![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a thought on female nomenclature
Oct. 24th, 2010 06:57 pm
An ancient Roman woman, when she married, retained the name of her (father's) clan, rather than taking up her husband's. Gaius Julius Caesar Imperator's daughter, in wedding Pompeius Magnus, still remained Julia, as did Caesar's aunt when she wed Gaius Marius. Similarly, Caesar's mother stayed Aurelia her entire life. The only instance of the woman taking her husband's name in the late Republic that I can think of, is of Livia being named Livia Augusta by Augustus Caesar.
I don't know much about the ancient Greeks in this regard. I do know that under Solon's laws, if the father died without leaving other direct heirs, the daughter (married or not) would be given in marriage to a distant relative on her father's side, and the property would go to any sons of this union. And there's something to do with only daughters, as well, who have to carry on their father's line--there's a bit of it in Antigone's lament in Antigone that refers back to this. And Clytemnestra in Euripides' Electra says something to the effect that her father's had not lent her to her husband to bear him children he would kill, all of which indicates that the girl belongs to her father more than her husband. hoom.
In the later Western traditions, of course, you have queens being known by the places they came from, Catharine of Aragon, for instance, or Eleanor of Aquitaine. Or again you might have Anna Boleyn, or, to talk of a non-aristocratic example, you have Joan of Arc. But since she never married, I don't suppose that's relevant. (Then again, you have women so awesome that their sons choose to be remembered by them rather than by their fathers: e.g. Henry II, who called himself Henry Fitzempress, to honour his mother.)
Modern Hindu women usually take their husband's last name, of course, though many such are now choosing not to. But in the essentials, they never shed their own identity, as far as the religious rites of Hinduism are concerned. My mother, who was a Mitra before she married, and usually either calls herself a Biswas or hyphenates her name now, is still of the Viswamitra gotra and the kshatriya varna. My father is a different gotra and a lower varna, as, consequently, I am as well, but even had that not been the case, my mother could not have switched over. It can't be done, any more than a Julia could become a Cornelia. And that's... really fascinating, in its own way. For all the talk of submitting to your husband and taking up his name, the Hindu woman keeps her own clan and caste. Of course, people tend not to refer to either clan or caste very much or very openly these days; I wonder how many people remember.
***
The above brought to you by my impending Sociolinguistics mid-term.
I don't know much about the ancient Greeks in this regard. I do know that under Solon's laws, if the father died without leaving other direct heirs, the daughter (married or not) would be given in marriage to a distant relative on her father's side, and the property would go to any sons of this union. And there's something to do with only daughters, as well, who have to carry on their father's line--there's a bit of it in Antigone's lament in Antigone that refers back to this. And Clytemnestra in Euripides' Electra says something to the effect that her father's had not lent her to her husband to bear him children he would kill, all of which indicates that the girl belongs to her father more than her husband. hoom.
In the later Western traditions, of course, you have queens being known by the places they came from, Catharine of Aragon, for instance, or Eleanor of Aquitaine. Or again you might have Anna Boleyn, or, to talk of a non-aristocratic example, you have Joan of Arc. But since she never married, I don't suppose that's relevant. (Then again, you have women so awesome that their sons choose to be remembered by them rather than by their fathers: e.g. Henry II, who called himself Henry Fitzempress, to honour his mother.)
Modern Hindu women usually take their husband's last name, of course, though many such are now choosing not to. But in the essentials, they never shed their own identity, as far as the religious rites of Hinduism are concerned. My mother, who was a Mitra before she married, and usually either calls herself a Biswas or hyphenates her name now, is still of the Viswamitra gotra and the kshatriya varna. My father is a different gotra and a lower varna, as, consequently, I am as well, but even had that not been the case, my mother could not have switched over. It can't be done, any more than a Julia could become a Cornelia. And that's... really fascinating, in its own way. For all the talk of submitting to your husband and taking up his name, the Hindu woman keeps her own clan and caste. Of course, people tend not to refer to either clan or caste very much or very openly these days; I wonder how many people remember.
***
The above brought to you by my impending Sociolinguistics mid-term.
