ACADEMY OF SAINT GABRIEL REPORT 2687 http://www.s-gabriel.org/2687 ************************************ From: "Lisa and Ken Theriot" 12 Jun 2003 Greetings from the Academy of Saint Gabriel! You asked whether the given name was appropriate for an English woman living between 1000 and 1350. You also asked about bynames based on midwifery or for someone who lived on a wooded hill. Here is the information we have found. is an Anglo-Norman spelling of the Old English name whose standardized form is <{AE}{dh}elgy{dh}> [1, 4]. Here {AE} stands for the A-E-ligature formed by joining the two letters so that the right leg of the is the vertical stroke of the , and {dh} stands for the letter , which can be described as a backward <6> with a short stroke through the upper part. [0] This name was originally pronounced something like \A-dhel-gu"th\, where \A\ stands for the sound of the in , \dh\ for the sound of in and , \u"\ for the sound of u-umlaut in German 'to feel', and \th\ for the sound of in . It is likely, however, that by the beginning of your period in the 11th century this name had come to be pronounced something like \EY-@l-yeeth\ in many Old English dialects, where \EY\ stands for the sound of in the word , and \@\ stands for the sound of in and . After the Norman Conquest the pronunciation seems to have been simplified even further, to judge by the various Middle English spellings. These spellings include: [1] Ailiet, 1086 Alid, 1086 Alith, 1086 Ailad, 1086 Ailid, 1086 Ailith, 1086 These spellings are from the same document, called the Domesday Book, which was a list of properties in England created by the Normans after the conquest. Many names recorded in the Domesday Book are transcriptions of Old English names which the Normans might or might not have heard pronounced; accordingly we don't believe they are good indicators of pronunciation. These entries all refer to the same person, someone who was living before the conquest, so we believe that all represent something like \EYL-yeeth\ or \EY-leeth\ [4]. Other spelling include [1]: Ailhiet, 1202 Aylyetta, 1224 These spellings probably represent a pronunciation something like \EYL-yit\ or \EYL-yayt\. (The final in the last version is a scribal addition to fit Latin grammatical requirements and isn't pronounced.) Pronunciations like these with a \y\ sound after the \L\ seem to have persisted, at least occasionally, into the 13th century, but they were apparently less common than those without, which are probably represented by the following spellings [1]: Ailed, 1198 Aileth, 1198 Ailleth, 1198, 1207 Ailith, 1207 Ailid, 1228 Ayled, 1228 Ayleth, 1332 Ailleda, 1200 Ailitha, 1202 Ailletha, 1202 (Note that the last three, like above, have been Latinized by addition of final ; here again it is purely a written form.) These probably represent the following pronunciations: \EY-leeth\ (Ailith, Ailitha) \EY-leet\ (Ailid) \EY-layth\ (Aileth, Ailleth, Ayleth, Ailletha) \EY-layt\ (Ailed, Ayled, Ailleda) The first two are suitable for the dialects of the East Midlands and North of England; the last two, for the South. Those that end with \th\ retain the native pronunciation; those that end with \t\ show Norman influence. As you can see, only one of these citations is later than 1228. Native Old English names largely disappeared from use around the middle of the 13th century, and even earlier among the upper classes [8]. After that date they are very rare, apart from the tiny handful that survived down to modern times (like , from Old English ). In particular, this name must have been quite rare after the early 13th century, and the 1332 citation of is therefore quite unusual. It does show that the name was in at least sporadic use throughout your period, but there is no doubt that it is much more characteristic of the first 250 years or so. The particular spelling is a fine choice for the first century or so after the Norman Conquest, but the available sources suggest that it would be a bit unusual after that. , , , and are fairly characteristic spellings of the four main pronunciation variants listed above, with as a likely variant in the 13th century. As we mentioned in earlier correspondence, the first use that we've found of a byname indicating the occupation of midwife is after your period. Many occupational terms in common use in the modern world didn't have equivalents in all medieval languages: If the activities involved had not yet become the preserve of specialists, then the culture may not have developed any special word to designate them. If almost every woman acted as a midwife, then there may not have been a separate concept of "midwife" as a particular occupation, and thus no need for a word to describe it. We find recorded in 1381 [2]. It's unlikely that such a byname appeared much before that; the earliest record we've found of the term in English appeared in 1303 [3]. We can't recommend a byname indicating the occupation of midwife before the 14th century, but a name like is possible for the very end of your period. It would be quite an unusual combination, though, as we have no firm evidence that the given name survived as late as 1350, nor that the byname was in use as early as 1350. Your other idea for a byname, indicating that you lived on a wooded hill, is much more likely. We find the following [4]: de Wuduhull', c. 1227 de Wodhill, 1275 de Wodhull, 1325 Note that the apostrophe indicates a missing character, probably an . These are all documentary forms from Latin records; at the very least, a spoken form would not include Latin 'of'. The spoken Middle English form would depend both on your precise period and the region of England in which you lived. For the last century or so of your period we believe or was the most likely form for a woman living in the North and the East Midlands, the most likely in the West Midlands and Southwest, and in Kent and the Southeast [5, 6]. We believe these spellings would reflect pronunciations approximately as follows: or : \AH-t@ WUD-hil\ : \AH-t@ WU-d@-HU"L-l@\ : \AH-t@ WU-d@-HEL-l@\ The form appropriate for the second half of the 12th century is the most difficult to pin down. We believe is appropriate everywhere except in the North of England where the final <-e> in might already have been dropped. In the Southwest we believe the likely preposition was , pronounced \AHT th@n\, in the later 12th c. and , pronounced \AHT-t@n\, in the early 13th c. (Here {th} represents the letter thorn [0].) The same was probably true for most of the Southeast except Kent. In the East Midlands the preposition was more likely , pronounced \AHT th@\, for the later 12th and earlier 13th c.; in the Southwest this form existed alongside the ones already mentioned. It was probably also used in Kent in the 12th c., alongside a more conservative , pronounced \AHT thah\ [7]. For the 11th c. we can recommend a late Old English form, <{AE}{dh}elgy{dh} {ae}t {th}{ae}m Wuduhylle>; in East Anglia, where the name was most common, this might have been pronounced roughly \EY-@l-yeeth at tham WU-d@-HIL-l@\, with \U\ as in . Note that this form would only appear in English-language records. We hope this letter has been useful. Please write us again if any part of it has been unclear or if you have other questions. I was assisted in researching and writing this letter by Anplica dell'Isola, Arval Benicoeur, Aryanhwy merch Catmael, Juliana de Luna, and Talan Gwynek. For the Academy, Adelaide de Beaumont 12 June 2003 References: [0] The edhs are often replaced by the letter thorn, which looks like a

and a superimposed so that their loops coincide. The is a long vowel, a fact that is usually indicated by a macron or acute accent over it; this is strictly a modern editorial addition, however. [1] Talan Gwynek, "Feminine Given Names in _A Dictionary of English Surnames_" (SCA: KWHS Proceedings, 1994; WWW: Academy of Saint Gabriel, 1997). http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/talan/reaney/ [2] Fenwick, Carolyn C., ed., _The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381. Part 1, Bedfordshire - Leicestershire_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 284. [3] _The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), s.v. midwife. [4] Reaney, P. H., & R. M. Wilson, _A Dictionary of English Surnames_ (London: Routledge, 1991; Oxford University Press, 1995), s.nn. Aylett, Woodhill. [5] Mosse/, Ferdinand, _A Handbook of Middle English_, trans. James A. Walker (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1968), pp. 10, 25. [6] If you choose a spelling of the forename that implies an \-ayth\ or \-ayt\ pronunciation, you should probably use ; is more appropriate in combination with the \-eeth\ and \-eet\ forms. [7] Mosse/, p. 60. [8] Clark, Cecily, "Onomastics", in Blake, Norman, ed., _The Cambridge History of the English Language_, vol. II (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 559.