Category Archives: Uncategorized

Some 9th C Dutch families

One of the neatest experiences, trawling through documents to collect names for the DMNES, is when you get family units, and you can see how the names of parents do or do not affect the names of the children. A few years ago, we were able to give some multi-generation family trees from records from early 9th C France. Recently we came across some similar records — showing the names of people indentured to particular lands — in a document from the east of the Netherlands written in 850. Here, we don’t have multiple generations but we do have a 11 sets of parents, each with a single child.

What’s fascinating is how none of the names of the children reflect the names of the parents — quite the opposite story from what we find in the French data! There is only one case where the child’s name shares any themes with either parents’. Let’s take a look! (Shared themes are in bold.)

Richelem

Father Mother Child
Gerwala Weleka Bernheri
Ludold Reghenlend Ritger
Wigrad Vulfbald
Helprad Ricgard Gerwi
Lantbrad Wana Engilrad
Alfri Werenburgh Letheri
Aclaco Odelard
Liefolt Alfrat Folcheri
Leifans Wenda Asvui
Richard Memsund Sigehard
Vilfranene Odwi Helithans

The other thing that is really cool about this data is that none of the names are Latinized. There is such a dearth of vernacular material from this period, this provides us with such a wealth. More than one of the names would — in isolation — be most likely identified as masculine rather than feminine (Alfrat, Odelard, Odwi), lacking the definitive grammatical gender that Latin imports. But here we see clearly that these are feminine names, identical in form to their masculine counterparts.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

How about some stats?

We love doing stats on the data in the DMNES (in fact, we’ve previously done another post with this same name, back in 2015, when we passed the “30,000 entries in the database” milestone.), and no better time to do it than when we’ve just published new edition!

Entries and citations

Finalized entries: 2458
Unfinalized entries: 4871
Total: 7329 (compared to 4118 in 2015!)

Finalized citations: 68788
Unfinalized citations: 10430
Total: 79218 (compared to 37411 in 2015!)

Avg. no. of citations per entry (finalized): 28 (compared to 20.25 in 2015)
Avg. no. of citations per entry (total): 10.8 (compared to 9.08 in 2015)

Feminine names (finalized): 15304 (compared to 8101 in 2015)
Masculine names (finalized): 53469 (compared to 21901 in 2015)
Names of uncertain gender (finalized): 6 (compared to 5 in 2015)

Languages (finalized citations only)

Latin: 36362 (compare: 14028).
English: Old English: 7 (compare: 5); Middle English: 441 (compare: 419); Early Modern English: 15523 (compare: 10426).
French: Old French: 1605 (compare: 684); Middle French: 4194 (compare: 946); Occitan: 6 (compare: 0); Anglo-French: 79 (compare: 0).
German: Low German: 1800 (compare: 1552); High German: 1248 (compare: 477).
Swedish: 1627 (compare: 202).
Italian: 365 (compare: 0).
Spanish: 359 (compare: 159).
Catalan: 257 (compare: 217).
Scots: 170 (compare: 148).
Danish: 142 (compare: 0).
Welsh: 100 (compare: 0).
Polish: 60 (compare: 0).
Icelandic: 41 (compare: 0).
Norwegian: 12 (compare: 9).
Lithuanian: 6 (compare: 0).
Latvian: 2 (compare: 0).
Sicilian: 2 (compare: 0).

Our data has gotten too complicated to easily calculate how many citations we have per century, but this is something that — perhaps — our friends at ARC can help us with. In fact, we’re hoping to get some tools that will allow easier calculation of more complicated statistics in the future — watch this space!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

New publication announcement

One of our editorial assistants, Dr. Mariann Slíz, has released a new edition of her foundational work on personal names in Hungary in the middle of the 14th century, Anjou-kori személynévtár 1343–1359 (Budapest: Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság, 2017). Even better, you can now download the PDF for free here!

Even if you can’t read Hungarian, the book is still an incredibly useful source, with dated citations in each entry italicized and clearly dated, and if you’re familiar with the standard onomastic resources, you’ll recognise amany of the references to further literature (e.g., Bahlow) in the entries.

Congratulations to Dr. Slíz; and to all our readers about to get lost in Hungarian names — you’re welcome.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A Confusion of Kates

Yesterday, a friend shared with one of our editors this awesome FB post:

We wondered what would happen if we tried to do a similar chart, but of all the medieval forms of Katherine that we’ve collected so far. Ours isn’t nearly as systematic, but it is much more varied (click on the image to see it in larger format):

Variants of Katherine

It also shows that there are a lot of gaps. Not every combination in the table is possible — one wouldn’t combine Italian Chata- with German/Slavic -russcha, for instance — but there are a number of gaps that we might eventually find/fill, such as Katheline, Cattelyne, Cataryn, Catlyn, Katharin! Who would’ve thought a single name could be so varied and so interesting? My favorites are the Quat- spellings. What are your favorites? Share with us in the comments!

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Kings, Queens, and Bible Figures…or Not

It’s very easy for people with a dabbling interest in modern baby names to look at recent trends in Anglo-American naming practices (e.g., in the last century or so), compare them with what they know of modern-but-not-so-recent trends (e.g., in the 19th C or so), often taken from their own genealogical history, and then make sweeping pronouncements about “how people chose names for their children” or “what names people could name their children” before modern times. Sometimes these claims are influenced by data going even further back; everyone who knows a bit about names knows about Puritanisms like “Fly-Fornication” and “Bestiality” (oops, wait, that one’s a Pratchettism, not a Puritanism).

But it’s a mistake to think that because things changed between the 19th and the later 20th C, that everything before the 19th C was the same. Or even that because things changed in the 16th C, everything from the 16th to the 19th C was the same, and that everything before the 16th C was the same.

Today I came across someone claiming that in historical England, the only options were to name kids after kings, queens, and Bible figures. While it’s certainly true that some popular names were also the names of kings and queens (but there, the other of influence probably goes the other way: Kings and queens were given the names they were because they were common/popular, not that those names became common/popular because they were born by a king or queen) and that some popular names were also the names of important Biblical figures, this claim is problematic in a number of ways.

The first is that it overlooks a substantially-sized group of names that were quite common throughout English history: Names of non-Biblical saints, like Agnes, Margaret, Ursula, Katherine, and Cecilia, which were a particularly generative source of names for women. But even if we include that under “Bible names” (interpreting that to broadly cover “religious” names in general, rather than strictly to narrowly cover only names found in the bible), there are still numerous names — some enormously popular — that do not fit any of these categories.

Some years ago, now, we did two posts on the “most popular” women’s names and men’s names; now, these posts covered not only England, but all the names found on these lists were quite common in England. Let’s take a look at them.

Amongst the feminine names, Alice is a standout counterexample. While there were a few minor continental saints with this name, as well as an empress and a queen consort of Cyprus, these saints were not venerated in England and there’s no reason to think that the two royal women would have had any influence on the popularity of the name outside of their own lands. Yet, Alice was, and continues to be, enormously popular in England, with examples from as early as the second half of the 12th century. Another name on the list, Ellen, shows a similar trajectory: A handful of minor saints with local influence, none of whom were English, and one minor queen consort of a country other than England. And yet, we see this name in England from the early 12th C as well, it’s popularity influenced by the appearance of the name in medieval Arthurian romances (yes, medieval people named their children after literary characters, just as modern people do!).

Turning to the masculine names, Charles was never as popular in England as it was on the continent prior to the post-medieval English kings named Charles, but the name was used, despite there being no biblical, royal, or saintly connection. Another name that cannot be called biblical, royal, or saintly in England is Robert, a name whose popularity in England was driven by the Norman conquest. Sometimes, people just adopted names because they were a part of the changing cultures/fashions/fads of the times. Now, there was a minor (non-Biblical) 13th C English saint named Roger, and that might have contributed to an increase in the popularity of that name, at least in the region where the saint lived. But the name was already in use a century earlier, so the saint cannot have been the driving force (and, again, it’s more likely that a saint has a name because it was popular, rather than that the name was popular because it was given to a saint). A curious name is Walter: It is perhaps the most popular name in medieval Europe (not just medieval England) which was never the name of a saint or a ruler. This didn’t prevent it from often being in the top 5 most popular men’s names in 16th C English parish registers.

Now, these are just some of the most popular names, across all of Europe and a thousand-year-plus timespam. If we look more specifically just at England, and to some of the “not amazingly popular, but not totally unique” names, what we find there is that the number of non-religious, non-royal names proliferates. Such names include:

Feminine

Masculine

If we moved on to names that are found rarely, we’d have an even larger swathe of names to pick from.

So, yes, certainly names of kings and queens and saints (saints more so than Bible figures more generally) were popular names in England; but they were by no means the only choice of names available to medieval English people.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Names of Twins: 16th C Warwickshire

One thing that’s really fun about baptismal registers is seeing the incidence of twins being baptised, and what their names are. (A friend once did a study of a number of Welsh registers, and found that male twins were disproportionately baptised Thomas, which is an interesting comment on the transparency of the meaning to ordinary people at that time.) Because readers of this blog are likely to also be iterested in what twinsets are being named, we thought we’d do a short post on the names of twins found in the Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, parish register.

Between 1558 and 1600, 26 pairs of twins were baptised: 7 were both girls, 7 were both boys, and 12 were mixed. The pairs were named:

Girl 1 Girl 2 Boy 1 Boy 2 Year
Ales John 1573
Alicia Margeria 1565
Anna Richardus 1561
Anna Thomas 1561
Anne Ales 1582/3
Anne ffrancis 1584/3
Christopher Thomas 1579
ffrancis Jone 1573
ffrancis John 1576
Elizabeth Margret 1578
Isabell Mary 1575/6
Jana ffranciscus 1563
Johannes Richardus 1594/5
Johannes Robertus 1561
Johannes Thomas 1564
Jone John 1589
Jone Mary 1584/5
Judith Hamnet 1584/5
Katerina Johannes 1566
Katherine William 1585
Katherine Anthony 1575
Margareta Maria 1568
Margret Thomas 1574
Maria Henricus 1591
Peter Thomas 1577
Richardus Thomas 1595

Those who know their literary history will spot a famous pair of twins in the list…

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Playing linguistic detective: Where is Accon?

Yesterday one of our editors went on an interesting little sleuthing trip concerning the place name Accon. We tweeted it while it happened, but thought it would be fun to also write it up here!

Historical onomastic research is filled with little sleuthing problems. Mostly, they are “what are the etymological roots of this name?” or “are these two spellings variants of each other?”, but sometimes we also get to do a bit of placename sleuthing.

For each citation in the DMNES, we record the most detailed geographical information that we can concerning where the document in question is from. Usually this means recording city + country, although sometimes the best we can do is just country. Because country boundaries change over time, we use contemporary boundaries for our geographical assignations. (So a city that was once in, say, Savoy, but is now in modern-day France will be listed as “France”.)

For charters, the city of issue is generally given — in Latin. So the first sleuthing puzzle always is “what is the vernacular form of this place name?” A lot are quite transparent, e.g., Parisius for Paris. Some of them are easy if you know your history, e.g., Aquisgrana for Aachen, or your linguistics, e.g., Aurelianum for Orléans. Others you might have to look up, but are obvious when you do (as happened to our head editor the other day when she realized Confluentia = Coblenz). There are three very useful sites that we use when identifying Latin placenames with vernacular forms are:

Sometimes in addition to a Latin form in the text, the editor might have provided the “modern”-day vernacular in their editorial header for the charter. This is great! Except when “modern” isn’t modern. A lot of the chartularia we work from are from the 19th C, and especially in German, the modern forms of the place names are not the same as the 19th C ones. Again, some are easy to identify, especially with other indicators, such as Nymwegen = Nijmegen. Often an easy way to find the current modern vernacular form is to put the 19th C form into wikipedia (or even googlemaps!) and see what it spits out — though the results shouldn’t be trusted blindly — you’ve got to use the other contextual clues as well.

All of this leads up to our recent little sleuthing puzzle, namely, a document from Accon. If you plug “Accon” into wikipedia, you get suggested the French city Accons. This is definitely not the right Accon. This is because the charter has to do with the Teutonic Order, so German rather than French, and was written by one “frater Thomas de ordine Predicatorum dei gratia patriarcha Ierosolimitanus”, also noted by the editor as “bischof von Accon”.

So! Let’s look at lists of patriarchs of Jerusalem, and see if we can find a Thomas from 1277. Lo and behold, what does Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem give us but: “Thomas Agni of Cosenza (1271–1277)”. That’s our guy! And, when Jerusalem was lost in 1187, the seat of the patriarchy moved to Acre.

Ahah! Acre! What is Acre called in (modern) German? Akkon. Shift the consonant around a bit, and you get Accon.

So not only did we solve our little mystery, we also now have our first names from a document written in the Holy Land for the DMNES.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized