The Slavic element in Homer's epics

Petro, do you know how 'Caesar' was pronounced in Latin??

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri gcle2003, try to expand your mind, your speaking language is not equal to all languages of the world, this won't not an insult to English or German language, if it is proved Persian or Macedonian is older than them and can be the ancestor of them.

 Just because Persian are older, this does not mean that they have to be the ancestors of every indoeuropean language existent.Ancient Macedonian is a dead language, if we accept that they spoke sth different than Greek. And "Macedonian", currently spoken in FYROM or RM , are a standardized Slavic language. Last time i checked, Slavic languages are not older than Germanic languages, Greek or Latin.

I am really sad about the quality of some posts.

 

Petro Invictus you make some claims, referencing only to some fyrom biased sites, which in their turn do not reference anything serious.

 

 

PLZ answer me this two very simple questions:

(1) Which academic conference were any of "your evidence" ever presented? And if so what was the conclussions?

(2) Which academic historical/archaeological/linguistic journal has even puplished a paper with the slightest even suggestion supposrting such things as you claim?

 

 

The greekness of Homeric language is something accepted by all the academics worldwide. And this is not through some wordgame abrah-katabrah... it is a product of... common sense.

In fact it is a common academic notion, that those "homer's" epics actually defined greekness itself, and not the reverse. The Greek language and identity during its centuries of evolution has always been revolving around Homeric texts.

A collection of somewhat linguistically and culturally connected peoples of the Helladic area, started refering to themselves as Hellenes at some point of their history, with direct reference to Odyssea and Iliad.

No one seriously claims that Homer actually existed and that his texts that we reference today are as the words exiting his mouth...

The archaeological evidence of Mycenean civilization, a site considered as Troy and the somewhat verifiable accuracy of Homer's descriptions suggest that the event of a major clash took place actually.

The size and importance of this clash is and the ilustrious Mecenean past, during the Greek dark ages had not been forgoten. The "Aidoi" bards were singing the story of a past event, dramatized of course for the enjoyment of the auditors.

We are not talking about a single unchanged text, these epics are the product of centuries of creative and resourceful story telling, finalised by the sharp pens of the Hellenistic scholars.

Homer's epics are the dramarization of an event by the Greeks over the centuries. In the classical and Hellenistic years lots of different versions were being told and recorded.

Today, for Homer's Iliad for example, we refence actually only to one of these versions. This is the Aristarchus of Samothrace (prominent Alexandrian scholar) version, surviving up to us today in the 10th century "Venetus A" or "Codex Marcianus Graecus 454/822" in the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice.

This text is in Greek koine and it is considered as an accurate copy of Aristarchus actual text. This as far as we can go back to Homer. This text although written with koine characters has an Archaic essense also.

Aristarchus as a scholar sought to compose the text that was the actual epic, free from later minor thematic and lingustic variations. In his time there were dozens of Iliads and Odysseys circulating the Greek world, and he thought that he was able to deliver the correct story as accurately as possible.

We are talking about a clearly Greek text. It was told by Greeks, in Greek courts, it was firstly recorded down by Greeks, it was evolved solely by Greeks, and todays older text is written in Greek.  The epics are the lighthouse of Greek literature from ancient to modern times. 

Please do not feed us with your homer's epics theories.. Homer's  epics are known to the majority of us really extensively.

They are being taught (from the original text!) as part of Greek literature over a period of two academic years in all Greek high schools in a surprising depth,... at the age of 13...  When you come down to us trying to explain us these epics you sound totally rediculus... you do not know ancient (nor modern) Greek and you still try to patronize us with homeric text slavotranslations...  

 

Countless scholars had been examining the epics and their language since classic times up to now. All of them accept the homeric language as Greek. This is with a big FULLSTOP.

 

Please anyone bring a valid reference saying that Homeric language is not Greek... For god shake i thought this was a serious forum.

 

Whats next? Debating about shakespearic language? Was it english or Slavic? I am sure someone can find a dozen of words in his plays resembling slavic ones, what would that mean?

It is natural indoeuropean languages having words with common roots. And it is natural to find Greek and Latin words in most of modern languages, as these two civilizations left their scar on the western world.

What do you think? the Byzantines copied the Slav language or the opposite? Because last time i checked my (english-american) history books, Byzantines were the ones to christianize and civilize the Slavs. 

In the court of Basil the Bulgarslayer be sure that they were reading homer's heros deeds from the original to be inspired... before they set to anihilate the slav barbarians invaders in Thrace...

I think what you write is underestimating our knowledge and critical thought. This forum is respected for most of its poster's credibility, and it should remain that way.

If you dont have any credible reference for your claims, you are not contributing anything, but you just degrading the forum with your newage theories.

In Greece we have a famous guy selling books with "theories" about the Greekness of procolombian civs and the Japanese, about Greek lineage to alliens from Andromeda M31 and so on... do you want me start posting them in this forum...? Would this honor me in any sense as an educated person?  Think what you do... 

 

 

 

Sumarising, I REPEAT:

(1) Which academic conference were any of "your evidence" ever presented? And if so what was the conclussions?

(2) Which academic historical/archaeological/linguistic journal has even puplished a paper with the slightest even suggestion supposrting such things as you claim?

(3) Please anyone bring a valid reference saying that Homeric language is not Greek.

Of none of the above 3 is not answered there is no point discussing.  We cannot compare in one hand, crude universaly accepted evidence, with pathetic newage theories on the other hand.

I think, you guys have covered me well here.

Just a favour from you Cyrus Shahmiri. Can you tell Petrus how your ancestors called the people who came with Alexander, in Persian and how is it translated?

Originally posted by Petro Invictus It seems that your knowledge of ethics and good manners is on a very low scale mate. I am so sorry it pisses you off to read my posts. This is just a debate. Do not lose your tempers. After all you are the one "spewing" with obscene vocabulary. If your language is the representative of the 'the moral state of the United States', then I must say you're giving out a very bad image of  the morality of the state you represent.

I have no reason to respect the opinions of people spouting obvious nationalistic pseudo-history.

Edited by Odin - 17-Jun-2008 at 23:17

A small lesson in ancient Greek for Petro and for anyone interested in Homer’s language. REFERENCED by VALID ACADEMIC SOURCES, and can be cross-verified by checking any good ancient Greek dictionary or Homeric epic’s notes.

 

 

About mortos…

 

μορτός   adj sg masc nom    mortal

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph.jsp?l=%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%81%CF%84%E1%BD%B9%CF%82&la=greek

βροτός (for “μροτός”, root “μερ, μορ”): mortal; “βροτός ανήρ, βροτοί άνδρες”, and as subst., mortal man; epithets, “θνητοί,” Od. 3.3; “ δειλοί, οιζυροί, μέροπες, επιχθόνιος”.

 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph.jsp?l=brotw%3Dn&la=greek&prior=h%29/toi#lexicon

βροτός The orig. form seems to have been μορτός, cf. άμβροτος. a mortal man, Hom., attic Poets.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=mortal&searchmode=none

 

It is clear that mortos has an IE root [μορ (mor), μρ (mr), μερ (mer)] that why in other IE languages derivative words also exist.

But the exact “mortos” type is Greek as it seems. Through texts of various ancient Greek periods the evolution of the word in noted, not by me or any hocus-pocus website, but by prominent non-Greek academics.

 

• IE Root μερ or μορ or μρ
• μορτός
• μροτός
• μβροτός
• βροτός

 

ά-μβροτος a-privat, βροτός with μ inserted; like lengthd. form αμβρόσιος

1. immortal, divine, Hom., Aesch.

2. νύξ άμβροτος, like αμβροσίη νύξ, Od.;— then of all things belonging to the gods, Hom.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph.jsp?l=%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%B2%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82&la=greek#lexicon

 

 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph.jsp?l=%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%B2%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82&la=greek#lexicon

 

Check also the following sources for the same:

 

* Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.

http://archimedes.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/archim/dict/hw?lemma=morto/s&step=entry&id=d004

 

* "Eustathii commentarios in Homeri Iliadem et Odysseam", Matthaeus Devarius, Eustathius, Gottfried Stallbaum, Sumtibus J.A.G. Weigel 1828. (Harvard University).

Page 92.   See various comments on βροτός=μορτός (vrotos=mortos)

 http://books.google.gr/books?id=CqkWA_LkAVIC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%81%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82+%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B7%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82&source=web&ots=e78p68FQSF&sig=Vzwf_A07pUpNvBdThu44IF4a65A&hl=el&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA92,M1

 

* "Griechisches Wurzellexikon", Theodor Benfey, G. Reimer 1839,(Michigan University)

http://books.google.gr/books?id=5RUgAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA4-PA494&lpg=RA4-PA494&dq=%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%81%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82+&source=web&ots=ICuspPgnEa&sig=Suvy6X99KbpqPnHMBPuyqIVjRqQ&hl=el&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

 

* “Anfang und Ende der abendländischen Lyrik”, Manfred Forderer, Homer, John Benjamins Publishing Company 1971, ISBN:9060324129.

http://books.google.gr/books?id=A_4Vs6wE0aoC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%81%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82+&source=web&ots=dGmFPCK0Wk&sig=meBy4G6EAjYp8e3EqPEyL12HGHc&hl=el&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

 

You can see the μ, β thing going on from early attic to later. The μ or μβ with the passage of time converted to β alone, and this form dominated later attic. The word appears with different forms especially in the early years of attic, as the literature was limited and thus not standardized. This was done gradually over centuries and the evidence are more than enough through the study of different period ancient Greek texts.

 

 

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY…

μροτός (mrotos) or μόρτος (mortos) or μβροτός (mvrotos) IS DIFFERENT than νεκρός (nekros) or νέκυς (nekis)

 

The first means: “mortal”(man), and the second means: “corpse”. Two distinct things. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph.jsp?l=nekro%2Fs&la=greek&prior=*qa/natos#lexicon

 

Death is also a different word in ancient Greek: “θάνατος” (thanatos)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=qa/natos

If you don’t know ancient Greek do not even try to patronize this language, you just sound ridiculous.

HERE are the complete ancient Greek Homeric texts, with every word as a tag leading to detailed translations/explanations.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0135%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D1

 

I do not need to continue this pharse any more… plz… I think everyone here can read and understand, he can also crosscheck it with other academically accepted evidence.

 

This is not what i say… this is what the academic spear-edge says. Sorry to ruin your nationalistic fairytale, but if you fyromians have a problem sent a paper to those high caliber non-Greek professors or try to submit/present a paper with your "maknews" theories in a conference.  

Edited by Heliocles - 18-Jun-2008 at 13:52

Originally posted by Heliocles I am really sad about the quality of some posts.   Petro Invictus you make some claims, referencing only to some fyrom biased sites, which in their turn do not reference anything serious. PLZ answer me this two very simple questions: (1) Which academic conference were any of "your evidence" ever presented? And if so what was the conclussions? (2) Which academic historical/archaeological/linguistic journal has even puplished a paper with the slightest even suggestion supposrting such things as you claim? . . . Sumarising, I REPEAT: (1) Which academic conference were any of "your evidence" ever presented? And if so what was the conclussions? (2) Which academic historical/archaeological/linguistic journal has even puplished a paper with the slightest even suggestion supposrting such things as you claim? (3) Please anyone bring a valid reference saying that Homeric language is not Greek. Of none of the above 3 is not answered there is no point discussing.  We cannot compare in one hand, crude universaly accepted evidence, with pathetic newage theories on the other hand.

OK! Heliocles!

Have you ever heard of the Black Athens theory. Have you read the study titled as BLACK ATHENA-The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilisation - Volume I: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985" by Martin Bernal?

http://74.125.39.104/search?q=cache:Ik35Wz6v9ywJ:www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volume2/March-May1997/BOOKREVIEWs%255B1%255D.pdf+The+Fabrication+of+Ancient+Greece+1785-1985+free+download&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

He develops two conceptions of the Greek history:

"The ANCIENT MODEL was the conventional view among Greeks in the Classical and Hellenistic ages. According to it, Greek culture arose as a result of colonization, around 1500 BC, by Egyptians and Phoenicians, who had civilized the native inhabitants. Furthermore, Greeks had continued to borrow
heavily from Near Eastern cultures. His qualification of Athena as 'black' is the outcome of this approach, the African-Semitic roots of the culture.

The ARYAN MODEL started with the Hellenophily of the mid-eighteenth century. Formulated first by a German professor, Otfried Müller, at Göttingen in the 1820s, in its earlier or 'broad' form, it denied the truth of the Egyptian settlements and questioned those of the Phoenicians. The 'extreme' Aryan Model, which flourished during the twin peaks of antisemitism in the 1890's and again in the 1920’s and 1930’s, denied even the Phoenician cultural influence. This is the racist white Athena.

Bernal does not attempt to disqualify totally the Aryan model but tries to prove that it is less plausible than the revised Ancient Model which provides, in his opinion, a more objective framework for future research.

This is how–independent of the Greeks themselves–the concept of the 'divine Greek' was formed by the second half of the eighteenth century."

"The attack on the Extreme Aryan Model is likely to succeed relatively quickly. The battle to restore the Ancient Model and the position of Egyptians (and necessarily all others who were affected from such a mentality) on the other hand, will take rather longer."

It seems Heliocles that everyone before the modern Greek propagandists, as well as those in favor of the ARYAN model, moreover, even the people you call ancient Greeks, were not supporting your theory of the "divine Greek race"!

Moreover, those who created Kathearevousa, which certainly was the main reason why you have have the power to claim what you so boldly have claimed in your post, were quite aware of the ANCIENT MODEL, and needed this intervention to purify the Dimotiki from the vulgarisms, and bring it closer to the ancient Greek, in order to be able to promote the ARYAN MODEL, which suited the "racist, Europo-centric conception of historiography which is into the very heart of the problem. The hard core being the Aryan conception, well implemented in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, which pleaded that Hellenism owes everything to Indo-Europeans, thus excluding Sumerians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Semites, Anatolians."








Edited by Petro Invictus - 18-Jun-2008 at 18:08

Originally posted by Petro Invictus Petro, do you know how 'Caesar' was pronounced in Latin?? Gaius Julius Caesar[1] (pronounced [ˈgaːius ˈjuːlius ˈkaɪsar] in Classical Latin! Kaisar is even closer to Czar! Kai-Czar!

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Petro Invictus Have you ever heard of the Black Athens theory. Thank the Lord, NO.

Then let me enlighten you:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o4maNtzhL9Q&feature=related

You'll get all the 7 parts in the side bar. Enjoy it...

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Petro Invictus Petro, do you know how 'Caesar' was pronounced in Latin?? Gaius Julius Caesar[1] (pronounced [ˈgaːius ˈjuːlius ˈkaɪsar] in Classical Latin! Kaisar is even closer to Czar! Kai-Czar! No it isn't. 'Czar' is pronounced with a 'TS' not a 'CZ' no matter how you spell it.

Well see, in Macedonian we write it with "C", pronounced like "TS", as in "Pirates"

Pop etymology. 'Kay' as a Celtic name (Welsh, Scots, Irish) goes back long before Gaius Julius Caesar invaded Britain.

That is true! However, in Roman times, Celts were considered as inferior to the Romans. You surely do not suggest that Gaius Julius used the Celtic name for his title. It is more plausible to assume that he had used Kai, as an alternate form of Gaius, his proper name, meaning Rejoice.

In any case Caesar's name was Caesar: otherwise he would have the insane name 'Gaius Julius Gaius'.

We sure know that Caesar was his cognomen.

"Caesar (plural Caesars), Latin: Caesar (plural Caesares), is a title of imperial character. It derives from the cognomen of Julius Caesar, the Roman dictator."

"The praenomen, equivalent to given names nowadays, was chosen by the parents (often named after the father). There was, however, a very limited selection of praenomina, such as Gaius, Gnaeus, Marcus, Quintus, Publius, Tiberius, and Titus. As a result, members from a given family often have identical names for generations. It was therefore necessary to use other names (cognomen and later, agnomen) to distinguish between individuals. Only intimates would use the praenomen."

Gaius Julus Kai-Tsar (Caesar) is his full name, no insanity in this gcle2003!

The short form of Gaius, his praenomen, was used with the title he obtained from Egypt, from his Macedonian queen, Cleopatra, having shared it with his heir Caesarion, as a language pun, since its meaning was Rejoice. It must have suited his enthusiastic vanity. After all he wanted to conquer Asia and he rejoiced in doing so by marrying the queen who was a descendant of the only one who did it, Alexander of Macedon.

The cognomen "Caesar" originated, according to Pliny the Elder, with an ancestor who was born by caesarean section (from the Latin verb to cut, caedo, caedere, cecidi, caesum).[5] The Historia Augusta suggests three alternative explanations: that the first Caesar had a thick head of hair (Latin caesaries); that he had bright grey eyes (Latin oculis caesiis); or that he killed an elephant (caesai in Moorish) in battle.[6] Caesar issued coins featuring images of elephants, suggesting that he favoured this interpretation of his name.

This is ridiculous! Thick hair, bright gray eyes, killed an elephant!... Which of these should we take into consideration? Pliny was either senile when he was writing this or he had wanted to ridicule Caesar himself. Let me clarify:

Pliny the Elder was a physicist, not a linguist. He was "an ancient author, naturalist or natural philosopher and naval and military commander of some importance who wrote Naturalis Historia. "

Most of his life he was active in the military, and when he retired he started writing books, motivated by he most famous quote: "True glory consists in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read". It is a big question of what in his "humble" opinion deserved to be read. He was after true glory, after all. And not being able to produce enough "doing" to deserve to be written about, he went on to the second option, to write what deserved to be read. Hmmmm.... I wonder what he thought of Caesar, in this regard.

"He completed a History of His Times in thirty-one books, possibly extending from the reign of Nero to that of Vespasian, and deliberately reserved it for publication after his death.^[21] It is quoted by Tacitus,^[22] and is one of the authorities followed by Suetonius and Plutarch. However, it is now a[] lost work, like all of his other books apart from the Naturalis Historia."

Apparently, the ridiculous meanings of "Caesar" come from a whole other volume, titled as Historia Augusta.

"The Augustan History (Lat. Historia Augusta) is a late Roman collection of biographies, in Latin, of the Roman Emperors, their junior colleagues and usurpers of the period 117 to 284. It presents itself as an assemblage of works by six different authors (collectively known as the Scriptores Historiae Augustae), written in the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine, but the true authorship of the work, its actual date, and its purpose (if any), have long been matters for controversy. Associated major problems are the sources it used, and how much of the content is sheer fiction."

This rules out the three ludicrous solutions you provided.

However, back to Caesar: (Wikipedia)

"In any event, Caesar defeated the Ptolemaic forces in 47 BC in the Battle of the Nile and installed Cleopatra as ruler, with whom he is suspected to have fathered a son, Caesarion. Caesar and Cleopatra celebrated their victory of the Alexandrine civil war through a triumphant procession on the Nile in the spring of 47 B.C. The royal barge was accompanied by 400 additional ships, introducing Caesar to the luxurious lifestyle of the Egyptian pharoahs.

Caesar and Cleopatra never married: they could not do so under Roman Law. The institution of marriage was only recognised between two Roman citizens; Cleopatra was Queen of Egypt. In Roman eyes, this did not constitute adultery, and Caesar is believed to have continued his relationship with Cleopatra throughout his last marriage, which lasted 14 years and produced no children. Cleopatra visited Rome on more than one occasion, residing in Caesar's villa just outside Rome across the Tiber."

He "returned to Italy in September, 45 BC, and among his first tasks was to file his will, naming Octavian as his heir. That out of the way, he returned to Rome approximately October 1. While away, the Senate had already begun heaping honors on Caesar."

http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/caesar-the-god.php

He returned from the Battle of Munda, and was in love with Cleopatra, whom he could not marry and fulfill his dream of inheriting the glory of the only one he cherished and followed his steps, that being Alexander of Macedon. The Romans simply would not allow this matrimony to be legalized. This created an inner turmoil in him which resulted in his lack of interest for the Roman affairs, despite his growing popularity.

"Caesar apparently began to act with little deference towards the Roman state, and his ego began to alienate the Senate. Along with the games, Caesar was honored with the right to wear triumphal clothing, including a purple robe (reminiscent of the Kings) and laurel crown, on all public occasions."

Now this is an interesting notion! Since we know that the color purple had been the color of the Macedonian Kings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

"Alexander's body was placed in a gold anthropoid sarcophagus, which was in turn placed in a second gold casket and covered with a purple robe. Alexander's coffin was placed, together with his armour, in a gold carriage that had a vaulted roof supported by an Ionic peristyle. The decoration of the carriage was very lavish and is described in great detail by Diodoros."

There is more of it, in regards to the burial ceremonies of Alexander.

http://www.greece.org/alexandria/alexander/pages/atext.html

"Perdikkas, according to our sources, sent the mummified remains of Alexander the Great to Aigai, the old Macedonian capital, for burial. He had a magnificent funerary cart constructed for this purpose. The body itself was placed in a gold anthropoid sarcophagus which was in turn encased in a second gold casket and covered with a purple robe."

This should show enough of the influence Macedonian Kings had on Roman Kings, since they preceded them, both in glory and glamor.

However, when it comes to Caesar, although the Roman Senate would not fulfill his dream to be the heir of the Macedonian glory, by authorizing the marriage with Cleopatra, they gave him praise in many other ways. The title Imperator also became a legal title that he could use before his name for the rest of his life.

Now this is when we approach the magical moment of the use of his title, by himself. The way he used it reveals his inner feelings towards the title he chose for himself as honorable, thus showing his despise for the Roman hypocrisy, in regards to the true praise he needed, and was not allowed.

His biographer, Suetonius gives the story that a crowd shouted to him "rex", the Latin word for king. Caesar replied, "I am Caesar, not Rex". Why would he reject being praised as a King, and why would he chose his title that he charished so much , that even his son with Cleopatra, Caesarion shared with him.

"At least twice he refused the royal crown, saying loudly, “Jupiter alone is king. I am Caesar, not Rex [king].”"

http://www.bard.org/Education/studyguides/juliuscaesar/juliusdie.html

As for his father's name, that again allows for speculations about the cognomen of the family, since Caesar was born into a patrician family, the gens Julia, which claimed descent from Iulus, son of the legendary Trojan prince Aeneas, supposedly the son of the goddess Venus.

This is again connected to the Macedonians, since I believe that the Trojans fighting against the Dorians, were the predecessors of the Macedonians.

This is pure speculation since: (Wikipedia)

"In the early regal period of Rome, it appears that people were at first referred to by one name (e.g., Romulus, Manius). As Rome grew in area and population, a second, family name came into use. By the earliest days of the Republic, every member of a household had at least two names — praenomen, and the genitive form of the pater familias, which was a fixed and inherited nomen.

This binomial nomenclature was unique among Indo-European languages of that era. Also, the core part of the name (nomen) was the inherited gens name, not the given name (praenomen). This is probably why so few different praenomina were used.

Later in the Republic a cognomen was added to distinguish families within a gens, as the importance of the gens grew and the size of voting tribes required this differentiation. Thus patricians (nobility) commonly had three names (Tria Nomina). Although this system dates to the later 5th century BC, it was slow to take root, as it does not appear in official documents until the late 2nd century BC and was not common until the time of Sulla, right before the Empire. It was adopted even more slowly by non-patricians; the first examples of cognomina for plebeians date to c. 125 BC and it was not popular for another century."

This allows me to suggest that maybe the Caesarions were a patricia that took its roots in the pre-Doric Trojan heroic times, which shaped the visions of the young Gaius Julius Caesar, who had inherited his title from much earlier, that was associated to the title that the Macedonian kings had. This might have given him the frustrations, when Rome did not allow him to marry a true heir to the Macedonian glory, and thus achieve the highest glory of his gens.

Again, this is all open for debate!

His given name was 'Caesar' from birth.

His cognomen was Caesar, and it was from birth, but he chose it as a title over Rex, which was an Imperial honor, the greatest Rome would offer, in praise to him.

Caesar, from a family name that relates to Troj, becomes the Imperial Title for many to follow, and it was a title used with Macedonian Kings, or at least the root form of it, Tsar.

Take a clue!