ACADEMY OF SAINT GABRIEL REPORT 1513 http://www.s-gabriel.org/1513 ************************************ From: "Brian M. Scott" 13 Feb 1999 Greetings from the Academy of S. Gabriel! You asked whether was a properly constructed 13th century German feminine name. In English the name is derived from Old French , which in turn is from Latin . [1] In Germany the was not lost, and as a result the name remained , in which form we found it in 1262. [2] Although it appears that did not become in Germany, there is a native German name that may have done so. There is an Old High German masculine name that later became ; we found an example of it (as ) in Bremen in 1350. [3, 4] Germanic names of this type generally came in pairs, a masculine name with the diminutive suffix <-ino> and a feminine name with the corresponding diminutive suffix <-ina>, and in this case we actually have a 10th century example of the feminine name in the slightly variant form . [5] (This particular example is from what is now France, but it shows that the Old Germanic feminine name did exist.) There is therefore no doubt that was used in 13th century Germany, so it is the better choice for authentic re-creation, but it is quite likely that there was an independent feminine name as well. (It would have been pronounced roughly \RAIN-@\, where \@\ is the schwa vowel represented by the in and .) The byname is more questionable, though your choice of the preposition 'with' instead of 'of' is exactly right for this type of byname. Before we deal with the questions, however, the grammar needs a little repair: in modern German it should be 'with the golden hound', and in the 13th century it would have been or . [6] The rest of the discussion is a bit involved, however, so please bear with me. First, there is no doubt that the Germans used bynames of this general type; some examples are 1396, 1352, and, in Latin, 1204 'Heinrich called "with the nose"'. [7] All of the 13th century and earlier examples that we found were in Latin, the language in which almost all records were then kept, but it's safe to assume that the spoken forms represented by these records were German. There is considerably less variety in the early examples than in those from the 14th century. It's possible that this type of byname didn't reach its full flowering until the 14th century. On the other hand, it's also possible that there simply aren't enough records from earlier centuries to give us a good picture of earlier usage. Most of the examples that we've found, especially those containing an adjective as well as a noun, refer to parts of the body that were in some way distinctive: among the recorded meanings are 'with the one eye', 'with the yellow hair', 'with the pretty hair', 'with the crooked muzzle', 'with the long leg', 'with the crooked mouth', 'with the crooked feet', 'with the weak eyes', and 'with the one hand'. We did find a couple of different bynames of this type involving animals, 1397 'with the geese' and 1396 'with the hounds', but it's likely that these were names for a gooseherd and a keeper of hounds respectively. [7] Indeed, it seems likely that bynames meaning 'with the ' were generally occupational; what you want, on the other hand, is a nickname based on ownership of or association with a particular object. Such names did exist, e.g., 1180 'with the woven cap'. There are also a bynames that are known to refer to specific events in their bearers' lives: 1270 'with the bitten cheek' and 1280 'with the arrow' are examples. (The bearer of the first was bitten hard enough by his mother when he was young to leave a scar, and the bearer of the second was wounded by an arrow whose head could not be removed, though he lived another 26 years.) [7] Your proposed byname, , could only belong to one of these last two categories. (It could refer to a memorable incident involving a golden hound rather than to a long-term association with one.) Unfortunately, we don't have enough examples from either category to say whether it is actually plausible. On the one hand we have no evidence that it couldn't have been used, but on the other we have no persuasive evidence for it, either. An attested 13th century byname would obviously be better historical re-creation, but the limited evidence available definitely leaves open the possibility that would have been accepted as a normal byname at that time. [8] Arval Benicoeur also contributed to this letter. We hope that it has been useful and that you'll not hesitate to write us again if you have any further questions. For the Academy, Talan Gwynek ===== References and Notes: [1] Withycombe, E.G. The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988); s.n. Regina. [2] Socin, Adolf. Mittelhochdeutsches Namenbuch nach Oberrheinischen Quellen des Zwoelften und Dreizehnten Jahrhunderts (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1966); p. 93. [3] Brechenmacher, Josef Karlmann. Etymologisches Woerterbuch der Deutschen Familiennamen (Limburg a. d. Lahn: C. A. Starke-Verlag, 1957-60); s.n. Rein. [4] Bahlow, Hans. Deutsches Namenlexikon (Baden-Baden: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Verlag, 1985): s.n. Rein. [5] 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. 186. [6] Walshe, M. O'C. A Middle High German Reader (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984); pp. 13, 21. [7] Brechenmacher, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 271-3. [8] In a 13th century written record, however, it would almost certainly have been written in Latin, as .