ACADEMY OF SAINT GABRIEL REPORT 2805
http://www.s-gabriel.org/2805
************************************

*************************************************
*                                               *
* NOTE: Later research turned up additional     *
*       information relevant to this report.    *
*       See the end of the letter for details.  *
*                                               *
*************************************************


6 Jan 2004
From: Aryanhwy merch Catmael 

Greetings from the Academy of S. Gabriel!

You wanted to know if <Daffyd ap Eadwyn>, in any spelling, would be 
appropriate for a Christianized Saxon man living between 650 and 
1000.  Here is the information we have found.

As we noted in our original correspondence with you, <Daffyd> is a 
misspelling of <Dafydd>, the modern Welsh form of <David>.  Also, the 
construction <ap X> is Welsh, not Saxon.  However, since you said 
that you were more interested in a Saxon name, we have concentrated 
on that.  If you would like information about Welsh names using these 
elements, please write us again.

We have found only one example of <David> used in England before the 
Norman Conquest in 1066.  It is the name of a priest from 
Worcestershire in 996. [1,2]  It is likely that he was not given the 
name <David> when he was born, but took the name after he became a 
priest.  We do not believe that a priest would continue using a 
patronymic byname after becoming a priest.  Given this single example 
of <David> in your period, we cannot recommend this given name as the 
best recreation.

<Eadwine> is a fine Anglo-Saxon masculine name.  In a manuscript 
from the late 10th century, we find the non-standard variant <{AE}
duuine>, and in 1042 and 1046 have references to <Eadwine> in the 
standard spelling. [3]  The standard Old English patronymic byname 
based on <Eadwine> is <Eadwines sunu>.  However, by the later 10th 
century if not earlier the more usual spelling was <sune>, reflecting 
a change in pronunciation.

At the very end of your period, <Dauid Eadwines sunu> or <Dauid 
Eadwines sune> might be a possible name, though, as we noted above, 
<David> does not appear to have been used outside religious contexts 
until after the Norman Conquest.  We recommend the spelling <Dauid> 
instead of <David> because in the scripts from this period, the 
letter used for both <u> and <v> looks more like a modern <u>, so 
<Dauid> is visually a more accurate representation of the name.

We hope that this letter has been useful to you and that you won't 
hesitate to write us again if any part was unclear or if you have 
further questions.  Research and commentary on this letter was 
provided by Mari neyn Brian, Talan Gwynek, Arval Benicoeur, 
Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn, Maridonna Benvenuti, Juliana de 
Luna, and Julie Stampnitzky.

For the Academy,
-Arianuia de Cairmerdin, 06Jan04

--
References:

[1] Withycombe, E.G., _The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian 
Names_, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). s.n. David.

[2] Searle, William George, _Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum_ (Cambridge 
University Press: Cambridge, 1897). p. 163.

[3] Tengvik, Goesta, _Old English Bynames_ (Uppsala: Almqvist & 
Wiksells Boktryckeri-A.-B., 1938). pp. 148, 155.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Addendum 14 Jan 2004, Arval:

Greetings from the Academy of Saint Gabriel!

You asked:

  Am I correct in assuming the pronounciation 
  of Dauid Eadwinne sune would be 'David Edwinson?'

Sorry, we should have included the pronunciation before.  Note that 
the two names we recommended for the 10th century were <Dauid 
Eadwines sunu> and <Dauid Eadwines sune>.  The <-s> on <Eadwines> is 
necessary; it puts the name into its possessive form, like the <'s> 
in modern English.  <Dauid Eadwines sune> would have been pronounced 
\DAH-vid AD-win-@s SUN-@\, with the \U\ as in <put> and the \@\ 
standing for the sound of the <a> in <about> or <soda>.

   Arval
   for the Academy
   14 Jan 2004