(1.1) Personal Names

◄ ►

This is just a bit of fun on my part. An attempt to understand the structure of the subject, through what has been written, sprinkled with illuminating quotes, and put it into some kind of order. It is not intended as a classification or taxonomy – that is way beyond me. It will gradually grow as I learn more –just like the result of my interaction with lemon drizzle cake .
I did keep these pages closed for some time as I was wary of breaking copyright: however, I understand that one may quote so many words for the purposes of criticism and review, so long as citations are provided. I hope that anyone whose work I have quoted will not object, as it is my intention to highlight their contribution to the subject knowledge. Fuller references at the bottom of the section
Preface
Studying the documents The study of personal names is known as anthroponymy When studying a medieval list of names, an anthroponomist will ask questions about · the provenance of the list ? · the socio-economic background of the names? · In what geographical area was the list compiled? · Is it representative? Is any category (e.g. women) unusually under-represented ? · The comparative ratio of type of name o Numbers of single names (i.e. what we term forenames, but in this context are better termed nomen, plural nomina) o Number of names with a qualifier (usually an unstable byname) , usually called a cognomen · Linguistic origin of the name · Type of name e.g. nickname, occupational · Is the name Latinised or expressed in the vernacular ?
The historical transformation of naming patterns “The transformation of naming patterns in the period 1075-1225 highlights a central fact about names: they can be chosen. Each generation makes new choices and in these choices they are influenced by ever-changing fashions and interests” Bartlett (2000) ‘England under the Norman and Angevin Kings’ p 540 “..the process of naming is in itself an act of considerable agency and purpose. It is inherently intentional and is an expression of wider allegiances and associations, if not identities” Postles (2006) Naming the people of England, p 28 “Shortly before 1250 the process was more or less completed by which insular (Old English and Old Norse) personal names were largely displaced by names introduced by Normans and their followers from the near continent, such as Bretons, Flemings and Picards. In origin the new name stock was partly Continental Germanic, of a West Frankish type, partly Romance (including many saints’ names) and partly from the Biblical languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (via Latin), not to mention the lesser contributions from Scandinavian and Celtic languages. All the names were expressed in Old French form and they came with ready-made hypocorisms or pet-forms, usually consisting of a short form of the name compounded with a diminutive suffix” P McClure Nomina 26 (2003), p 93 Pre-Conquest name-forms (Insular names) · West Germanic or Old English Personal names · Anglo-Scandinavian (i.e. indirect West Germanic) Insular names had 3 main forms · Compounded or dithematic forms (combining 2 elements, prototheme and deuterotheme) e.g. Leofwine, Godwine (element ‘wine’ = friend) (Protothemes are in principle common between the sexes. Deuterothemes express gender.) · Uncompounded · Pet-forms (elisions of dithematic names) Post-Conquest name forms · Continental-Germanic ( a body of about 500 names) e.g. William, Henry, Robert · Brittonic (or Middle Breton forms) e.g. Alan, Brian , Joel · Norman-Scandinavian · Use of Saints’ and Biblical names (from 12^th c) The displacement was characterised by concentration i.e. a reliance of a small number of heavily-used names. This narrowing in the range of especially male nomina accelerated considerably by the late 13^th c. By 1300, “The most frequent eight forenames now comprised 77-87 per cent of all taxpayers in the lay subsidies of various counties” Postles (2006) Naming the people of England, p 60 Further research: · Regional variation in the number of names (i.e. nomina). In the Lay subsidies, these normally vary between 46 and 72, though there are higher counts in Devon, Northumbria and Sussex · Concentration of specific names (nomina), e.g. Adam is prevalent in West Riding in the Lay subsidies. In London, in the early 14^th c. the proportion of those named John or William reached 40% Postles (2006) Naming the people of England p
Questions But who did the choosing : Men or women? Were the cultural influences the same – whatever the social level – nobility, burgesses, unfree peasantry etc, or geographical area ? “…in that critical transformation of naming during the long twelfth century, some acceded to the new traditions of the Normans, Bretons and Flemish, others resisted those introductions to preserve the legacy of the old, and yet others embraced a “hybrid” solution, naming one child in the insular tradition and the other in the “new” fashion….The questions which must be confronted therefore are: what were the motives for this attribution of divergent name forms within kinships; and how frequent were such situations? ” Postles (2006) Naming the people of England, p 4 As Postles emphasises, the surprising fact is not that there was a complete overturn in the culture of naming, but that it actually took so long to complete, when nominally it could have been achieved in 1 or 2 generations. “The direction of new forms of name was the same – towards concentration. Whereas, however new forms became extremely narrow in active use, through the twelfth century insular forms exhibited a remarkably wide range for names that were supposedly being supplanted” Postles (2006) Naming the people of England, p 17 The survival of insular names amongst those of middling means into the 13^th c., contrasts with the usual explanation that the new names percolated down from the Norman over-Lords, or were taken up immediately for social advantage. However, the greatest incidence of residual insular naming seems to have been amongst those lowest on the social scale = the free and unfree peasantry There are numerous examples of secular clergy with insular name forms in the twelfth century, and this may have influenced the persistence of such names amongst others (and the bearers were not consistently insignificant people. . But the situation is more complex · Fathers with adopted the new C-G names, then reverting to an insular name for a son · Siblings with a name from each name tradition Especially in the “North” a dual naming tradition seems to have survived into the 12^th c. –indicating that that was then no perceived disadvantage or dishonour in reverting to an insular name
Baptism Before the end of the twelfth century. “the child arrived at the church door with an existing name; name-giving was not part of the baptismal ceremony. From the early thirteenth century the child’s name was given as it was raised from the font by the principal godparent” Postles (2006) Naming the people of England, p 50 Did the new role of the priest in the naming process encourage · the use of a higher number of saints’ names ? · or was the role of the godparent more influential? · or was the need for patrilinear naming paramount?
Latinisations “Investigation of colloquial name usages in medieval England is hampered by the pervasive Latinisation of formal records, coupled with a dearth of naturalistic vernacular ones” and “The better-drawn a document , the more thoroughly every element that could be Latinised was Latinised. This applied especially to expressions of kinship, and so now hinders attempts to analyse their history” [CHEL( ) p] A patronymic or metronymic by-name was expressed in 4 ways; initially in Latin translation, but increasingly reflecting the vernacular form. 1. Asyndetic apposition of the father’s name Henricus Gilberd Asyndetic apposition means the juxtaposition of two personal names –that refer to the same person- without the use of any preposition (le, de, atte etc) or linking device (filia, relict etc) 2. Phrases in sunu/dohter 3. Possessive genitive Thomas Alani, Hugh Johannis There are instances where it is evident that the genitival form is an elision of the filius one e.g. Laurence turstani alias Laurence filius turstani Postles (2001) 4. The filius-formula (but also including filia, uxor, relict etc) These forms were not exclusive. In the same document, the same person might be referred to in more than 1 way:- Ricardus Steuene (an appositional form =Richard Stephen) and as Ricardus filius Stephani. The filius could also be placed after the referring name i.e. Ricardus Stephani filius, though before is the norm. The name need not necessarily be a patronymic; filius is used with occupational and nicknames, too “At times a confusing array of Latin forms may be used to represent the name of one and the same person : Tengvik pointed out many years ago that a Domesday book tenant named as Robert Flavus was apparently the same man as the Robert Albus, Robert Blancardus and Robert Blundus mentioned in the same record, all these various epithets alluding to flaxen hair” [McKinley 1991, p 2] Problems: · The meaning of the Latin words employed is clear, but instances of vernacular equivalents are lacking · The same quite common Latin word employed to translate several vernacular names i.e. is Albus might be used to cover the vernacular individual forms of White, Blundell, Blount or even Fairfax · Some Latinized forms seem based on false folk-etymologies e,g, Quatremars –‘four marks’- Latinized as Quattuor Maris [McKinley 1991, p 2-3]
The filius formula One of the most commonly-used Latinisations used to express a relationship was the term filius . What exactly does use of filius imply ? 1. Was it an attempt to transcribe or reflect an increasing vernacular trend towards a stable surname. If so, which? For example does Johannes filius Willelmi intend to convey the colloquial name phrase -John William or John Williams, or maybe John Williamson? 2. Or is the ubiquitous filius formula just a scribal convention necessitated by administrative demands? [and filius can sometimes signify ‘grandson’, or perhaps even ‘great grandson’ in administrative recording] Viewpoint 1 McKinley felt that the use of filius covered much more than just vernacular names ending in s or son. He pointed out that the usage of filius in the 13^th century was far greater than the existence of –son names at later dates. Viewpoint 2 However, a more recent view proposes that by the late 13^th century, the filius-formula only translated vernacular names in -s and –son . [ Turville-Petrie (1998)] Certainly, by the early 14^th century, an analysis of the lay subsidy rolls suggests that there was a gradation in the distribution of –son forms (strong in the north, weaker in the south, with an intermingling in the Midlands) that was equivalent to the use of the filius form . [ Postles 2001, p ] Gradually, the Latinisation of name forms declined. For instance, Postles proposes that by the late 13^th century, in the English southern counties, the incidence of latin forms was low. He argues that in these counties, the appositional or genitival forms would now be directly expressed in the vernacular. But the decline was not uniform. He argues that in northern counties, vernacular patronymics and metronymics ending in son or doghter continued to be Latinised till a later date than the south. [ Postles (2001) ] Certainly, by the late 13^th century for Oxfordshire, “in the Hundred Rolls the great majority of persons mentioned, whether bond or free, are provided with surnames or by-names of some kind or another. It is rare to find anyone , either without a by-name at all, or referred to merely as the son of some other person whose personal name only is given” . [Mckinley 1977, p ]
Latinisations of Personal names : some examples “For the most part the Latin forms were produced by adding –a to the female name and –us to a male name and these were then declined like ordinary nouns” [Redmonds 2004a, p ]
Adam (genitive Ade) = Adam Alicia = Alice Andreas= Andrew Dionisius (feminine Dionisia) = Denis Egidius (feminine Egidia) = Giles Galfridus = Geoffrey Hugo= Hugh	Jacobus= James Johannes = John Margareta = Margaret Petrus = Peter Radulfus= Ralph Ricardus = Richard Thomas (genitive Thome) = Thomas Willelmus = William
For a fuller listing see C.T. Martin ‘The Record Interpreter’
Vernacular form 3 styles of patronymics/metronymics · Asyndetic e.g. Rickard · Simple genitives e.g. Richards · Genitive phrases e.g. Richardson. The asyndetic form existed up to c. 1300. From 1300 onwards, suffixal forms of -s and –son were increasingly frequent. Most present-day names in –son were formed post-1300, and were composed of baptismal names in favour post-1300. “…most first names had vernacular pronunciations as well as pet forms and diminutives, and that these can all be masked by the formal use of Latin” [Redmonds 2004b, p113]