ACADEMY OF SAINT GABRIEL REPORT 1751 http://www.s-gabriel.org/1751 ************************************ ************************************************* * * * NOTE: Later research turned up additional * * information relevant to this report. * * See the end of the letter for details. * * * ************************************************* From: "Brian M. Scott" 25 Jun 1999 Greetings from the Academy of S. Gabriel! You asked whether the name , which you found at in a list of knights who are supposed to have accompanied William the Conqueror to England, is suitable for an 11th century Norman male. You also asked whether it was a given name or a surname. NOTE: After writing this report, we learned that the list of Conquest knights is spurious. Before I deal with the name itself, I'd like to clarify some terminology. Many people understand the term 'surname' in the modern sense of 'an inherited family name'. In the 11th century, however, such inherited family names were extremely rare. When a person had more than one name, the second was generally descriptive of that particular person, like a modern nickname. To emphasize this difference from modern practice it's customary to use the term 'byname' for this sort of additional name. We haven't found conclusive evidence either way, but we think that was a pet form of a given name. The Franks had used a number of names, like , that began with an old Germanic element related to the English word . Over time and in different dialects this element was simplified in various ways, often all the way to or even . One simplification, however, was to , as in 965. [2] The first part of such names was sometimes used as a name in its own right, and as late as 1107 we find this element so used in the form . The <-us> is a Latin grammatical ending tacked on by scribes writing in Latin; the actual name was , of which would have been a possible alternative spelling. It seems likely that is derived from this name by addition of the diminutive suffix <-ot>. This suffix was a variant of the more common <-et>, derived from the Latin diminutive suffix <-ittus>. Though of Latin origin, it was also used with originally Germanic names. [4] Sources from the 11th century are usually too thoroughly Latinized to show such diminutives, but we did find an example, , from c.1110 in Anglo-Norman England. [5] This tends to confirm that the spelling , unlike many in the list that you found, has not been substantially modernized. Some further support for this derivation of comes from a similar name recorded in Domesday Book: may well be another pet form of some name derived from the element . [6] In post-Conquest England another derivation of the name is possible. The name (or ), probably borrowed from Old Norse , occurs several times in Domesday Book and remained in use at least through the 12th century. [7, 8] With the addition of the Old French diminutive suffix <-ot> this would of course have become . It is possible that was actually a byname in the list that you found, but we think this much less likely. As a byname it would most probably be a diminutive of Old French 'radish', from Latin 'turnip'. This word is found continuously from 1322 on and in an isolated instance (in the form ) in the 13th century, and it is probably the basis of the place-name 1168. [9, 10] While it's worth noting that these citations are all later than the 11th century, this probably isn't a serious problem: the word apparently has a continuous history from Latin, so its absence from 11th and 12th century records probably just reflects the nature of the surviving records. A much more important consideration is the fact that even as late as the 11th century bynames were still quite rare: most people used just one name, a given name. A byname meaning something like 'little turnip' or 'little radish' is certainly possible, either as a nickname or referring to a place so named -- that's essentially the meaning of the place-name mentioned above. However, since such nicknames are rare until a bit later, and since has plausible derivations as a given name, we think that the odds favor it having been a given name in the list that you found. Irrespective of its actual origin in that instance, it is certainly a plausible given name for a late-11th century Anglo-Norman. Arval Benicoeur and Maridonna Benvenuti also contributed to this letter. We hope that it has answered your question to your satisfaction; if anything isn't clear, please write us again. For the Academy, Talan Gwynek 25 June 1999 ===== References: [1] Mu"ller, Gunter. Studien zu den Theriophoren Personennamen der Germanen (Ko"ln: Bo"hlau Verlag, 1970); pp.52-5. [Here and stand for u-umlaut and o-umlaut respectively.] [2] Morlet, Marie-The/re\se. Les Noms de Personne sur le Territoire de l'Ancienne Gaule du VIe au XIIe Sie\cle, Vol. I (Paris: E/ditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1968); p.134. [The slash and backslash represent an acute or grave accent respectively over the preceding letter.] [3] Morlet, op. cit., p.135. [4] Morlet, Marie-The/re\se. E/tude d'anthroponymie picarde, les noms de personne en Haute Picardie aux XIIIe, XIVe, XVe sie\cles (Amiens: Muse/e de Picardie, 1967); pp.25-6. [5] Clark, Cecily. 'Battle c.1110: An Anthroponymist Looks at an Anglo-Norman New Town', in _Words, Names and History: Selected Writings of Cecily Clark_, Peter Jackson, ed. (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1995); p.239. [6] von Feilitzen, O. The Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book (Uppsala: 1937); s.n. . [7] von Feilitzen. op. cit. s.n. . [8] Fellows Jensen, Gillian. Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire (Copenhagen: 1968); s.n. . [9] Robert, Paul. Dictionnaire alphabe/tique & analogique de la langue Franc,ais (Paris: S.N.L., 1973); s.v. . [10] Morlet, Marie-The/re\se. Dictionnaire e/tymologique des noms de famille (Librairie Acade/mique Perrin, 1997); s.n. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Addendum, Arval, 22 Jul 2004: See also report 1779 for more discussion of .