ACADEMY OF SAINT GABRIEL REPORT 2907 http://www.s-gabriel.org/2907 ************************************ 6 Sep 2004 From: Femke de Roas Greetings from the Academy of Saint Gabriel! You asked us if would be an appropriate name for an English woman prior to 1600. So far as we can discover, the name is not attested in extant Old English sources. However, is a common first element, found in both masculine and feminine names. [1] For instance, it is found in the feminine names , , , , , all ca.800; , probably ca.1000; and , ca.700. [2, 3, 4, 5] The second element, <-wyn>, is less common, but it is none the less well- attested in feminine Old English names. [6] Examples, all from the mid to late tenth century, include , <{AE}lfwyn>, <{AE}scwyn>, <{AE}{dh}elwyn>, , and . [7, 8] Thus, it is quite possible that a feminine name existed in the late Old English period and simply did not make it into the surviving written record. An attested name would of course be better historical re-creation, but is a plausible hypothetical reconstruction. Many late Old English names survived into the Middle English period, though most of these went out of use by about 1300. There are even Middle English names that seem to have come from unattested Old English names, like the masculine names and , which are apparently from the unattested Old English names and . [9, 10] Thus, an early Middle English form of is just about as plausible a reconstruction as Old English itself. It should be emphasized, however, that very few names of Old English origin survived past about 1300. The element <-wyn> assumed a variety of forms in Middle English, but the most common in the data that we've examined is <-wen> (and its Latinized variants <-wenna> and <-wena>). [11] generally became or . [12] Thus, a late Old English could have survived to become a 12th or 13th century or ; this would typically have appeared as or in the Latin used for most record-keeping. Occupational bynames for glass-makers, including the term 'glasswright', are found by the late 13th century. Some early example using that term are: [13, 14] le Glasewright 1286-7 le Glasewrith' 1301 la Glaswrithe 1311 (a woman's byname) Glaswrighte 1319 Here and are the French masculine and feminine definite articles; these were almost always used in written records instead of Middle English <{th}e> (later ). Here <{th}> stands for the letter thorn, which looks like a and a

superimposed so that their loops coincide. Old French 'glass-maker' and its Anglo-French variants occur even earlier: [15, 16] le Verrier 1185 le Verrer 1231 le Verer 1242-3 le Verir 1279 On the face of it , , or would be a better choice than any of the 'glasswright' bynames, since , already hypothetical, is less plausible in the late 13th century than it is before 1250 or so. However, the late appearance of and variants may well be a bit deceptive: it is quite likely that the French and English terms existed side by side, but that both were represented in early records by the French term. [17] This hypothesis is strengthened by the large number of occupational bynames of this type that do appear quite early. Some examples are: [18, 19] brandwirchte 1115 'sword-maker' Sipwriet early 12th c. 'shipwright' Basketwricte 1229 le Briggwricht 1230 'the bridge-builder' Sleywricte 1230 'slay-maker'; a slay is a weaver's reed or shuttle le Tunewrith 1246 'tun-maker' le Wycchewrichte 1256 'chest-maker' le Lattewricte 1268 'lath-maker' All in all, it seems quite likely that some form of the word was in use by the 12th or early 13th century. The bynames just cited suggest that <-wricte> is an especially likely form of the second element for the early 13th century. The first element occurs in literature at about that time both as and as . [20] Thus, it's a reasonable conjecture both that the word existed ca.1200 and that is at least one possible form in which it might have been written at that date; also looks like a good possibility. Finally, the normal early Middle English form of the definite article is <{th}e>. [21, 22] (Here <{th> stands for the letter thorn, which looks like a and a

superimposed so that their loops coincide.) Putting the pieces together, we recommend and as reasonable Middle English forms for the first half of the 13th century. ( is also fine.) At a later date the given name is less plausible, and at a much earlier date the existence of the byname is more problematic. In a formal document the given name would normally have been Latinized and the article replaced by French : , , and the like. [22] 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. Research and assistance in writing this letter was provided by Maridonna Benvenuti, Talan Gwynek, Aryanhwy merch Catmael, and Arval Benicoeur. For the Academy, Femke de Roas September 6, 2004 ______________________________________________________________________ REFERENCES [1] Stro:m, Hilmer, _Old English Personal Names in Bede's History: An Etymological-Phonological Investigation_, Lund Studies in English 8, (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1939); 40. [2] Boehler, Maria, _Die altenglischen Frauenamen_ (Nendlem, Liechtenstein: Krauss Reprint, 1967 [1930]); 128-30. [3] Miller, Sean, "Anglo-saxons.net," (WWW: Privately published, 2004). [4] These are standardized scholarly spellings; they don't necessarily match the documentary spellings, but all are possible documentary forms. [5] The symbol {dh} stands for the letter 'edh', which looks like a backard 6 with a crossbar on the riser. The symbol {ae} stands for the letter "ash" which looks like an a and e that share a common vertical stroke. [6] Stro"m; 43. [7] Miller. [8] These are again standardized scholarly spellings. [9] Selte/n, Bo, _The Anglo-Saxon Heritage in Middle English Personal Names_, Volumes 1 & 2. (Lund, Sweden: Royal Society of Letters at Lund, 1979); s.n. . [10] Reaney, P. H., & R. M. Wilson, _A Dictionary of English Surnames_ (London: Routledge, 1991; Oxford University Press, 1995); s.n. . [11] Selte/n; s.nn. , , , , . [12] Ibid., p.171. [13] Reaney and Wilson; s.n. . [14] Fransson, Gustav, _Middle English Surnames of Occupation, 1100- 1350_ ( Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1935); p.186. [15] Ibid., p.185. [16] Nicol, Alexandra, ed. Curia Regis Rolls of the Reign of Henry III Preserved in the Public Record Office. Vol. XVII, 26 to 27 Henry III (1242-1243) (London: HMSO, 1991); Nr. 1544. [17] Reaney, P. H., _The Origin of English Surnames_ (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967, reprint 1980); p.178. [18] Ibid., p. 207. [19] Reaney and Wilson, s.n. . [20] Stratmann, Francis Henry, & Henry Bradley. A Middle-English Dictionary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1891); s.v. . [21] Mosse/, Ferdinand, _A Handbook of Middle English_, trans. James A. Walker (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1968); p.60. [22] We should mention a possible cultural problem here: we don't know how likely it is that a woman would have borne a byname meaning 'the glasswright' at so early a date. The feminine byname cited above from 1311 is encouraging, but it's also about a century later than the period in question. On the other hand, it's not necessary that the woman herself be a glassmaker: even as early as the first half of the 13th century there are examples of women recorded with their husbands' bynames, e.g., 1230- 1, whose husband was William Chese. [23] This is an especially good example, since the byname, which means 'cheese', is functionally occupational, for a maker or seller of cheese. [23] McKinley, Richard. The Surnames of Oxfordshire, English Surnames Series III (London: Leopard's Head Press, 1977); p. 187.