ACADEMY OF SAINT GABRIEL REPORT 1501
http://www.s-gabriel.org/1501
************************************

*************************************************
*                                               *
* NOTE: Later research turned up additional     *
*       information relevant to this report.    *
*       See the end of the letter for details.  *
*                                               *
*************************************************


From: "S Friedemann" 
3 Apr 1999

Greetings from the  Academy of Saint Gabriel!

You wanted to know if the Biblical citation of the feminine name <Drusilla>
is acceptable documentation for the SCA College of Arms, and said that you
want to use the name for an English persona.  Here is the information we
have found.

Before I start, I'd like to clarify the service that the Academy offers. We
try to help Societyfolk in choosing and using names that fit the historical
cultures they are trying to re-create. Our research can sometimes be used to
support submissions to the College of Arms, but that it not our goal and our
results are often incompatible with the College's needs. If your main goal
is to register a particular name, then we may not be able to help you.

While the SCA College of Arms often accepts a Biblical citation as
sufficient documentation for a name, being found in the Bible does not mean
that a name was used at all in the Middle Ages; in fact, many of the names
were not.  We therefore recommend against using the Bible as a source for
authentic medieval naming practices.

<Drusilla>, found in the New Testament, is a feminine derivative of the
Latin name <Drusus>.  Our first evidence of it used in England is from the
17th century, when the practice of taking names from the Bible was in vogue.
[1]  Based on this, we recommend that you do not use <Drusilla> for an
English persona.

If you are more interested in using the name <Drusilla> than in having an
English persona, we suggest you move your persona to classical Rome:
<Drusilla> is a fine Latin cognomen.

Roman names at the time of the republic had a three-part formation.  The
first part was the praenomen (literally "fore-name"),  which corresponds
well to the later notion of a given name, except that there was only a very
small, fixed set of possible praenomina.  As time went by, the set shrank
even more and particular families might use only a few of those.  This made
the usefulness of the praenomen as a personal identifier extremely small.

The second part of the three-part name is the nomen (name) which corresponds
to our modern idea of a fixed, hereditary surname.  This name identified not
only which immediate family you belonged to, but identified your connections
to a larger extended family.

The third part of the name is the cognomen, which originated as a personal
nickname of an individual.  However, a sub-branch of a larger family might
use a fixed nomen-cognomen combination as their hereditary surname.
Additionally, an individual might have more than one cognomen serving
different functions; he might have a personal cognomen, a name indicating
adoption into some family, and the cognomen of his branch of the family.  In
a formal name, these cognomens were used together, one after another.

A few special considerations apply to women's names. Originally, there seems
to have been a parallel set of feminine praenomina, corresponding to the
masculine ones and women would presumably bear one of these along with a
feminine version of the nomen. However, by the later time of the republic
and the early imperial period, women appear to have dropped the praenomen
and used only the feminine version of the nomen, as well as an ad hoc
cognomen, usually referring to birth-order in some fashion.

However, under the classical naming system, women at this time did not have
praenomina (although traces of feminine equivalents of some of the masculine
ones can be found) and daughters were all named with the same feminine
version of the family nomen. So all the girls born into a family named
Drusus would be called <Drusilla>.  The birth-order names (and other names)
were used more in the function of bynames, to distinguish one from another.
So with two daughters, one might be <Drusilla Majora> and the other
<Drusilla Minora>.  And if another was born, the second two might end up
<Drusilla Secunda> and <Drusilla Tertia> instead.  By the imperial period,
this system was being replaced by a freer choice of something more like true
given names for girls. [2]

We hope that this letter has been useful to you, and that you will not
hesitate to write again if any part was unclear or if you have further
questions.  Research and commentary on this letter was provided by Margaret
Makafee, Talan Gwynek, Arval Benicoeur, Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn,
Maridonna Benvenuti, and AElfwyn aet Gyrwum.

For the Academy,
--Aryanhwy merch Catmael
     April 3, 1999

---------------------------------------
References:

[1] Withycombe, E.G., _The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names_,
3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

[2] Johnston, Harold Whetstone, _The Private Life of the Romans_ (Chicago:
Scott, Foresman and Company, 1903).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Correction 23 Jan 2001: The bynames <Minora> and <Majora> are grammatically
incorrect.  These words take the same form for masculine and feminine,
<Major> (or better <Maior>) and <Minor>.