Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question about a Roman name
#1
I am curious to know more about the name "Geta" used by Romans (like that of brother of Caracalla).
As far as i know this is the singular for Getae (Dacians) and the meaning will be so "the Getian".

I will really apreciate if someone know when this name appeared to be used first in Rome

I saw as well the idea that the name "Got/Goth/Goths" appearead and was start to be used in Dacian areas soon after Caracalla imposed a "damnatio memoriae" for his brother Geta, so Got was a replacement for Get, as Caracalla forbid the use of Get/Geta/Getae, names that remind about his brother.
Razvan A.
Reply
#2
Sources please Razvan.

I'm curious though why a law against the use of the name 'Geta' would lead to the introduction of the name 'Got-'.

a) I have some doubts that a Damnatio memoriae against someone would imply that no-one was henceforth allowed to use that name, anywhere and regardless the person. Did Caracalla really forbid the use of the name, or just the mentioning of his murdered brother? I think it was the latter:
'Geta' was really Publius Septimius Geta Augustus. A damnatio memoriae with consequences like those in your theory would mean that ALL persons named Publius, Septimus or Geta would have had to change their namess (Augustus bing a title of course).

b) Would anyone outside the Roman sphere of influence have cared for such a law?

I think your theory is invalid.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#3
Quote:Sources please Razvan.

I'm curious though why a law against the use of the name 'Geta' would lead to the introduction of the name 'Got-'.

a) I have some doubts that a Damnatio memoriae against someone would imply that no-one was henceforth allowed to use that name, anywhere and regardless the person. Did Caracalla really forbid the use of the name, or just the mentioning of his murdered brother? I think it was the latter:
'Geta' was really Publius Septimius Geta Augustus. A damnatio memoriae with consequences like those in your theory would mean that ALL persons named Publius, Septimus or Geta would have had to change their namess (Augustus bing a title of course).

b) Would anyone outside the Roman sphere of influence have cared for such a law?

I think your theory is invalid.

Salve Robert

Your a) point might have something to do with this:

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additional...-Caracalla

"It is not out of place to include a certain gibe that was uttered at his expense. For when he assumed the surnames Germanicus, Parthicus, Arabicus, and Alamannicus (for he conquered the Alamanni too), Helvius Pertinax, the son of Pertinax, said to him in jest, so it is related, "Add to the others, please, that of Geticus Maximus also"; for he had slain his brother Geta, and Getae is a name for the Goths, whom he conquered, while on his way to the East, in a series of skirmishes."

So, Caracalla was particulary bothered by the name Geta, not others, because Geta means "the Getian", and Getae (the Getians) was actually a people he had to deal with in Dacia area.
So any problem there might be easily related with his brother Geta and his assasination at the order of Caracalla.
Thats why i assume the name Get was slightly changed in Got, so this problem to not become that annoying for the emperor.
And this new name, Gots/Goths, remained in the future too, intermingled with the old Getae and used interchangeable since then.

The name Gots/Goths appear around Caracalla reign, so i think my theory can make sense. Later autorhs used this names interchangeable, or even used Getae for what some modern historians might use Goths (not sure on which basis, except maybe just because Jordanes says so, which is very arguable)

http://books.google.ro/books?id=T5RbAAAA...&q&f=false

On the Arch of Triumpf of Honorius and/or Stilicho (dont remember exactly, need to chek where i read that) is write as well Getarum, not Gothorum. Is about the Radagaisus invasion in Italia

Other authors use the same interchanging of names

Jerome said:
"And it is certain that previously, all learned people would call the Goths "Getae" rather than Gog and Magog."

And Paulus Orosius:
http://sites.google.com/site/demontortoi...sius_book1

"On the contrary, recently these Getae, who are at present also called Goths (Alexander publicly said that they must be shunned, Pyrrhus dreaded them, and even Caesar avoided them), after stripping their homes bare and abandoning them, united their forces in one body and invaded the Roman provinces. By proving themselves to be a menace over a long period of time, these barbarians hoped upon their request to obtain an alliance with Rome—an alliance which they could have won by force of arms."

I think this come right along the theory i say.

However i am still curious to know when and how the name Geta (the Getian) appeared as Roman name
Razvan A.
Reply
#4
Quote:I will really appreciate if someone know when this name appeared to be used first in Rome.
It was the name of Septimius Severus' father, so probably traditional in his family. Birley says that it was originally a slave name -- in that case, a link with the Getae is likely. (Slaves often had an "ethnic" name, like Syrus, "the Syrian".)

Quote:Caracalla forbid the use of Get/Geta/Getae, names that remind about his brother
Perhaps based on Dio 67(68).5: "if anyone so much as wrote the name Geta or even uttered it, he was immediately put to death. Hence the poets no longer used it even in comedies." The ancients were, of course, aware of the ethnic parallel. The writer of the Historia Augusta Vita Getae (Life of Antoninus Geta, 6.6) plays on Geticus Maximus, quasi Gothicus ("... that is to say, Gothicus"). Also Vita Caracallae (Life of Caracalla, 10.6): Gothi Getae dicerentur ("the Goths are called Getae").

It would be interesting to find the first instance of Gothi/Gothicus in Latin literature.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#5
Quote:It would be interesting to find the first instance of Gothi/Gothicus in Latin literature.

The first EVER Latin instance is dated precisely to 269 via the Coinage of Claudius ... well Claudius Gothicus :lol:
That is not withstanding possible Tacitean forerunners, of course.
------------
[Image: regnumhesperium.png]
Reply
#6
Quote:The first EVER Latin instance is dated precisely to 269 via the Coinage of Claudius ... well Claudius Gothicus
Indeed. I cannot find anything that predates the AD 260s ... apart from the mention of Gordian III and the Gwt W Grm'ny (Greek: Γούθθων τε καὶ Γερμανῶν ἐθνῶν) in Shapur's so-called Res Gestae Divi Saporis of the AD 240s (?).

Certainly nothing as early as Caracalla.

Quote:That is not withstanding possible Tacitean forerunners, of course.
:lol:
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#7
In the PHI database it only appears in the Historia Augusta and the commentary on Virgin of Maurus Servius Honoratus, both 4th century writers. It seems like we have "ethnic" and "geographic" senses of Get- and Goth- intermingled.
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#8
Quote:The first EVER Latin instance is dated precisely to 269 via the Coinage of Claudius ... well Claudius Gothicus :lol:
Shame it's not possible to date CIL III, 11700 - Aurelius Victor of II Italica 'bello desideratus hoste Gutica' - probably late 3rd century some time, but the odd spelling could reflect an early usage. Abrittus, perhaps?
Nathan Ross
Reply
#9
Quote:It seems like we have "ethnic" and "geographic" senses of Get- and Goth- intermingled.
The ancients seem to have believed (wrongly?) that the two peoples (Getae, Gothi) were one and the same.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#10
Quote: It was the name of Septimius Severus' father, so probably traditional in his family. Birley says that it was originally a slave name -- in that case, a link with the Getae is likely. (Slaves often had an "ethnic" name, like Syrus, "the Syrian".)

I see, thank you Duncan. Interesting to know why and how such name was adopted by Romans

Quote: Perhaps based on Dio 67(68).5: "if anyone so much as wrote the name Geta or even uttered it, he was immediately put to death. Hence the poets no longer used it even in comedies." The ancients were, of course, aware of the ethnic parallel. The writer of the Historia Augusta Vita Getae (Life of Antoninus Geta, 6.6) plays on Geticus Maximus, quasi Gothicus ("... that is to say, Gothicus"). Also Vita Caracallae (Life of Caracalla, 10.6): Gothi Getae dicerentur ("the Goths are called Getae").

It would be interesting to find the first instance of Gothi/Gothicus in Latin literature.

Yes, thats what i said, i believe that because of Caracalla interference, the name Getae from Roman writings from his time on was changed in Got/Goths.
Ofcourse he wasnt able to eliminate the name from all previous chronicles or writings, and later on both names, Get/Getae and Got/Goths was used interchangeable
Razvan A.
Reply
#11
Quote:
The first EVER Latin instance is dated precisely to 269 via the Coinage of Claudius ... well Claudius Gothicus :lol:
That is not withstanding possible Tacitean forerunners, of course.

Well, thats just few decades from Caracalla. And as Goths/Getae maybe wasnt too much in the "spots light" during those few decades, it wasnt much to be mentioned about them, or some writings from that rather short period was simply lost
Razvan A.
Reply
#12
Quote:
Sean Manning post=308820 Wrote:It seems like we have "ethnic" and "geographic" senses of Get- and Goth- intermingled.
The ancients seem to have believed (wrongly?) that the two peoples (Getae, Gothi) were one and the same.

Well, at least if we look at archeology (Santana de Mures-Cerneahov culture) we see they might be kinda the same. Meaning that culture have a majority of Dacian artifacts. Sure, there are too provinicial Roman influences (coming from Roman Dacia), as well Sarmatian and Germanic ones (but just quite few actually).

I think that in Matthews and Heather book (forgot the name now) if i am not mistake, they said that in what is considered Dacian teritory was never found for ex. that type of houses specific to Central Europe and considered as used by Germanics, and even in Ukrainian steppes the majority of houses are those of Dacian type (i think there was two types).
Same for ceramic is predominantly Dacian

So i do believe Goths and Getae was either one and the same, or Getae was the main component of Gothic conglomerat.

Anyway, this is already a bit off-topic.
I was just wondered why or how a name like Geta-the Getian, appearead in Roman aristocracy
Razvan A.
Reply
#13
Quote:
D B Campbell post=308800 Wrote:The ancients were, of course, aware of the ethnic parallel. The writer of the Historia Augusta Vita Getae (Life of Antoninus Geta, 6.6) plays on Geticus Maximus, quasi Gothicus ("... that is to say, Gothicus"). Also Vita Caracallae (Life of Caracalla, 10.6): Gothi Getae dicerentur ("the Goths are called Getae").
Yes, thats what i said, i believe that because of Caracalla interference, the name Getae from Roman writings from his time on was changed in Got/Goths.
Sorry, I meant the parallel between the name of Caracalla's brother and the Dacian Getae. The writer of HA includes the "double entendre" that anyone named Geticus (incidentally, this is not a name that Caracalla took) could be "conqueror of the Getae" or "killer of Geta".

I am still not convinced that this event caused the Getae to be re-named as Gothi. (I am not even sure that they are the same ethnic people, but I bow to your local knowledge, Razvan.)
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#14
Quote:The writer of HA includes the "double entendre" that anyone named Geticus (incidentally, this is not a name that Caracalla took) could be "conqueror of the Getae" or "killer of Geta".
I am still not convinced that this event caused the Getae to be re-named as Gothi. (I am not even sure that they are the same ethnic people
me neither. We're talking about one Emperor versus a name for a people or a group of tribes which was around for a very long time. And while any law from Caracalla would resort to some effect, this would cease as soon as he died. Widespread names such as 'Getae' do not change overnight, and as I mentioned earlier, Caracalla's writ did not run outside the Empire, where this new culture was forming.
Razvan, I know that you're still looking for a direct link between Dacians and Goths (which we very thouroughly discussed elsewhere in this forum), but I think that when you're looking for the origins of the name 'Goth', you'd need to look at why this group (or domination sub-group) chose this name. I daresay it's quite far-fetched to assume that a non-Roman culture changed it's name on the orders of a far-off Roman Emperor. Don't forget that it was not just the Romans who called the 'Goths', but they also used that name themselves.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#15
Quote: me neither. We're talking about one Emperor versus a name for a people or a group of tribes which was around for a very long time. And while any law from Caracalla would resort to some effect, this would cease as soon as he died. Widespread names such as 'Getae' do not change overnight, and as I mentioned earlier, Caracalla's writ did not run outside the Empire, where this new culture was forming.
Razvan, I know that you're still looking for a direct link between Dacians and Goths (which we very thouroughly discussed elsewhere in this forum), but I think that when you're looking for the origins of the name 'Goth', you'd need to look at why this group (or domination sub-group) chose this name.

But the name wasnt changed overnight, neither disapeared. It is just that the new name, Got/Goth, which might appeared and was used exclusevly during Caracalla was start to be used later interchangeable with the name Getae and sometimes even with any Dacian social-political entity, like in this example with Carpi (another Dacian tribal union formed after the fall of Decebalus kingdom)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0705.htm

"Decius appeared in the world, an accursed wild beast, to afflict the Church—and who but a bad man would persecute religion? It seems as if he had been raised to sovereign eminence, at once to rage against God, and at once to fall; for, having undertaken an expedition against the Carpi, who had then possessed themselves of Dacia and Moefia, he was suddenly surrounded by the barbarians, and slain, together with great part of his army;"

As we can see, Lactantius, a contemporan of emperor Decius and the most close (so the most reliable as well) source to those events, said that Decius was killed during an expedition against the Carpi, who at that point invaded and controlled Dacia (the Roman province Dacia) and Moesia.
However, some more then two centuries later Jordanes named those Carpi of Lactantius as "Goths" (and about the same time Zosimus called them "Scythians" if i am not mistake). And many might believe today that those was Goths, even if Jordanes is the only one saying that (i dont think there is any other chronicar talking about Goths or some king called Cniva).

In fact people back then still used the name "Getae", as we can see when is about Radagaisus invasion of Italia. Everyoane back then said it was an invasion of Getae, this is even mentioned on Honorius and/or Stilicho Arch of Triumph. I dont know how and why some considered later it was about "Goths" (with their "classic" meaning as a 100% Germanic people migrated from Scandinavia and wandering around for about 2 milleniums).

As i said archeology disaprouve however such theory

Quote:I daresay it's quite far-fetched to assume that a non-Roman culture changed it's name on the orders of a far-off Roman Emperor. Don't forget that it was not just the Romans who called the 'Goths', but they also used that name themselves.

But when "Goths" start to call themselves "Goths"? Isnt just Jordanes calling them like that? Or wasnt this just in some writings of scholars educated by reading some Roman archives?
Not to mention that Jordanes more then probably made up from his imagination quite few things (or well, take those from Cassiodorus, another Roman chronicar)
Razvan A.
Reply


Forum Jump: