Announcing Edition 2020!

With about 40 minutes to spare, we did manage to get a new edition out in 2020!

2020 was a tough year for everyone, and things have been alternating really quiet and super productive here at DMNES central. If there’s one thing that was a pure, unalloyed joy and benefit of the upheaval of the pandemic, it was joining Mt. Holyoke’s internship scheme which facilitated the joining of four interns on our staff over summer, with one continuing on through the fall term as well. Much of what’s in this new edition — new names, new citations, updated info on Biblical and literary forms — is due to their hard work; and while some of their other work isn’t yet reflected in published editions, it’s laid the foundations for some exciting projects in the future.

So, on to some stats! The new edition has 2592 entries, with 77,248 citations distributed across those entries. (The entry with the most citations remains John, 4533 citations! That’s nearly 6% of all citations in the Dictionary in that single entry.) (Hah, as I was writing this up, our technical guru asked whether the numbers for Mary were comparable. I laughed, and said “no way, that name was never as popular, and he wanted to know the details. So: we have 832 citations for Mary, accounting for 1% of our data. Compare this to three other popular feminine names — Katherine, with 775 citations; Elizabeth, with 1159; and Margaret, with 1281 citations.)

This edition has a total of 931 distinct feminine names, 1658 masculine names, and 3 where the gender is uncertain. Of these, 44 of the feminine entries are new to this edition:

Women’s names
Agtrude
Albina
Ansilde
Aurofina
Baltrude
Bellabona
Benenata
Berna
Bernswith
Bernwara
Bertlinde
Desideria
Dominilde
Durande
Dutberta
Ermenalda
Fortuna
Gendrada
Godberg
Grimberg
Gundberg
Heilsinde
Lautrude
Lea
Lefhild
Liutwarde
Lodberta
Madalgarde
Maga
Maira
Meinfrida
Merberta
Novella
Odelrada
Oteria
Othilde
Percipia
Polemia
Radwise
Rolande
Sighilde
Warntrude
Wendelbalda
Zenobia

And there’s 98 new masculine names in this edition:

Men’s names
Adald
Adebert
Adegrim
Aitfrid
Aldebert
Amaro
Andger
Arner
Arno
Austrulf
Bago
Baldrad
Baldwald
Benenat
Benno
Bernulf
Bertbert
Bertmar
Bertram-Robert
Bertrick
Bodo
Bonald
Charles-Emmanuel
Cuthred
Dadmar
Daghard
Dodbert
Dominic-Amicus
Drutrich
Eckbald
Erchambert
Ermenald
Ermo
Everald
Folobert
Fortune
Fredebald
Gardulf
Gardwin
Gelbald
Gerhard
Gislold
Gordian
Hartnich
Helmger
Hemlwich
Hemlwin
Herger
Hildegrim
Hundolf
Hungrim
Isenbald
Isenbern
Isengrim
John-Andrew
John-Angel
John-Charles
John-Peter
Lantgrim
Liberat
Liebizo
Liutgard
Liutrad
Lodbald
Lodwin
Madaler
Madalrich
Marcrad
Marcrich
Merard
Merbod
Nantwin
Norwin
Noto
Odelrad
Otbald
Otgisl
Otrad
Peter-Andrew
Polydorus
Radger
Reinrich
Richbert
Richbod
Richsind
Rother
Sigwald
Sinbald
Sinbert
Theodeger
Waldemar
Waldemund
Wendelbald
Wilbald
Wildrad
Wineger
Witbert
Witrich

May your 2021 be filled with wonderful names! (Like Bertbert. Bertbert is such a great name.)

Advertisement

Mystery Monday: Perteiza

Every Monday we will post an entry that hasn’t yet been published with a view towards harnessing the collective onomastic power of the internet. If you have any thoughts about the name’s origin, other variants it might be related to, other examples of its use, etc., please share them in the comments! If you wish to browse other Mystery Monday names, there is an index.

Today’s mystery is from late 16th C Somerset, and is as far as we can tell a hapax legomenon: We’ve found three records of the name, all to the same person. Perteiza Batten, daughter of Launcellott was christened in Bruton in 1592 (that’s the instance we have in our data). She married Willm. Harlidg in 1608/9, and then in 1638, W^m son of W^m. and Perteza Harledg was buried.

A search of google returns no use of this as a name other than by this woman.

Where on earth did Launcellott Batten find this name? We searched the rest of the register to see if the names of his family members could provide any clue, but didn’t find much. He married Agnes Beastley in 1588, and their first daughter, Joan, was born a year later. Then came Perteiza, Mary in 1594, and Edith 1596. A fifth daughter, Elizabeth, was born and buried in 1599, and he himself died in 1608/9, a month after Perteiza’s marriage.

All the rest of the names are utterly unexceptional in 16th C England. Whither Perteiza? This may be one mystery we never crack.

Ireland vs. England: Are Protestant Names Different Than Puritan Names?

In the process of finding literature for Dr. Uckelman’s project on Protestant and Puritan names, I came across a very interesting paper about naming customs in medieval Ireland and how they compare to medieval England: 

Tait, Clodagh. “Namesakes and Nicknames: Naming Practices in Early Modern Ireland, 1540-1700.” CONTINUITY AND CHANGE, vol. 21, pp. 313–340. https://search.proquest.com/openview/00ff26214014a0f70a55c2e539f048ce/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=37442

It goes into some interesting ideas about individuality and naming, but what really drew my attention was its analysis of the impact of Protestant naming trends after the Reformation in Ireland, a country that “retained a majority Catholic population” (Tait 320). 

She starts with a surprising fact: in the 1540s, some Protestants cared less that their child was baptized by a Protestant than that their child was baptized with a Protestant appropriate name. This goes to show how important people considered names in terms of their religious identity. Tait remarks that in addition to connecting people to members of their own religion, names could also distinguish people from those of other religions, highlighting religious differences. In short, names can bring people together… and tear them apart.

Tait’s paper draws from baptism records from the Church of Ireland and the Catholic Church to analyze the distribution of names across different Christian ideologies. She remarks that many of her findings about Catholic names draw only from one register, so they could be attributed to one overzealous priest, but she did find some supporting evidence from other sources. 

Tait found that in an Irish Protestant population, half the children baptized received one of the top 5 names— “John/Jonathan, James, Jane/Janet, Mary and Elizabeth” (315). Similarly, in England at the same time, half the children baptized received one of the top 6 names— “William, John, Thomas, Elizabeth, Anne and Mary” (315). Although Puritan naming is often considered unique, Protestant naming trends in Ireland seemed to progress similarly in terms of most popular names. 

Still, the two countries were not wholly alike. Tait lays out three types of naming traditions observed in pre-1500s Ireland: the Gaelic names already popular in Ireland, saints names commonly used by Catholics, and names brought by settlers, including English names. 

Gaelic: Tait says one might expect the saint names, pushed by the Catholic church during the Reformation, and English names, handed down to descendants of settlers, to overtake and eradicate the use of Gaelic names as it did in England (315). She found this was not the case. Irish natives and settlers each retained their own naming systems, preserving them both. In the 1660s, she finds the top 6 names used by native Irish families remained largely Gaelic– Patrick, Bryan, Hugh, Owen, Thorlogh, and Shane, while the top names used by the descendants of settlers remained largely English– John, Thomas, William, Robert, James, and Richard (316). This supports her idea of names serving to bond communities while revealing their differences from other communities. 

Settler: It makes sense that English settlers would continue to use English names, but Tait observes that their naming practice evolved differently than it did among people who stayed in England. In Ireland, many English settlers used English names that were no longer popular in England, such as “David, Gerald, and Maurice” (315). This demonstrates how the names create connection between the settlers and England, while also revealing differences between them. 

Saint names: Tait observes that “16th and 17th century Catholics, especially those with Old English backgrounds, [kept using] the medieval idea of personal ‘name’ saints, a practice that was further encouraged by the Counter Reformation clergy” (317). These names were often chosen by proximity of the Saint’s feast to the child’s birthdate. People devoted to these name saints and associated honoring them with honoring themselves. This commitment to date association affected even the otherwise most popular names, creating a noticeable difference between Ireland and England, as well as between Protestants and Catholics. Anne and John, very popular names among Protestants and in England, only see usage around their Saints Days for Irish Catholics, according to the Wexford register. 

Despite this, older Protestant traditions still cropped up amongst Catholics. Tait remarks that some children were baptized into both churches either because of mixed marriages, to avoid fines from the Protestant clergy, or as a relic of past beliefs (318). This reflects the way some names were used by both populations, such as Anne and John. This implies that Protestants, despite being outnumbered, still had significant sway over naming practices in Ireland, so one might expect to see Protestant naming trends become more mainstream. 

In the 17th century, Tait observes Protestants began using more Old Testament and virtue names, but she highlights that they did not begin to use the “Puritan-meaningful names like ‘Fear-God’ and ‘Lord-is-near’ that were briefly popular in later-sixteenth century England” (319). Is this because Ireland’s predominantly Catholic population discouraged such naming practices? Or did the Irish Protestant population, otherwise able to exercise markedly Protestant naming customs, simply not gravitate to this style of naming? Does this mean that Puritan naming customs were prevalent in England, but failed to translate to Ireland the way other naming trends did? Or was their prevalence exaggerated even in England?

Although Tait noticed a distinct style of naming amongst Catholics, with their preference for saint names, she did not notice the old-fashioned sounding Puritan names commonly believed to be popular among Protestants after the Reformation in England. This suggests that Puritan names were either exactly as limited to Puritans as many scholars believe, or that they were never as prevalent as previously thought. If the “distinctly Puritan” names were common albeit limited to England, though, what explains the use of other English and Protestant names in Ireland while these Puritan names were ignored?

What makes a name a Puritan name?

One of the projects we hope to resurrect this summer with the help of our research interns is a paper on Protestant vs. Puritan names. One of our interns, Adelia, is currently collecting relevant literature, and I’m making an effort to prioritise reading through the fascinating looking articles she’s finding. What better way to do that than to write up commentaries on them as I do so?

Today’s article is

Daniel Kilham Dodge, “Puritan Names”, New England Quarterly 1, no. 4 (1928): 467-475, http://www.jstor.org/stable/359527.

Dodge kicks things off by summarising popular suppositions about Puritan names:

• They are “now regarded as old-fashioned” (p. 467).
• “Most of them come from the Old Testament, especially from the minor prophets” (p. 467).
• “The New Testament is almost as carefully avoided as mine pie at Christmas” (p. 467).

But his purpose in this article is to question this popular opinion:

But what if our modern historians and writers of fiction were wrong in their assumption that, in the naming of their children, the Puritans were a people by themselves and that they were as old-fashioned in their names as in their dress? (p. 467).

Dodge adopts two principles for collecting evidence to demonstrate that this assumption is wrong: that the data be both representative and sufficiently large. A list of a hundred names is not large enough to draw any conclusions from, while a much larger list of names of clergy men will not be representative. With these principles in mind, Dodge draws his data from “copies of official records extending from the earliest entries of the Massachusetts Bay Company in 1628 throughout the seventeenth century and including various church and town lists and the graduates of Harvard College from 1641 to 1700” (p. 468). With this, Dodge places himself in the century after the terminus of our interest; given the significant cultural differences in England (and English colonies) between the 16th and 17th century, we must be chary of taking for the 16th century any of his conclusions concerning the 17th century.

The data that Dodge collected he divides into four categories (p. 469):

1. Old Testament names
2. New Testament names
3. Non-descriptive profane names
4. Descriptive names (including such names as Deliverance, Hopestill, Satisfaction, and Tremble)

When he considers names in his data that occur 10 or more times, there is a slight preference for Old Testament names (18 vs. 11 or 12, depending on where Joseph is categorised); the numbers shift somewhat when the individual occurrences, as opposed to the distinct names, are counted: 2062 occurrences of New Testament names vs. 1193 occurrences of Old Testament names (p. 469).

The cause of this strange reversal, is, however, not unexpected: It is due to the popularity of the given name John (around 20% of all instances), which was not unique to the Puritans and whose historic popularity even shifting priorities and practices could not shift it from the Puritan naming pool. As Dodge puts it:

the given name John, most popular of names among the Puritans, was not a Puritan name at all (p. 471).

Dodge’s feminine data shows the trends he wants to highlight somewhat stronger than the masculine data, as “the proportion of Biblical names is larger and the Old Testament is more generously represented”, though the smaller numbers overall mean that of names occurring ten times or more, “five are from the Old Testament and four from the New Testament” (p. 472). The clearest demonstration of the trends, though, is the fact that the most popular “profane” (by which Dodge merely means “neither Biblical nor descriptive”) feminine name, Margaret, is only the 10th most popular feminine name (p. 472), compared to the most popular profane masculine name, William, which was the third most popular masculine name (p. 471). From this, Dodge concludes:

early New Englanders, and possibly other Englishmen as well, depended upon the Bible to a greater extent in naming their daughters than their sons (p. 472).

Of the descriptive names, Dodge argues that they were never common and that their status as the “supposedly typical Puritan names” (p. 473) is due to psychological rather than ontological reasons: It is a fact of human consciousness that we tend to fixate upon the unusual and atypical and give it more prominence than it necessarily desires. As he says, “we are all given to generalizing from insufficient data” (p. 473), and when we look at actual numbers and statistics, it is clear that “In the majority of cases Puritans, like Anglicans, chose names not as Puritans but as Englishmen” (p. 473). More controversially, he argues that

Faintnot and Hopefor, Faith and Prudence are quaint, but they are evidently not so typical Puritan names as John and William, Mary and Elizabeth (p. 474).

But while it may be true that these names were all more common amongst Puritans than the descriptive names or names of obscure Old Testament characters, one must be careful what question one is asking when considering the question of whether there is a uniquely or distinctively Puritan pool of names. For it could be either of the following:

1. What is the probability that a person is a Puritan, given the name they bear?
2. What is the probability that a person bears a Puritan name, given that they are Puritan?

It may be that the answer to the former question is “rather low” while the latter question might be “quite high” — there could be names which are distinctively Puritan not in the sense that many Puritans were named this name, but in the sense that no non-Puritans were. It is these latter class of names that are apt to give us a pool which is uniquely or characteristically Puritan.

Looking into history: modern and classic forms of medieval names

A number of the girls names that show up in the ONS lists for 2018 are ones where there are a variety of different spellings for an individual name, some of which are modern, some of which are medieval. In this post, we explore some names that fit into this category.

• No. 12 name Charlotte was originally a Middle French feminine form of a diminutive of Charles. While feminine forms of Charles were never as common in the Middle Ages as masculine forms, we can still find quite a variety, including Carla (560), Carlotta (2340), Carlota (2499). Karolina (701), Carolina (1013), Caroline (1013), Charlene (2340), Carolyn (5666) are other feminine diminutive forms, though this we are not sure if they were used medievally or not. Similarly, popular modern spellings Karla (1649) and Carol (4684) don’t appear to have been used medievally.

  Modern diminutives Charlie (745), Charley (767), and Charly (4684) are now often used as a unisex name, though even a couple of decades again, they were primarily only masculine. The variants Charleigh (1887), Charlee (2674), and Charli (4684) are pretty strongly coded as feminine, and the modern diminutives Lottie (63), Carly (1234), Carrie (1649), Cari (1887), Loti (2187), Lotti (2187), Lotte (2674), Carlie (3985), Carley (4684), Karli (4684), Lotta (4684), Kari (5666), and Karlie (5666) have pretty much always been primarily feminine.

  Like many other popular names, there are a number of modern compounds, including Lottie-Rose (1711), Charlotte-Rose (2340), Charlee-Rose (5666), and Charlie-Rose (5666); Lottie-Mae (1887), Lotte-Mai (2674), and Lottie-May (3985); Lottie-Rae (2901); Lottie-Grace (3178); Lottie-Anne (5666); and Carla-Maria (5666) and Lottie-Marie (5666).

• No. 15 is a name that beautifully indicates how trends change over time; to my ear, Florence or Florance (4684) is the name of my grandparents’ generation; to my daughter, it’s a name of her generation! I have to wonder how the name was read in 16th C England — was it fresh and new and modern, or was harkening back to medieval French and Spanish romances?

  I would’ve thought that Florence was enough of a name by itself; but, no, the modern compounds Florence-Rose (3178); Florence-May (4684) and Florence-Mae (5666); and Florence-Ivy (5666) show up in the ONS data. The diminutive Flo (2090) is also modern.

• The name coming in at no. 16 is a modern diminutive: Evie. This can be a nickname for Eve or for Evelyn, a variant of Aveline. Many people are surprised to find out that Eve was moderately common in the Middle Ages, thinking that the ill reputation of the Biblical character would prevent religious Europeans from naming their children after her. But you’d be surprised what sorts of names people gave their kids…

  Unsurprisingly, there are a number of modern compounds using this diminutive — Evie-Rose (560); Evie-Mae (602), Evie-May (1436), and Evie-Mai (1711); Evie-Grace (952); Evie-Rae (1649) and Evie-Rey (5666); Evie-Jane (2499) and Evie-Jean (5666); Evie-Leigh (2901), Evie-Lea (3985), and Evie-Lee (5666); Evie-Marie (3985); Evie-Louise (4684); and Evie-Ann (5666). The variants Eevee (2187), Evee (2674), Eevie (2901), Eviee (3178), Evy (3985), Evi (4684), and Evey (5666) are also modern.

• Evelyn itself shows up (in this spelling) as name no. 19. Medieval forms of the name almost all retained the initial A-, which makes me wonder when the shift to E occurred (probably in the 16th C; that’s when all the vowels shifted in English!) It does mean that the wealth of variations of the name in the ONS data are pretty much all modern, including Evelina (574), Evalyn (701), Eveline (920), Evelynn (920), Evelin (1035), Evelyne (1083), Avleen (1526), Avalyn (2340), Evelynne (2499), Evlyn (2499), Evaline (3985), Evalina (4684), Evelyna (4684), Avaline (5666), Avalynn (5666), Evalyne (5666) Eveleen (5666), Evelinne (5666), and Evleen (5666) — but Aveline (3178) is medieval! — and especially including the compounds Evelyn-Rose (1272), Evelyn-Grace (3985), and Evelyn-Louise (5666).
• The name coming in at no. 21, Phoebe, has its roots in the Greek New Testament, but it was quite rare before the Protestant reformation in the 16th C, where it was occasionally used in France. Variants such as Pheobe (1887) and Phoebie (2674) and compounds like Phoebe-Rose (1711); Phoebe-Grace (2499); Phoebe-Rae (2499); Phoebe-Mae (2674) and Phoebe-May (3985); Phoebe-Louise (4684); and Phoebe-Leigh (5666) are modern, while Phebe (2901) is reflective of Middle French orthography.
• Name no. 22 brings us to an immense category of names: Nicknames of Elizabeth. There are so many of these, in addition to so many variants of the full name itself, that we’ll look at the full forms separately from the diminutives, and just focus on those here. How many modern nicknames of Elizabeth are found medievally? The ones in the following list in bold are all variants we’ve found before 1600: Elsie (22), Eliza (39), Betsy (145), Elise (216), Libby (248), Elisa (350), Betty (408), Elsa (437), Elissa (729), Beth (864), Elsi (1035), Lisa (1083), Betsie (1136), Elyse (1170), Bessie (1272), Elizah (1526), Elysia (1526), Elisia (1649), Liza (1711), Betsi (1887), Elis (1887), Eliz (1977), Betsan (2187), Eliska (2187), Libbie (2187), Elissia (2499), Elyssa (2499), Bettie (2674), Elyssia (2674), Lizzie (2901), Bess (3178), Beti (3178), Elsey (3178), Elysa (3518), Lissie (3518), Elize (3985), Elize (3985), Ellise (3985), Ellissia (3985), Ellsie (3985), Elyza (3985), Betsey (4684), Elysse (4684), Ilsa (4684), Lizzy (4684), Ellesse (5666), Ellisia (5666), Ellysia (5666) Elys (5666), Elza (5666), Elze (5666), Iliza (566), Ilse (5666), Lise (5666), Lissy (5666), and Liz (5666). It’s funny how even when a name has been in pretty much continuous use for more than a thousand years, you can still pick out trends in the diminutives.

  (None of the compounds are medieval, of course: Elsie-Mae (527), Elsie-May (720), Elsie-Mae (1314), Eliza-Mae (1788), Eliza-May (3178), Libby-Mae (3518), Betsy-Mae (3985), Betsy-May (4684), and Eliza-Mai (5666); Elsie-Rose (761), Eliza-Rose (1788), Betsy-Rose (3518), Elsa-Rose (4684), Betty-Rose (5666); Elsie-Rae (1136) and Betsy-Rae (4684); Eliza-Grace (2187), Elsie-Grace (2499), and Elsa-Grace (5666); Betsy-Lou (3178), Elsie-Lou (3518), and Betty-Lou (5666); Elsie-Jo (3985); Elsie-Marie (3985) and Lisa-Marie (4684); Elsie-Jayne (4684); Elsie-Leigh (4684) and Elsie-Lee (5666); Elsie-Ann (5666); and Elsie-Louise (5666).)

• Name no. 24, Alice, is definitely a classic name, with roots going all the way back to the 9th C (and probably even earlier). It’s popularity means there’s a wide variety of spellings both medievally and modern — of the following ONS forms, beyond Alice itself, the ones in bold are all medieval: Heidi (86), Alicia (195), Aliza (211), Alyssa (229), Alessia (268), Alisha (274), Alicja (314), Alys (497), Alyssia (519), Aleeza (523), Alisa (602), Alesha (701), Alissa (778), Alesia (1083), Alizah (1170), Ailsa (1343), Alysia (1436), Alison (1490), Alissia (1526), Alisia (1711), Alysha (1788), Alise (1887), Allie (1887), Aleesha (2090), Allison (2090), Ailish (2340), Alessa (2499), Aleesa (2674), Alizay (2674), Alyza (2674), Eilish (2901), Ally (3178), Alaiza (3518), Alaysia (3518), Alecia (3518), Aliz (3518), Alyzah (3518), Eilis (3518), Elicia (3518), Aleasha (3985), Aleezah (3985), Aleezay (3985), Aleisha (3985), Alizeh (3985), Allyssa (3985), Alicija (4684), Alishah (4684), Allyson (4684), Aleida (5666), Aleysha (5666), Allyssia (5666), Alycia (5666), Alysa (5666), and Alyse (5666). (There are also quite a number of medieval forms that are not included in the above list!)

  None of the following compounds are medieval: Alice-Rose (2340), Alyssa-Rose (3518), Alissia-Rose (4684), and Alyssia-Rose (5666); Alessia-Maria (3985); Alicia-Mae (3985), Alice-Mae (4684), Alice-May (4684); and Alice-Grace (5666).

• Name no. 32 is Mathilda, whose medieval variant forms go all the way from Mechthyldis to Mold. Of the modern variants found in the ONS, the ones in bold are also medieval: Matilda (31), Tilly (163), Tillie (587), Matylda (1059), Mathilda (1111), Matilde (1111), Tilda (1977), Mathilde (2187), Maude (2499), Maud (2674), and Matlida (5666). Unsurprisingly, none of the compounds are medieval: Tilly-Rose (1649), Matilda-Rose (2340), Tillie-Rose (3518); Tilly-Mae (2187), Tillie-Mae (2674), Tilly-May (3518), Tillie-Mai (3985), Matilda-May (5666), and Tilly-Mai (5666); Tillie-Ann and Tillyanna (both jointly 5666); and Tillie-Marie (5666).
• The other name that Evie can be a diminutive of first shows up in the ONS data at no. 33, Eva. This particular spelling was most commonly found in Latin contexts in the Middle Ages, but other variants, including Eve (183), show up in the vernacular, and we can also find the Latin form Ewa (1887) and the diminutive Evita (5666). But forms like Ieva (1526), Evaa (3518), and Evah (5666) and compounds like Eva-Rose (1136); Eva-Maria (1788), Eva-Marie (3518); Eva-Grace (2187); Eva-Mae (2340), Eva-May (2499); Eva-Rae (3985); Eva-Louise (4684); Evaleigh (4684), Evalie (4684); Eva-Jean (5666); Eva-Lily (5666); and Eva-Noor (5666) are (all together now!) distinctly modern…
• We said we’d treat Elizabeth and its variants separately from its diminutives, and we first run into this name at no. 47: Elizabeth (47). Other ONS forms include (those in bold are also medieval spellings) Elspeth (745), Elisabeth (864), Elisabeta (2090), Elsbeth (2187), Elisheva (3178), Elizaveta (3178), Elisabetta (3985), Elizabete (3985), Elzbieta (4684), Elisabella (5666), and Elisaveta (5666). Looking for an unusual form of Elizabeth for a future child? Check out the DMNES entry for many variants not shown here!

And this takes us through the classic names found in the top 50 girl’s names!

Looking into history: modern and medieval patterns

In this post we continue our tour of the ONS baby name data for England/Wales 2018, specifically the girls’ names.

As we noted in our previous post, moving outside the top 10, we start to get a wider variety of names, including names that have long medieval traditions and names that illustrate common modern naming patterns.

Among the latter is the penchant for naming children after flowers and plants, which we find in the names Poppy (11), Poppie (614), Poppi (1977), and the compounds Poppy-Rose (936); Poppy-May (1343), Poppy-Mae (1887), Poppy-Mai (2674), and Poppie-Mae (5666); Poppy-Rae (1649); Poppy-Louise (2674) and Poppie-Louise (5666); Poppy-Ann (3178); Poppy-Grace (3985); Poppy-Leigh (3985); Poppy Lou (3985); Poppy-Jane (4684); Poppie-Rae (5666); and Poppy-Marie (5666). But while the name is modern, the word is certainly medieval — it is from Middle English popy, popie, from Old English popiġ, popeġ, popæġ, which ultimately takes its origin from Late Latin papaver, and it was occasionally used in England as a byname.

Other modern flower and plant names include Ivy (14), Ivie (815), and its compounds Ivy-Rose (306); Ivy-Grace (902); Ivy-Mae (902), Ivy-May (1136), and Ivy-Mai (4684); Ivy-Rae (972); Ivy-Leigh (1788) and Ivy-Lee (5666); Ivy-Jean (2674) and Ivy-Jane (2901); Ivy-Willow (2901); Ivy-Belle (3518); Ivy-Marie (3985); Ivy-Alice (4684); Ivy-Ann (4684); Ivy-Beau (4684); Ivy-Lou (4684); Ivy-Louise (4684); Ivy-Blu (5666) and Ivy-Blue (5666); and Ivy-Rain (5666); as well as Willow (20) or Wyllow (5666) and its compounds Willow-Rose (864), Willow-Grace (1200), Willow-Mae (2090), Willow-Rae (2187), and Willow-Jade (4684); Daisy (28), Daisie (826), Daisey (3985), and Daisee (5666), and their compounds Daisy-Mae (574), Daisy-May (886), Daisy-Mai (1526), and Daisie-Mae (5666); Daisy-Rae (1711); Daisy-Anne (3518); Daisy-Leigh (3518); Daisy-Rose (3518); Daisy-Lou (4684); Daisie-Grace (5666); and Daisy-Belle (5666); Holly (56), Hollie (158), Holli (5666), and their compounds Holly-May (2674), Hollie-Mae (3518), Holly-Mae (4684), and Hollie-Mai (5666), Hollie-Rose and Holly-Rose (both jointly 3518); Jasmine (75), Yasmin (321), Jasmin (657), Yasmine (778), Jazmin (1136), Jazmine (1234), Yasmina (1393), Jasmina (1788), Yasmeen (2187), Yazmin (2187), Jasmeen (3518), Jazmyn (3518), Jasmyn (3873), Yasemin (3985), Jazzmin (5666), and the compound Jasmine-Rose (4684); Hazel (179); Primrose (213); Blossom (365); Meadow (378); Fern (427); Juniper (478); Rosemary (596), Rosemarie (2187), Rose-Marie (3518), Rosie-Marie (3985); Saffron (602); Dahlia (767), Dalia (990), and Daliah (3518); Heather (952); Azalea (1136); Bluebell (1136) and Bluebelle (1526); Delphine (1694); Camelia (1711) and Camellia (3985); Tigerlily (1887), Tiger-Lilly (4684), and Tiger-Lily (5666); Lilac (3178); Lotus (3518); Maple (3985), Posey (3985); Rhoda (3985); Dalya (4684); Cedar (5666); and Forest and Forrest (both jointly 5666). Then there are names like Aster (1887) which could be either a flower name, or the Latin word for ‘star’. (Either way, we haven’t found any examples of it used in the Middle Ages as a name.)

Not every flower name is purely modern, though — Violet (53) shows up in 16th C Scotland (though the spellings Violette (1586) and Violett (4684) aren’t witnessed…yet), and forms of Viola (815) were scattered throughout Europe (though the compounds Violet-Rose (1887), Violet-Rae (3985), Violet-Grace (4684), Violet-May (4684), Violet-Ivy (5666), and Violet-Vienna are purely modern.) We haven’t found any examples of Violeta (3178) or Violetta (3178) yet, but suspect it’s only a matter of time until we do some place in Italy. Viola and Violet are Latin in origin, but the Greek root of the flower name, Yolanda (3985) was also used as a name in the Middle Ages! The Latin word for flower, flor or flos, was also itself used as a name; of the modern variants found in the ONS data, we’ve only found Flora (323) medievally; while none of Fleur (342), Florrie (843), Flossie (2340), Flori (3518), Florie (3518), or Florina (3985) have yet turned up in our data, as you can see by inspecting the entry for the name, we’ve found quite a few very similar variants! The Welsh form Fflur (1887) would, however, be atypical of medieval naming patterns.

We can’t complete our discussion of this pattern without discussing two medieval names that look like flower names but aren’t (originally). The first is name no. 13, Lily, which was originally a nickname of Elizabeth. There is little doubt that the similarity to the flower is part of why the name continues to be so popular in modern times, even if the connection with its original root name has been lost. In addition to the no. 13 spelling, the ONS also has variants Lilly (67), Lillie (189), Lilia (408), Lili (587), Lillia (990), Lilli (2340), Lilla (2901), Lilya (2901), Lilliah (3178), Liliya (3518), Liliah (3985), and Lile (5666), and compounds Liliana (177), Lillian (330), Lilian (540), Lilianna (843), Lilliana (1013), Lilly-Ann (1314), Lily-Ann (1586), Lilly-Anne (1887), Lillianna (1977), Liliane (2499), Lily-Anne (2499), Lillie-Ann (2901), Lilyana (2901), Lilien (3518), Lilyanna (3518), Lillie-Anne (3985); Lily-Anna (3985), Lilly-Anna (4684), Lillyanna (5666), Lillyanne (5666), Lilyann (5666), and Lilyanne (5666); Lily-Rose (363), Lilly-Rose (472), Lillie-Rose (1111), Lilia-Rose (3985), Lilyrose (3985), Lillia-Rose (4684), and Lilley-Rose (5666); Lily-Mae (467), Lilly-Mae (545), Lilly-May (657), Lily-May (729), Lillie-Mae (791), Lily-Mai (1436), Lilly-Mai (1887), Lillie-May (2499), Lillie-Mai (3178), Lillymay (3985), and Lilymay (5666); Lily-Grace (1272), Lilly-Grace (2187), and Lillie-Grace (2674); Lily-Rae (1586), Lilly-Rae (2187), and Lillie-Rae (2340); Lilly-Marie (3518), Lily-Marie (3518), and Lillie-Marie (3985); Lilly-Jane (3985), Lily-Jane (3985), Lilly-Jayne, Lilly-Jean, and Lily-Jayne (all jointly 5666); Liliarna (4684) and Lilliarna (5666); Lily-Belle and Lilybelle (both jointly 4684); Lillie-Jo (5666); Lilly-June (5666); Lilly-Louise (5666); and Lily-Ella (5666). (Geez. Whoever knew there were so many ways to combine Lily and Anne into one name?).

And the other name is Rose [yes, we know the link doesn’t work yet; it will be available in the next edition], which everyone thinks is from the name of the flower, but is actually of Germanic origin (though the similarity of the name to Latin rosa ‘rose’ influenced later spellings, and, as will Lily, contributed to the continued popularity of the name). In the ONS data, the diminutive Rosie comes in the most popular, at no. 26, with Rose itself being no. 55 and Rosa at no. 156. Both of these latter spellings are found in the Middle Ages, though the variant Roza (1526) is not typical of medieval spellings (we’ve found one instance of Roze in 16th C France). And while we haven’t yet found Rosie, Rosy (2340), or Rosey (3178), we have found Rosye! The diminutive Rosella (2901) is also medieval. Looking at the compounds, Rosanna (574) is — perhaps surprisingly — a medieval name, occurring once in London in 1222 (we haven’t yet finished the entry for this name); the spellings Roseanna (972), Roseanne (1977), Rosie-Ann (3518), Rose-Anne (4684), Rosie-Anne (4684), Rosanne (5666), and Roseann (5666), most influenced by the flower name, are more modern. Other compounds, such as Rosie-Mae, Rosie-May (both joint 1314), and Rosie-Mai (2499); Rosabella (1649), Rosabelle (2090), and Rosabel (5666); Rosie-Rae (3518); Rosie-Grace (4684); Rosie-Jane (4684); and Rosie-Louise (5666), and the diminutives Rosina (1343), Rosetta (2340), and Rozina (5666) are all modern as far as we can tell.

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…

How medieval is “Your Medieval Name”?

There’s a meme (due to www.abbeytournament.com) that’s been circulating around Facebook sporadically recently, allowing people to generate their “medieval name” according to their birthday. You’ve probably seen it:

The first time it came up in a group that a couple DMNES staff are members of — a group not devoted to either the Middle Ages or to names — one editorial assistant put out a cry for “HALP”, and another swooped in with documentation. Now every time that meme comes around, we’re reminded of that thread, and finally decided to make a blog post out of it!

So, how medieval is “Your Medieval Name”? Actually, pretty medieval!

The feminine names are almost all good solid choices for late medieval England or France:

• Milicent – Yes, medieval!
• Alianor – Yes, medieval!
• Ellyn – Yes, medieval!
• Sybbyl – Yes, medieval!
• Jacquelyn – Yes, medieval!
• Catherine – Yes, medieval!
• Elizabeth – Yes, medieval!
• Thea – Possibly medieval but we’ve not found any evidence for it yet.
• Lucilla – Sort of medieval: R.G. Collingwood and R.P. Wright, The Roman Inscriptions of Britain I: Inscriptions on Stone — Epigraphic Indexes (Gloucester: Alan Sutton, 1983), RIB 1288 and 1271, note one Iulia Lucilla in a first- to fourth-century British inscription (in this name, Lucilla appears as a cognomen), and another Romano-British inscription mentioning a woman known only as [L]ucilla.
• Mary – Yes, medieval!
• Arabella – Yes, medieval: E.G. Withycombe, The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). s.n. Arabel(la) has a 13th C Latin example of the name.
• Muriel – Yes, medieval: A variety of forms can be found in P.H. Reaney & R.M. Wilson, A Dictionary of English Surnames (London: Routledge, 1991).
• Isabel – Yes, medieval!
• Angmar – Um, no.
• Isolde – Yes, medieval!
• Eleanor – Yes, medieval!
• Josselyn – Yes, medieval, but not as a feminine name.
• Margaret – Yes, medieval!
• Luanda – Um, no.
• Ariana – Not medieval: It’s a modern Italian form of the Greek name Ariadne, found in mythology, and in the Greek and Byzantine empires.
• Clarice – Yes, medieval!
• Idla – Possibly medieval. It appears that this googlebook has a Polish example of the name, but we have not been able to get more than a snippet view, to be able to confirm the date and context.
• Claire – Yes, medieval!
• Rya – Um, no.
• Joan – Yes, medieval!
• Clemence – Yes, medieval!
• Morgaine – Yes, medieval, but only used in literature, and not by real people.
• Edith – Yes, medieval!
• Nerida – Definitely not.
• Ysmay – Yes, medieval: Withycombe (op. cit.) has an example of this spelling.

The masculine names don’t fare quite so well.

• Ulric – Yes, medieval!
• Baird – Yes, medieval, but only as a surname, not as a given name. It is derived from Old French baiard or baiard ‘bay-colored’.
• Henry – Yes, medieval!
• Oliver – Yes, medieval
• Fraden – Possibly medieval, but only as a surname, not as a given name.
• John – Yes, medieval!
• Geoffrey – Yes, medieval!
• Francis – Yes, medieval!
• Simon – Yes, medieval!
• Fendel – Not medieval to my knowledge, either as a given name or a surname.
• Frederick – Yes, medieval!
• Thomas – Yes, medieval!
• Arthur – Yes, medieval!
• Cassius – More Roman than medieval.
• Richard – Yes, medieval!
• Matthew – Yes, medieval!
• Charles – Yes, medieval!
• Reynard – Yes, medieval!
• Favian – Sort of medieval, if you take it as a variant of Fabian.
• Philip – Yes, medieval!
• Zoricus – Not medieval to our knowledge, but it could possibly turn up at some point in future research.
• Carac – Not medieval
• Sadon – Not medieval
• Alistair – Medieval, but not as the nominative form of the name, only as the genitive.
• Caine – Yes, medieval, but only as a surname, not as a given name.
• Gawain – Yes, medieval!
• Godfrey – Yes, medieval!
• Mericus – More Roman than medieval.
• Rowley – Yes, medieval, but only as a surname, not as a given name.
• Brom – Yes, medieval, but only as a surname, not as a given name.
• Cornell – Yes, medieval, but only as a surname, not as a given name.

All the surnames are fine for 14th-16th C English, except these:

• Cabrera – This is Spanish, and would only have been used by women; the masculine form is Cabrero.
• Coastillon – Not quite sure what this is but it looks like a misspelling of some French place name.

Traditional names are still the most popular

The highlight of the onomastician’s calendar is always the publication of the babyname statistics for various countries — when the US Social Security baby name data for the previous year is released (usually in May), you can see the excitement sweep across the onomastic portion of the internet. (Even those of us who focus on medieval names rather than modern names will still block out an evening to do nothing but scroll through the new lists!). Yesterday, the BBC reported on data from the Office for National Statistics with the top 10 boys’ and girls’ names in England and Wales for 2016.

Despite the plurality and diversity of naming options facing modern parents, especially in anglophone countries where it is common for parents to adopt names from many different cultural contexts, the most popular names tend to be relatively conservative, in the sense that they do not change much from year to year (though they change enough that generational and regional trends are easy to see); they tend to favor “standard” spellings of names; and they tend to be names with a long pedigree. Names like Daenarys and Khaleesi may have made it into top 1000 lists for both the US and the UK, and they may be climbing steadily, but it will be a long while before they’ve been around long enough to make it into the top 10. (If Martin’s books are still being read at that point, a few centuries in the future, he should be well pleased!)

But just how long a pedigree do the names in the top 10 for England and Wales have? That’s the focus of today’s post!

Top 10 girls’ names in England and Wales

1. Olivia: Olivia reflects the modern tendency to prefer polysyllabic, Latinate, explicitly gender-marked forms of names. The name is often cited as being an invention of Shakespeare, but that is manifestly not true; not only did he not invent it, he was not the instigator of its use in England. Forms of this name have been used in England from at least the 13th C onwards, and this particular spelling can be found in Latin documents in 1296 and 1321. On the continent, the name was used even early, from at least the 9th C in France.
2. Amelia: Amelia sounds like it follows the same Latinate pattern as Olivia, due to its similarity to the Roman gens name Aemilia, but in fact it derives from Proto-Germanic *amal ‘vigor, bravery’, and could have been used as a diminutive of any of various names beginning with this element (such as Amalhilde, Amalgilde, Amaltrude, or Amalswintha).
3. Emily: Now this name is the one derived from Aemilia. While the masculine form Emil was moderately popular medievally, Emily was always uncommon. In England, the name is best known, in the Middle English spelling Emelye, as the princess in Chaucer’s “The Knight’s Tale”.
4. Isla: Isla as a name, and especially as a feminine name, is distinctly modern. It derives from the name of an island, and the pattern of naming children after geographical regions such as islands, cities, duchies, and states is quite recent (relatively speaking).
5. Ava: Ava is a strange name in that we have a pretty long history of its usage — particular in the diminutive form Aveline — but other than being able to identify it as Germanic in origin, it is not clear further what its linguistic roots or etymology are.
6. Isabella: Isabella fits neatly in with Olivia as the Latin form of a common medieval name, Isabel, which itself arose from another common medieval name, Elizabeth. Even as late as the 16th C, one and the same woman could be recorded as Isabel(la) and Elizabeth interchangeably, and hybrid forms like Elsabell can also be found in that era.
7. Lily: It’s almost overdetermined that Lily would appear in the “most popular” girls’ names of the present era. The name both reflects the penchant illustrated by Isla above to name children after naturalistic elements, and it bears its original usage not from the flower but from a nickname of Elizabeth, and is still sometimes nowadays used to honor relatives named Elizabeth.
8. Jessica: Jessica is another name, like Olivia, which is thought to be invented by Shakespeare but wasn’t actually. Forms of this name were used by Jewish women living in England before the expulsion in 1290.
9. Ella: This trim, spare name might hearken to the -bella names, but it is another name of Germanic origin, deriving from Proto-Germanic *allaz ‘all, whole, every’. It was rare, but has been used since at least the 15th C.
10. Mia: Mia is the one outlier of the entire bunch; it’s use is prettty much purely modern. It can be used as a nickname of various names, including Mary, Amelia, and Emily, and is identical with the Italian and Spanish word ‘mine’, from Latin mea. Mea, now, does have a long history of usage — but as a nickname of Bartholomea.

Top 10 boys’ names in England and Wales

1. Oliver: With Olivia number 1 for the girl’s, Oliver might strike many people as simply the masculine equivalent — but the truth is much more complex. It may be a derivative of Latin oliva just as Olivia is, but it could equally well be a form of Olaf developing in Normandy, or a form of Aylward via Alvaro spellings. Whatever it’s origin, the name has a long history, showing in Belgium, France, England, and Ireland by the end of the 12th C, spreading outward from there in the 13th and 14th centuries, and being pretty well established across Europe by the end of the 16th C.
2. Harry: What do you get when you take a Germanic name pronounced by Frenchmen and write it down by an English speaker? Why, Harry of course! Due to the numerous kings and saints named various forms of Henry, it’s no surprise that this is one of the most popular masculine names in all of European history.
3. George: No doubt about the pedigree of this name; the eponymous saint that slew the dragon and kickstarted the name’s popularity lived in the 3rd-4th C. It was never a hugely popular name in England before the 16th C, but from then on, it has been well-established, getting extra boosts from a couple of kings.
4. Jack: How Jack developed as a nickname of John is a perennial question, and one we’ve discussed before. In our own data, we have examples from the 14th C onwards.
5. Jacob: After John, Jacob is probably the most popular medieval man’s name of Hebrew origin — though as with other names of Biblical origin, Jacob was rare before the 12th C. The majority of the few 9th C examples we have were of clerics or people closely associated with the church, where the use of this name instead of a name of Germanic origin was a strong signal of the family’s Christianity. By the end of the 16th C, James was perhaps slightly more popular than Jacob in England, but both remained strong contenders.
6. Noah: This Old Testament name came into use amongst English and French Protestants in the 16th C, but it was also used occasionally before then, influenced by the medieval mystery plays.
7. Charlie: This name has a relatively short history in England; before the 16th C, it was quite rare, and many of our pre-1500 examples in England are actually foreign visitors. The name was, however, vastly popular on the continent due to its most famous bearer, Charlemagne. It’s not clear when the diminutive form Charlie developed; we haven’t yet found any pre-1600 examples yet. Thus, of all the names in this list, Charlie can be taken to be the most “modern”.
8. Muhammad: Muhammad is clearly a name with a long history, but many people probably think that history is almost exclusively Middle Eastern — but that is because people often tend to forget how much Arabic settlement, trade, and migration there was during the medieval period. In the 1510 census of Valencia, seven men named Mahomat are listed; in Italy, a “Saracen” named Machemet is recorded in 1160. And this is to not even delve into the records from al-Andalus, where this name was extremely popular, accounting for over 30% of the men.
9. Thomas: As with other names of Biblical origin, Thomas first gets its purchase in England in the 12th century; from then on, it was consistently and continuously one of the most popular names in the country.
10. Oscar: This name has two distinct origins. First, and most commonly, it is a compound of Old English ōs, Old High German *ans, ans-, ansi-, Old Icelandic áss, óss ‘god, deity’ + Old English gār, Old High German, Old Saxon gēr, Old Icelandic geirr ‘spear’. The name was quite popular in France and Germany in the 9th-12th C, but it mostly fell out of use after that. The modern popularity of the name is probably due more to the second origin it has, Irish os ‘deer’ + cara ‘friend’. This name was vanishingly rare in medieval Ireland, but was used by James Mcpherson in The Works of Ossian (1765), through which (via Napoleon and his grandson) the name entered the Swedish royal line. This combination of Irish heritage and Scandinavian foreignness makes it no surprise that the name is as popular in England as it is today, even though there was a centuries-long gap in its usage.

So there you have it! Unsurprisingly, the most popular boys’ and girls’ names in England and Wales last year are strongly rooted in a long historical tradition in which many of these names have been amongst the most popular for millennia.

Everything old is new again, part 2

So, who’s up for another round of everything old is new again, aka “names generated by a neural network on twitter that are actual medieval names”?

Aulia

— neural names (@neuralnames) August 15, 2017

Aulia is a feminine name found in Rome in 1527.

Sania

— neural names (@neuralnames) August 15, 2017

Sania is a feminine name found in Iberia between ~1119 and 1150.

Arnall

— neural names (@neuralnames) August 15, 2017

Arnall is a Catalan form of Arnold found in the 12th century.

Lys

— neural names (@neuralnames) August 14, 2017

Lys is a Dutch diminutive of Elizabeth found in Leuven at the end of the 16th C.

Vinne

— neural names (@neuralnames) August 13, 2017

Vinne is a Middle Low German nickname of Winrich found in Estona in 1592.

Ales

— neural names (@neuralnames) August 13, 2017

Ales is a popular 16th C English spelling of Alice.

Sabel

— neural names (@neuralnames) August 12, 2017

Danel

— neural names (@neuralnames) August 8, 2017

Danel is a Dutch form of Daniel found in London at the end of the 16th C.
Sabel is a nickname of Sabine found in 16th C England.

Alsen

— neural names (@neuralnames) August 9, 2017

Alsen is a 16th C English nickname of Alice, popular in Cornwall.

Laria

— neural names (@neuralnames) August 5, 2017

The Italian feminine name Laria is found in Bergamo between 1265 and 1339.

Asa

— neural names (@neuralnames) July 31, 2017

The Hebrew name Asa was used by French Protestants in the 16th C.