Preface

Studying the documents

The study of personal names is known as anthroponymy.

When studying a medieval list of names, an anthroponomist will ask questions about:

• the provenance of the list;
• the socio-economic background of the names;
• the geographical area in which the list wascompiled;;
• whether it is representative. Is any category (e.g. women) unusually under-represented;
• the comparative ratio of type of name;
• Numbers of single names (i.e. what we term forenames, but in this context are better termed nomen, plural nomina);
• Number of names with a qualifier (usually an unstable byname), usually called a cognomen;
• Linguistic origin of the name;
• Type of name e.g. nickname, occupational;
• Is the name Latinised or expressed in the vernacular?

The historical transformation of naming patterns

Pre-Conquest name-forms (Insular names)

• West Germanic or Old English Personal names
• Anglo-Scandinavian (i.e. indirect West Germanic)

Insular names had three main forms:

• Compounded or dithematic forms (combining 2 elements, prototheme and deuterotheme)
  e.g. Leofwine, Godwine (element ‘wine’ = friend)
  (Protothemes are in principle common between the sexes. Deuterothemes express gender.)
• Uncompounded
• Pet-forms (elisions of dithematic names)

Post-Conquest name forms

• Continental-Germanic (a body of about 500 names) e.g. William, Henry, Robert
• Brittonic (or Middle Breton forms) e.g. Alan, Brian, Joel
• Norman-Scandinavian
• Use of Saints’ and Biblical names (from 12th c)

The displacement was characterised by concentration i.e. a reliance of a small number of heavily-used names. This narrowing in the range of especially male nomina accelerated considerably by the late 13th C.

By 1300, “The most frequent eight forenames now comprised 77-87 per cent of all taxpayers in the lay subsidies of various counties.”

Postles (2006) Naming the people of England, p 60

Further research:

• Regional variation in the number of names (i.e. nomina).
  In the Lay subsidies, these normally vary between 46 and 72, though there are higher counts in Devon, Northumbria and Sussex.
• Concentration of specific names (nomina), e.g. Adam is prevalent in West Riding in the Lay subsidies. In London, in the early 14th c. the proportion of those named John or William reached 40%
  Postles (2006) Naming the people of England

Questions

But who did the choosing : Men or women?

Were the cultural influences the same – whatever the social level – nobility, burgesses, unfree peasantry etc, or geographical area ?

As Postles emphasises, the surprising fact is not that there was a complete overturn in the culture of naming, but that it actually took so long to complete, when nominally it could have been achieved in 1 or 2 generations.

The survival of insular names amongst those of middling means into the 13th c., contrasts with the usual explanation that the new names percolated down from the Norman over-Lords, or were taken up immediately for social advantage. However, the greatest incidence of residual insular naming seems to have been amongst those lowest on the social scale = the free and unfree peasantry.

There are numerous examples of secular clergy with insular name forms in the twelfth century, and this may have influenced the persistence of such names amongst others (and the bearers were not consistently insignificant people).

But the situation is more complex:

• Fathers with adopted the new C-G names, then reverting to an insular name for a son
• Siblings with a name from each name tradition.

Especially in the North of England a dual naming tradition seems to have survived into the 12th C. indicating that it was then no perceived disadvantage or dishonour in reverting to an insular name.

Baptism

Before the end of the twelfth century. “the child arrived at the church door with an existing name; name-giving was not part of the baptismal ceremony. From the early thirteenth century the child’s name was given as it was raised from the font by the principal godparent.”

Postles (2006) Naming the people of England, p 50

Did the new role of the priest in the naming process encourage:

• the use of a higher number of saints’ names?
• or was the role of the godparent more influential?
• or was the need for patrilinear naming paramount?

Latinisations

A patronymic or matronymic by-name was expressed in four ways, initially in Latin translation, but increasingly reflecting the vernacular form.

1. Asyndetic apposition of the father’s name

   Henricus Gilberd

   Asyndetic apposition means the juxtaposition of two personal names –that refer to the same person- without the use of any preposition (le, de, atte etc) or linking device (filia, relict, etc)

2. Phrases in sunu/dohter
3. Possessive genitive

   Thomas Alani, Hugh Johannis

   There are instances where it is evident that the genitival form is an elision of the filius one, e.g. Laurence turstani alias Laurence filius turstani. Postles (2001)

4. The filius-formula (but also including filia, uxor, relict, etc)

These forms were not exclusive. In the same document, the same person might be referred to in more than one way:

Ricardus Steuene (an appositional form =Richard Stephen) and as Ricardus filius Stephani. The filius could also be placed after the referring name i.e. Ricardus Stephani filius, though before is the norm. The name need not necessarily be a patronymic; filius is used with occupational and nicknames, too.

Problems:

• The meaning of the Latin words employed is clear, but instances of vernacular equivalents are lacking
• The same quite common Latin word employed to translate several vernacular names i.e. is Albus might be used to cover the vernacular individual forms of White, Blundell, Blount or even Fairfax
• Some latinised forms seem based on false folk-etymologies e,g, Quatremars –‘four marks’- latinised as Quattuor Maris

[McKinley 1991, p 2-3]

The filius formula

One of the most commonly-used Latinisations used to express a relationship was the term filius. What exactly does use of filius imply?

1. Was it an attempt to transcribe or reflect an increasing vernacular trend towards a stable surname. If so, which?

   For example does Johannes filius Willelmi intend to convey the colloquial name phrase -John William or John Williams, or maybe John Williamson?

2. Or is the ubiquitous filius formula just a scribal convention necessitated by administrative demands?

   [and filius can sometimes signify ‘grandson’, or perhaps even ‘great grandson’ in administrative recording]

Viewpoint 1

McKinley felt that the use of filius covered much more than just vernacular names ending in s or son. He pointed out that the usage of filius in the 13th century was far greater than the existence of –son names at later dates.

Viewpoint 2

However, a more recent view proposes that by the late 13th century, the filius-formula only translated vernacular names in -s and –son . [ Turville-Petrie (1998)]

Certainly, by the early 14th century, an analysis of the lay subsidy rolls suggests that there was a gradation in the distribution of –son forms (strong in the north, weaker in the south, with an intermingling in the Midlands) that was equivalent to the use of the filius form.

[Postles 2001, p ]

Gradually, the latinisation of name forms declined. For instance, Postles proposes that by the late 13th century, in the English southern counties, the incidence of latin forms was low. He argues that in these counties, the appositional or genitival forms would now be directly expressed in the vernacular.

But the decline was not uniform. He argues that in northern counties, vernacular patronymics and matronymics ending in son or doghter continued to be Latinised till a later date than the south. [ Postles (2001) ]

Certainly, by the late 13th century for Oxfordshire, “in the Hundred Rolls the great majority of persons mentioned, whether bond or free, are provided with surnames or by-names of some kind or another. It is rare to find anyone , either without a by-name at all, or referred to merely as the son of some other person whose personal name only is given”. [McKinley 1977, p ]

Latinisation of personal names: some examples

Adam (genitive Ade) = Adam
Alicia = Alice
Andreas= Andrew
Dionisius (feminine Dionisia) = Denis
Egidius (feminine Egidia) = Giles
Galfridus = Geoffrey
Hugo= Hugh
Jacobus= James
Johannes = John
Margareta = Margaret
Petrus = Peter
Radulfus= Ralph
Ricardus = Richard
Thomas (genitive Thome) = Thomas
Willelmus = William

For a fuller listing see C.T. Martin ‘The Record Interpreter.’

Vernacular form

Three styles of patronymics/matronymics:

• Asyndetic e.g. Rickard
• Simple genitives e.g. Richards
• Genitive phrases e.g. Richardson.

The asyndetic form existed up to c. 1300. From 1300 onwards, suffixal forms of -s and –son were increasingly frequent. Most present-day names in –son were formed post-1300, and were composed of baptismal names in favour post-1300.