Talk:Aurelia gens

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Since, I'm guessing from the article, Aurelii means 'the golden', is 'the Aurelii' just another one of those examples of an erroneous double 'the' (like 'the hoi polloi')? If not, can someone who knows more than me make the inital sentence read a bit better? mat_x 13:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The name of the gens was "Aurelii;" therefore, they are "the Aurelii." Even though Aurelii means "the golden," Romans would still have used the Latin equivalent of "the" when referring to them. So, in short, the "the" is not an error. Kuralyov 06:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no exact equivalent of "the" in Latin. Latin nouns didn't require articles such as "a", "an", and "the". But we do require them in English (and most other languages, including those based on Latin), so when writing in English we use these words to refer to people, even if their names are Latin and we follow Latin conventions for gender and number. However, "Aurelii" doesn't mean "the golden" precisely. There's no such adjective as aureleus in Latin. The adjective meaning "golden" is aureus, and there's no "the" in it (or anywhere else in Latin). We add such things only when translating names into other languages (such as English). Aurelius could be derived from aureus or from a more obscure word. When I had an article on names from the original Pauly-Wissowa translated, it mentioned a possible nomen Auselius as the archaic form of Aurelius, in which case it would seem to be connected with the sun (although that word might share a common root with aureus). P Aculeius (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Marcus Aurelius Really One of the Aurelii?

I've traced out several generations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius' ancestors, and I don't see any evidence for calling him one of the Aurelii. His name at birth was Marcus Annius Caitilius Serverus, and at marriage he took the name Marcus Annius Verus--i.e., nothing Aurelian in either of them. His father was named Marcus Annius Verus, as was his paternal grandfather, and his paternal great-grandfather before that. His mother Domitia was of the Lucillus family.

It looks to me like he included the name Aurelius in the name he took on as emperor purely as a way of honoring his predecessor, adoptive father, and uncle *by maaariage only,* Antoninus Pius, who was clearly an Aurelian. (Antoninus Pius was born Titus Aurelius Fulvus, as were his father and grandfather before him.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unauthvu (talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Marcus Aurelius was adopted into the family of Antoninus Pius, who, as the previous post notes, was born Titus Aurelius Fulvus, and this made Marcus Aurelius legally a member of the gens Aurelia. Of course, Antoninus was adopted by Hadrian, who was adopted by Trajan, who was adopted by Nerva... and so was Marcus Aurelius' cousin, Lucius Verus. By this point, figuring out what gens somebody in the imperial household belonged to was so confused that their children might have multiple nomina or even different nomina... and that assumes that we know their full legal names, which for obvious reasons weren't always used. So for convenience we treat descendants, whether adopted or not, as members of the gens Aurelia, at least to the extent that they seemed to use Aurelius as a nomen, or one of their nomina. But we can also place the ones who were actually born into another gens with those pages as well. P Aculeius (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Aurelius was from the gens Annia by birth. He was adopted by Antoninus Pius, thus resulting in him being part of the gens Aurelia by adoption. Lupus Bellator (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Aurelii and the cult of the sun

The Aurelii introduced in Rome the cult of the sun and for holding its rites the state assigned to them a plot of public land. Festus states this p. 120 L second. Interestingly they were of Sabin origin and their name should have been originally Auselii, in the Sabin language ausil meaning the sun (cf. Etr. god Usil) according to Varro Lingua Latina V 68 and Festus loc. cit.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gens Claudia was also Sabine. Zoetropo (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Era style

Please keep the neutral era tag "BCE" and "CE". I would prefer it in this form. Lupus Bellator (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit. Please see WP:ERA for why. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelia Cotta

The mother of the dictator Gaius Julius Caesar was Aurelia Cotta of the family Aurelia Cotta. I suggest that she be placed under her specific family rather than under "Others". Zoetropo (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I'm not sure that Cotta can be treated as her cognomen, since it's presumably masculine and agrees with Aurelius. Most Roman women were called solely by their nomina, which makes it difficult to know what surnames they could have used (had they needed to). For that matter, looking over the article on her, and that on her daughter, I note several mentions of "Julia Caesaris." This is not a legitimate form of Roman naming. That phrase simply means "Caesar's Julia." Caesaris was not a surname and ought not to be used as though it were one in these articles. Women's surnames (when used) were the feminine form of their fathers' surnames; if you see a genitive then it's just a descriptor, not a proper name. Unfortunately I don't have time to root out all of these instances right now... perhaps someone with an interest in this family could look for these and clear that up. P Aculeius (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entry for Antoninus Pius

One or possibly two editors, depending on whether Dervecus and 5.91.206.174 are the same person, keep changing the entry for Antoninus Pius. Entries always give the person's birth name first, if known, hence "Titus Aurelius Fulvus", and then if the person was subsequently better known by another name, then that—in the case of the shifting nomenclature of the imperial family, the best-known name, in this case "Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus Pius".

The first edit by Dervecus deleted "Pius" without explanation; after being reverted, this edit was twice restored with the explanation that it wasn't part of his birth name, but was bestowed on him later. That's how it's supposed to be: birth name first, then the name he was later known by. Dervecus then stopped adding the edit, and for a few days there were no changes, until the IP editor showed up, and changed the entry's birth name to "Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus", and reducing his official imperial nomenclature to "Antoninus Pius", with the explanation, "this is the correct way". Correct how? This plainly contradicts the formatting used in this and all other similar articles: the birth name comes first, followed by the person's full official nomenclature later in life.

But after I restored the normal formatting, the same edit was repeated, with the explanation, "the others are correctly written as well." I still don't understand what the IP editor/Dervecus is saying. Which others are "correctly written as well", and why are they correct "as well" in some manner that would explain why the entry shouldn't begin with the birth name and then give his full imperial nomenclature? Before this edit is restored, some clear explanation justifying varying from normal practice seems necessary. P Aculeius (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And just now it was repeated with the explanation: "There, correct birth name only. He didn't was born with Pius in his name." As I've already tried to explain multiple times, his birth name was "Titus Aurelius Fulvus"; "Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus Pius" is the name he bore later in his life. Nobody said he was born with it; I've been saying the opposite the whole time. P Aculeius (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With another repetition, claiming that "Boionius Arrius Antoninus" was part of his birth name, I reviewed the source cited under Antoninus Pius (Salomies on polyonymous nomenclature, addenda), and concluded that this was correct—with the caveat that Salomies does not feel that "Arrius" was part of the name for reasons I've footnoted—and so I've corrected the entry, mostly along the lines of a previous edit, moving the link to the name "Antoninus Pius", since that's more recognizable between the two. With luck, this will settle the matter. P Aculeius (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]