ACADEMY OF SAINT GABRIEL REPORT 1704 http://www.s-gabriel.org/1704 ************************************ ************************************************* * * * NOTE: Later research turned up additional * * information relevant to this report. * * See the end of the letter for details. * * * ************************************************* 8 Jul 1999 From: (Josh Mittleman) Greetings from the Academy of Saint Gabriel! You wanted to know if is an authentic medieval Englishwoman's name, and said that you were willing to drop your household name, , for registration if necessary. Before I start, I'd like to clarify the service that the Academy offers. We try to help Societyfolk in choosing and using names that fit the historical cultures they are trying to re-create. Our research can sometimes be used to support submissions to the College of Arms, but that is not our goal and our results are often incompatible with the College's needs. If your main goal is to register a particular name, then we may not be able to help you. *** See below for a revised opinion of *** Unfortunately, we believe that the name that you found in reference [1] is an error: We have not found this name in any other reference and it is remarkably similar to a known name, , which is recorded as in 1185 and in 1279 [2]. In the first of these examples, the 'u' represents the sound \v\; this was a common scribal variation in period England. The name was pronounced \LIN-nih-v@\ or \LIN-y@-v@\, where \@\ represents the schwa sound of the 'a' in . appears to be a misreading or perhaps a mis-writing of this name. We therefore cannot recommend as an authentic medieval name, and suggest that you consider or instead. Alternatively, you might prefer the similar-sounding name 1103, also recorded as 1209, 1250, etc. [3]. Here again, the u's represent \v\, so the name is pronounced \LIV-@-v@\. We're assuming you are interested in a 12th or 13th century name, which is when was used. Unfortunately, is not an appropriate surname for an Englishwoman of that period. It derives from a Middle English phrase meaning "son of Edrich", and was used literally in this period. That is to say, a person would have been called only if he were the son of a man named . (The belief that indicated bastardy is incorrect.) A 12th or 13th century woman obviously would not have called herself anyone's son. If you want to use and to have a 12th or 13th century English name, then you might consider , which would have been understood in that period to mean "Linyeve, daughter of Edrich". The same person might have been identified in a Latin record as . is a fine name for your father in this period: We've found and in 1275 [2]. If you particularly want to use , you might consider a later-period name. After 1400 or so, the English increasingly used inherited family names, just as we do in modern English, and many surnames came to be used as family names. was not used much after 1300, though, so you'll want to choose a different first name if you move your persona into the last centuries of our period. would be a reasonable 15th century name. In this case, your surname would simply have been inherited from your father, who might have been named . Your household name presents some other problems. It is Gaelic while the rest of your name was English, and the two languages were not mixed together this way in period names. More fundamentally, means "son of Aodh", so it is doubly inappropriate for a woman whose father is named . The practice of using surnames to indicate clan membership is a modern development. In period Gaelic, surnames were only used literally: Only the son of Aodh was called . Aodh's daughters were called "daughter of Aoidh". In other words, not only is this surname incompatible with the language of the rest of your name, its meaning contradicts the rest of your name! We hope that this letter has been useful to you, and that you will not hesitate to write again if any part was unclear or if you have further questions. Research and commentary on this letter was provided by Talan Gwynek, Walraven van Nijmegen, Effrick neyn Kenneoch, Juliana de Luna, and Blaise de Cormeilles. For the Academy, Aryanhwy merch Catmael & Arval Benicoeur 8 Jul 1999 --------------------------------------- References: [1] Nicolaa de Bracton, "A Statistical Survey of Given Names in Essex Co., England, 1182-1272", Known World Heraldic Symposium Proceedings 1995 (SCA Inc.). http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5145/names.html [2] Reaney, P. H., & R. M. Wilson, _A Dictionary of English Surnames_ (London: Routledge, 1991; Oxford University Press, 1995), s.nn. Linney, Edrich. [3] Talan Gwynek, "Feminine Given Names in _A Dictionary of English Surnames_" (SCA: KWHS Proceedings, 1994; WWW: J. Mittleman, 1997). http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/talan/reaney/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Correction, 11 Mar 2003, Arval, Talan, and Julie: On reconsideration, we have concluded that we were too quick to dismiss . It is certainly unusual, but we can't say that it is certainly an error. It certainly represents a Middle English rendering of the Old English name , which is also the source of the 1185 mentioned here. Most Middle English descendents of Old English names in <-gifu> retain the \v\, but 1278 from parallels from (see ref. [2] s.nn. Eadie, Ayliff, Brightiff, Goodeve, Queeniff, Wolvey). The question remains whether was a scribal error or a genuine record of an unusual form. If the latter, it is unclear whether the final <-a> was a Latinization or a genuine part of the spoken name. Correction, 23 Aug 2004, Aryanhwy and Arval: fixed a typo in the previous note.