ACADEMY OF SAINT GABRIEL REPORT 2161 http://www.s-gabriel.org/2161 ************************************ From: Lisa and Ken Theriot 6 Nov 2000 Greetings from the Academy of Saint Gabriel! You asked about appropriate names for a woman living in England between 1500 and 1600, and you specifically inquired about the names , , , , and . Here is the information that we have found. You mentioned that you used a name-your-baby book as a source. Not all dictionaries of names are good sources for medieval re-creation. In fact, most of them aren't. A name-your-baby book, for example, is written for the purpose of giving parents long lists of varied, attractive names to consider. The author is probably not interested in how old the name is or how it was spelled in the 16th century; he's only interested in listing names. He will copy names from any useful source and might make up names to fill gaps in his lists. A name selected from a name-your-baby book is probably not a medieval name; even if by chance it is, you need to check a more scholarly source to verify appropriate spellings and areas where the name was used. Unfortunately, all but one of the names you asked about are not appropriate for your period and culture. is a very old name and an excellent choice for your period; but we recommend against using any of the other names. , as you noted, is a common English word that indicates a particular herb. We have not found it recorded as a given name except for modern usage, and we believe it is strictly a modern name. Plant names in general, with a few exceptions such as , were not popular until well after our period. is a modern Jewish name, coined from the Hebrew word for "tree". [1] We found no reason to believe that it would have been used before modern times, so we recommend against this choice. We find recorded as an English surname as early as 1185; [2] however, we have not found it recorded as a given name before modern times and we do not believe it was used. You might be interested in a similar name, or , which we find recorded as a given name in England in 1260. [2] This name is probably a form of , and we believe it is pronounced \PIH-p@\, where \@\ represents the sound of in and . is a biblical name; it refers to one of the Midianite chiefs slain by the Israelites in the wilderness, and is accordingly a masculine name. [3] Contrary to common belief, most names from the Bible, especially of minor figures, were not used during the medieval period. The stock of biblical names in use was actually fairly small, and consisted mostly of commonly revered saints. We find no instances of this given name in common use before 1600, especially for a woman; we recommend against this choice. is a common Spanish word meaning "laugh". We do not believe it was used as a given name before modern times, and certainly not in England. Your own name, , is an excellent choice for your period. We find it recorded in Buckinghamshire in 1550. [4] It derives originally from the Continental Germanic name , which over time became and finally . [5] By the 16th century, we find more instances of the name recorded as , , and the like, but and are still found. [6] or would be a fine name for your period. 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. I was assisted in researching and preparing this letter by Arval Benicoeur, Aryanhwy merch Catmael, Dietmar von Straubing, Juliana de Luna, Talan Gwynek, and Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn. For the Academy, Adelaide de Beaumont 6 November 2000 References: [1] Hanks, Patrick, and Flavia Hodges, _A Dictionary of First Names_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, 1990), s.n. Ilana. [2] Reaney, P. H., & R. M. Wilson, _A Dictionary of English Surnames_ (London: Routledge, 1991; Oxford University Press, 1995), s.nn. Piper, Pipp. [3] Numbers 31:8; Joshua 13:21. [4] Mari Elspeth nic Bryan, "Given Names in Chesham, 1538-1600/1" (WWW: J. Mittleman, 1999) [URL:http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/mari/chesham/], s.n. Mathilda, accessed 6 November 2000. [5] Withycombe, E.G., _The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names_, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), s.n. Matilda. [6] It is also possible that as with other names, the recorded form and the spoken form differ. Just as we would expect someone recorded in 1400 as to use the pronunciation of the name in common use, a 16th century woman whose name was recorded as might be known as . We believe that either the pronunciation \m@-TIL-d@\, where \@\ represents the sound of in and , or \MAWD\ is appropriate. The name was never pronounced \m@-THIL-d@\, however, as you feared might be the case.