Re: Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- From: "Uwe Müller" <uwemueller@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 08:15:39 +0200
<hrothgar_cyning@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1148335485.442500.235770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Larry Swain wrote:
snip >
But somewhere in today's posts you raise a related but different issue:
that of class. And I'd imagine you're right, quite apart from the
name's meaning, only a certain class would be entitled to a certain
string of names: can't have the lowest members of the group named
Theodric or Theoden or Aethelflaed. (But they can be named Scyld
Scefing, be of unknown parentage, and rise to be a legendary leader).
That at least among the Anglo-Saxons we find that certain noble families
follow a particular tradition in their names seems to confirm this.
Yes, this may well be the way forward. Certainly Settipani,
Keats-Rohan and others seem to see something similar in operation on
the continent, with medieval (and roman) families using the same names
over and over, which modern academics utilise to help with
prosopography and elucidating family relationships.
How, though, do we approach this idea? To my mind, first, you mention
the importance of chronology and I would agree that this is very
important. For example, if we are looking at status-significance of
war-related names, we need to be aware that the weapons-burial rite is
dead by the end of the 8th-century, so we really need to be looking at
the pre-Viking period for our evidence of -helm etc names having any
significance.
Second, we need to try to differentiate between shared names and
(possibly) 'classed' names. This might be a crucial distinction, and
needs to be made before we make too much of names which are carried by
both peasants and nobles. Indeed, the latter is generally true too for
any _individual_ case of a shared name given the potential for major
changes in status, as evidenced in Bede (as you note, I think). A
better approach may be look at relative proportions of names held by
people at the very top and very bottom of the pile -- thus a name which
is common amongst royally-connected people and uncommon (but not
unknown) amongst can be plausbily seen as a 'classed' name. Of course,
getting at these proportions might be difficult, particularly for the
pre-Viking period -- though perhaps Saints' Lives might be utilised?
Any thoughts? Certainly gathering only the very top and bottom seems
easier to me than trying to sift through all the sherrifs and abbots
etc.
snip >
I just wanted to mention a concept I got introduced to via social
anthropology. A family might be thought to consist not only of those members
living, but can be seen as a group of people living, dying and being reborn
through time. Relating to this, names for infants would rather be chosen
from the ranks of the dead family members (stressing continuity). So the
choice of name could indicate a bloodline connection between its bearers
through time.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- From: celia
- Re: Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- References:
- Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- From: hrothgar_cyning
- Re: Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- From: Larry Swain
- Re: Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- From: Alan Crozier
- Re: Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- From: hrothgar_cyning
- Re: Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- From: Larry Swain
- Re: Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- From: hrothgar_cyning
- Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- Prev by Date: The Vikings
- Next by Date: Re: Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- Previous by thread: Re: Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- Next by thread: Re: Anglo-Saxon Naming Traditions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|