at Bolingbroke - he's also on one occasion called "Lancaster". His father is variably "Gaunt" (birthplace) and "Lancaster" (title) - although oddly, Gaunt's brother is always "York", never "Langley". Norfolk is mostly "Mowbray" (both surname and title), but sometimes "Norfolk". This can get confusing: the man known as "Aumerle" in Richard II is the same man known as "York" in Henry V, but there's no indication of this in the text. Meanwhile, the younger Percy is known either as "Percy" (surname) or just as "Hotspur" (nom de guerre).

In the book I've just read, memoirs from France in the 15th century, names can get very confusing. The same name (title) refers to different people - often without the author bothering to mention that the former titleholder has died (as Shakespeare puts it: "The Duke of Lancaster is dead" - "Aye, and living, too"). Meanwhile the same person goes by different names - so one of the Charleses, for instance, is the Duke of Berry, then instead the Duke of Nomandy, then briefly I think the Duke (?) of Champagne, before ending up the Duke of Aquitaine. In one case, the same man is referred to by two different names in one sentence! (along the lines of "he met the Count of Charolais, and would later be rewarded by the Duke of Burgundy" - the key being that Charolais later becomes Burgundy).

Oddly, however, this system seems to break down at the top: Charles the Bold is never, at least in this translation, called "Burgundy", and Louis is never "France".

------

The Romans are also famous for their overly complicated naming systems, of course, and for the way that people changed their names. Augustus, for example, was:
- Gaius Octavius Thurinus
- Gaius Julius Caesar... but this was the same as his "father's" name, so most people called him Octavianus
- Imperator Caesar Divi Filius
- Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus

Or consider Antoninus Pius. He was born Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus, but ended up as Imperator Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius...

Posted: **Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:50 am**

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:18 amSo what do you think? Do you agree with his views on names and how to use them? And what interesting naming conventions or ways of using names from various languages and societies, past or present, do you know about?

I think there's a fine line between preserving an older common usage in order to give an insight into the social system of the period in which a historical figure lived and being the kind of pedant who wonders why he never gets invited to the really interesting parties.

In any case, one traditional naming method I found excuses to mention over the holiday break was Korean teknonymy. Women in particular were often known by the name of their eldest male children, so a woman whose son is named Minho would be addressed and referred to as "Minho ŏmma" in informal use. I'm not sure how common this usage is nowadays but it was still widespread in rural areas in the late 20th century.

Korean name conventions in general are wildly complicated by contemporary Western standards. In The Korean language, Lee and Ramsey take one example and run through all the permutations of given name, surname, title, kinship term, and honorific in common use and the conditions under which each would be used. IIRC, they stop at about 20. And this is not for a member of the aristocracy but an ordinary average office worker.

Posted: **Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:39 am**

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:07 am
The Romans are also famous for their overly complicated naming systems, of course, and for the way that people changed their names. Augustus, for example, was:
- Gaius Octavius Thurinus
- Gaius Julius Caesar... but this was the same as his "father's" name, so most people called him Octavianus
- Imperator Caesar Divi Filius
- Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus

Or consider Antoninus Pius. He was born Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus, but ended up as Imperator Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius...

I think the best explanation I ever saw was that they just didn't distinguish between name, rank, and title at all, even to the extent medieval Europeans did.

Posted: **Thu Jan 03, 2019 1:24 pm**

Somewhat related: there are languages that traditionally put the surname first. And then there are languages that don't have surnames at all, and use patronymics or matronymics instead. But - are there any languages that combine these two things? That is, languages with matronymics or patronymics that come before the given name? As in "Daughter-of-Mary Lucy"?

Posted: **Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:46 pm**

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 1:24 pmSomewhat related: there are languages that traditionally put the surname first. And then there are languages that don't have surnames at all, and use patronymics or matronymics instead. But - are there any languages that combine these two things? That is, languages with matronymics or patronymics that come before the given name? As in "Daughter-of-Mary Lucy"?

Mediaeval Hungarian. E.g. Péter fia András ("Peter son-his Andrew").

Posted: **Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:35 pm**

Chinese emperors are a hassle. You can choose from

-- personal name
-- clan name (in ancient times)
-- regnal name
-- era name
-- posthumous name
-- temple name
-- style (biǎozì)

For the more recent dynasties, historians often use the era name, but this makes it awkward to talk about the time before they were emperor; also you shouldn't really say "Kāngxī", but "the Kāngxī Emperor", which is awkward. (And that's to say nothing of transliteration problems...)

Colin McEvedy mentions an interesting problem with geographical names: the kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. Sardinia was a kingdom and Piedmont merely a principality, so the conventional short form was Sardinia. So you would refer to Cavour, the army, and the bureaucrats as Sardinians even though the kingdom was based in Turin and most of them had never set foot on the island. Thus he opts for Piedmontese.

That's only the tip of the iceberg with geographic names. Horowski's principle is probably good, but would forbid universally used terms like "Byzantine Empire".

Posted: **Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:42 pm**

Malayalees have a pretty wide variety of naming conventions. It's not uncommon for people to have only one name. One of our family friends not only had only one name but also came from an area where many other people also had only one name that was the same as his.

My understanding of the traditional naming convention in our family (and generally in Mar Thoma families) is as follows:
1. Every child's last name is their father's first name (at least until they get married).
2. The firstborn son's first name is his father's father's first name (which is the same as his father's last name. In other words, the firstborn son's name is just the reverse of his father's name).
3. The firstborn daughter's first name is her father's mother's first name.
4. The second-born son's first name is his mother's father's first name.
EDIT: 5. The second-born daughter's first name is her mother's mother's first name.
6. If these rules cannot be followed for some reason, the parents may pick a name of their choice. This is also the rule for any child who isn't the first- or second-born son or daughter.

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:48 am**

Thank you for your replies, everyone!

Is there a linguistic technical term for a name or part of a name derived from a place, as in "Sarah From-Sacramento"?

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2019 6:50 am**

"toponymic surname"

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:04 am**

mèþru wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 6:50 am "toponymic surname"

Thank you!

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:34 am**

nowadays, national identification numbers fulfill this usage, which often indicates dates, places, sexes, races, ranks or random...
I wondered what name/number to use as part of my personal universal language...

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:39 pm**

The "no distinction between name, rank, and title" thing makes me think of the names/titles of a lot of rulers of Persianate monarchies - e.g. the Mughal Emperors Shah Jahan and Bahadur Shah. "Shah" obviously means "king/emperor", and they were kings/emperors, but was "Shah" part of their personal name? - if there even was such a distinction? This is also probably a historiographical issue, since they probably used many names/titles over their lifetime and in different contexts.

Also Reza Shah Pahlavi - his "regnal name" sounds like it just means "King Reza", but by European standards, if you sandwich the "Shah" between your given name and last name, it must be part of a double given name, like "Juan Carlos". And when people refer to his son as Muhammad Reza Shah, is the "Shah" just an extra title, or is it an extended/alternate version of his name?

EDIT: And on the topic of royal names, I just remembered how the kings of Thailand have an often multi-part personal name and a very wide array of titles, but officially they do have a European-style regnal name, which is always "Rama" (currently Rama X, personal name Vajiralongkorn). This practice was adopted during the reign of Vajiravudh (Rama VI), who was influenced by his English education to adopt the European royal naming style, and selected just one of the Thai king's many titles to serve as his regnal name, and projected it backwards onto all the previous rulers of his dynasty. But Western sources normally refer to the Thai kings by their personal names anyways, so it's just another layer of complication.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:55 pm**

At least the early Mughal emperors' personal names were completely different from their titles.

Babur was Zahir-ud-din Muhammad.
Humayun was Nasir-ud-din Muhammad.
Akbar was Abu'l-Fath Jalal-ud-din Muhammad.
Aurangzeb was Muhi-ud-din Muhammad.
Jahangir's real name was Salim.
Shah Jahan ('king of the world')'s real name was Khurram.
Mumtaz Mahal's real name was Arjumand Bano.
Nur Jahan's real name was Mehr-un-Nissa.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:44 pm**

It reminds me of cardinals, e.g. Bernard Cardinal Law of Boston, where the "cardinal" always directly precedes the last name even if the first name is given.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:01 am**

Pabappa wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:44 pm It reminds me of cardinals, e.g. Bernard Cardinal Law of Boston, where the "cardinal" always directly precedes the last name even if the first name is given.

That's just how old titles traditionally work in English, and some other languages too albeit it usually with a comma. Cf. Alfred, Lord Tennyson; George Gordon, Lord Byron*; Cristoph Ritter von Glueck.

It can get confusing, though. Mary, Lady Smith is the divorced wife of a Baronet, or possibly a baronness (though she probably calls herself then Mary, Baronness Smith, and is address as the Rt. Hon. Lady Smith); Lady Mary Smith, on the other hand, is a Lady Companion of the Garter (a knight of the highest order, basically). [THE Lady Mary Smith, on the other hand, is apparently the daughter of a duke, but nobody knows that]

*Byron's a particular complicated case. He was born George Gordon Byron - 'Byron' being the surname, 'Gordon' being a middle name taken from his mother's maiden name. But his father then added 'Gordon' to his own name in order to inherit his in-law's estate, and the young Byron followed suit, becoming George (Gordon) Byron Gordon. Byron then became a baron, George Byron Gordon, Lord Byron, but he dropped the double-barrell and became George Gordon, Lord Byron. He signed his name just as 'Byron'. But then, to inherit another estate, he legally changed his surname to Noel, becoming George Noel, Lord Byron. He then signed his name as Noel Byron, as though 'Noel' were a forename rather than a surname.

Wikipedia calls him "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron", but traditionally poetry anthologies call him "George Gordon, Lord Byron", while he himself signed his works "Noel Byron", and I think his legal name ended up being "George Noel".

There just wasn't the strict division of 'first name', 'middle name', 'surname' and 'title' that there came to be after the advent of centralised state bureaucracies... many names could float from one category to another depending on circumstance or whimsy.

[Alfred, Lord Tennyson doesn't have a surname because it's Tennyson - instead of "Alfred Tennyson, Lord Tennyson", it's just "Alfred, Lord Tennyson". Which adds a further complication to Byron. In the name "George Gordon, Lord Byron", is "Gordon" a middle name (as it was originally), with the surname "Byron" being dropped because it's mirrored in his baronial title, or is it the first half of a surname, with the second half being dropped because it's mirrored in his baronial title, or has it (by being the second half of his surname, as in the case of his father, where he has dropped the first half or relegated it to an unstated middle name) become the whole of his surname? In the modern word, where these things have to be entered in specific fields on forms, there would have to be an answer, but in the 19th century there was probably no fact of the matter...]

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:56 am**

missals wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:39 pm The "no distinction between name, rank, and title" thing makes me think of the names/titles of a lot of rulers of Persianate monarchies - e.g. the Mughal Emperors Shah Jahan and Bahadur Shah. "Shah" obviously means "king/emperor", and they were kings/emperors, but was "Shah" part of their personal name? - if there even was such a distinction? This is also probably a historiographical issue, since they probably used many names/titles over their lifetime and in different contexts.

Also Reza Shah Pahlavi - his "regnal name" sounds like it just means "King Reza", but by European standards, if you sandwich the "Shah" between your given name and last name, it must be part of a double given name, like "Juan Carlos". And when people refer to his son as Muhammad Reza Shah, is the "Shah" just an extra title, or is it an extended/alternate version of his name?

EDIT: And on the topic of royal names, I just remembered how the kings of Thailand have an often multi-part personal name and a very wide array of titles, but officially they do have a European-style regnal name, which is always "Rama" (currently Rama X, personal name Vajiralongkorn). This practice was adopted during the reign of Vajiravudh (Rama VI), who was influenced by his English education to adopt the European royal naming style, and selected just one of the Thai king's many titles to serve as his regnal name, and projected it backwards onto all the previous rulers of his dynasty. But Western sources normally refer to the Thai kings by their personal names anyways, so it's just another layer of complication.

Not quite the same thing, but a lot of Kings of Sweden sandwich a regnal number between two personal names, e.g. Carl XVI Gustaf.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:57 pm**

Curlyjimsam wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:56 am
missals wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:39 pm The "no distinction between name, rank, and title" thing makes me think of the names/titles of a lot of rulers of Persianate monarchies - e.g. the Mughal Emperors Shah Jahan and Bahadur Shah. "Shah" obviously means "king/emperor", and they were kings/emperors, but was "Shah" part of their personal name? - if there even was such a distinction? This is also probably a historiographical issue, since they probably used many names/titles over their lifetime and in different contexts.

Also Reza Shah Pahlavi - his "regnal name" sounds like it just means "King Reza", but by European standards, if you sandwich the "Shah" between your given name and last name, it must be part of a double given name, like "Juan Carlos". And when people refer to his son as Muhammad Reza Shah, is the "Shah" just an extra title, or is it an extended/alternate version of his name?

EDIT: And on the topic of royal names, I just remembered how the kings of Thailand have an often multi-part personal name and a very wide array of titles, but officially they do have a European-style regnal name, which is always "Rama" (currently Rama X, personal name Vajiralongkorn). This practice was adopted during the reign of Vajiravudh (Rama VI), who was influenced by his English education to adopt the European royal naming style, and selected just one of the Thai king's many titles to serve as his regnal name, and projected it backwards onto all the previous rulers of his dynasty. But Western sources normally refer to the Thai kings by their personal names anyways, so it's just another layer of complication.
Not quite the same thing, but a lot of Kings of Sweden sandwich a regnal number between two personal names, e.g. Carl XVI Gustaf.

You see this elsewhere as well: Alexios I Komnenos, for instance.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:30 pm**

Zaarin wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:57 pm
Curlyjimsam wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:56 am Not quite the same thing, but a lot of Kings of Sweden sandwich a regnal number between two personal names, e.g. Carl XVI Gustaf.
You see this elsewhere as well: Alexios I Komnenos, for instance.

"Komnenos" is a surname, though - the tradition for the later Byzantine emperors is to refer to them by their personal name, then their regnal number, then their family name or a toponymic name (e.g. Romanos I Lekapenos, from the town of Lakape). Alexios Komenos is thus equivalent to "Elizabeth II Windsor".

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:01 pm**

missals wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:30 pm
Zaarin wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:57 pm
Curlyjimsam wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:56 am Not quite the same thing, but a lot of Kings of Sweden sandwich a regnal number between two personal names, e.g. Carl XVI Gustaf.
You see this elsewhere as well: Alexios I Komnenos, for instance.
"Komnenos" is a surname, though - the tradition for the later Byzantine emperors is to refer to them by their personal name, then their regnal number, then their family name or a toponymic name (e.g. Romanos I Lekapenos, from the town of Lakape). Alexios Komenos is thus equivalent to "Elizabeth II Windsor".

Fair.

Zompist Bboard Again

Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage

Re: Names, Naming Conventions, and Name Usage