ACADEMY OF SAINT GABRIEL REPORT 3259 http://www.s-gabriel.org/3259 ************************************ 16 Feb 2007 From: Aryanhwy merch Catmael Greetings from the Academy of S. Gabriel! You wanted to know if is an authentic name for a 16th-century German woman, or if the surname is a better choice. Here is what we have found. We found a number of 16th century examples of , including a woman who lived from 1511-1589. Additionally, the name was found as or before 1520 in Bamberg. In marriage records from Nuernberg between 1524 and 1543, the name occurs as , , (twice), , , (twice), (13 times), , , , , and . Both and are found in Frankfurt am Main between 1540 and 1565. Finally, we found the following: [1] , born 1505 in Augsburg , in 1571 mother of a bride in Augsburg , granddaughter of the above born in 1579 , born 1577 in Brixen , from Leipzig, married in 1580 , from Strassburg, married in 1582 , from Memmingen, married in 1582 , born in Duernbuch, mother of a bride in Altenberg in 1586 , born 1592 at Bruneck , died in 1599 , born in 1598 near Ulm or Augsburg Based on these examples, we can confidently say that is an excellent choice for your given name. We didn't find any 16th century examples of surnames based on the place or , but in 1359 we find one . [2] We have no reason to think that the spelling isn't also appropriate for the 16th century. There are a number of correct forms that your surname could take. One is to simply use the name of the place, unmodified, e.g. . Another would be to use the form Schwartzenberger> 'Schwartzenberg-person' (roughly), following the example of above. Using the preposition, , is also plausible. In addition to these three constructions (which could be used by both men and women), the first two constructions have specifically feminine forms, namely and (following above). We are not sure which of these five types if the most authentic choice for the 16th century. During the late 15th century, in some studies of German women's names, modified forms such as and were much more common than the unmodified forms. [3] However, by the 16th century, this seems to be less the case, as is shown in the examples cited above. 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 Adelaide de Beaumont, Walraven van Nijmegen, and Talan Gwynek. For the Academy, -Aryanhwy merch Catmael, 16 February 2007 -- References: [1] Seibicke, Wilfried, _Historisches Deutsches Vornamenbuch_ (de Gruyter, series, various dates), vol. 2 s.n. Felicitas [2] Brechenmacher, Josef Karlmann, _Etymologisches Woerterbuch der deutschen Familiennamen_ (Limburg a. d. Lahn, C. A. Starke-Verlag, 1957-1960), s.n. Schwarz(en)berg(er) [3] Uckelman, Sara L., "Women's Surnames in 15th- and 16th-Century Germany" (WWW: Self-published, 2005-2006) http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/german/womenssurnames.html [4] Unpublished research of Walraven van Nijmegen based on [5]. [5] Schwarz, Ernst. _Sudetendeutsche Familiennamen des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts_ (Mu"nchen: Robert Lerche, 1973)