Is there a customary -- or a recommended -- approach nowadays to the
rendering of personal names in historical or genealogical works
written in English? Rightly or wrongly, I was under the impression
that the traditional way was to anglicise foreign names wherever
possible, but also that there was an emerging trend (in at least some
quarters) in more recent years to render the names in the form used in
the relevant modern European language, although I notice that not all
works in English published in the last few years are doing this. Am I
correct in this impression, and is this the way to go?
I posted a couple of months back specifically in relation to the
spelling of Irish names, and the advice I got back then was to avoid
anglicisation altogether and render names into modern Irish forms.
Should I do the same with personal names in other parts of Europe as
well?
I first came across this issue in relation to names in continental
Europe some time ago upon reading John Bowle's 1979 "A History of
Europe", where he has given the names of various medieval French and
German monarchs as Henri, Philippe Auguste, Baudouin, Konrad, Heinrich
and Friedrich in preference to the anglicised versions of these names
often found elsewhere. I have also noticed that some works will use
anglicisations for rulers, but use what I am assuming are modern
foreign forms for lesser folk who have the same names, but who would
not be so well known in historical literature.
I also see in the pages of the fairly recently launched "Medieval
History Magazine" that in several instances the contributors to that
journal are going with a foreign spelling for various names. In the
same way I have noticed a trend in recent books to use Greek forms for
Byzantine people, including rulers, whereas in the past I have most
often encountered Latinised forms for the same individuals. The
exception to this seems to be names like "Constantine", presumably
because the anglised version is so well known.
The question becomes even harder for me to answer when dealing with
the names of people -- and it is mainly the local rulers and nobility
I am thinking of here --- originating in the swathe of territory that
originally formed part of the kingdom of Lothar I, and which at
various later stages was subject to the French kingdom or to the Holy
Roman Empire, such as Flanders, Hainault,and Burgundy. A good example
would be the name of Otto I's empress, who was the daughter of Rudolf
of Burgundy. Since Burgundy is now a part of France, I was initially
of the opinion that I should go with "Adelaide" but I have since
discovered that some modern works written in English -- not German --
render her name as "Adelheid", which i understand to be the German
form of the name. I am now wondering whether I should perhaps follow
their example.
Someone's advice to me was "whatever you do, be consistent". Certainly
the name of any particular individual should be given the same way in
any one work, even if alternate forms of the name are supplied in a
note.
While this issue might seem trivial to some, I am curious to know what
other posters' views might be on this subject.
Anglicisation and foreign (European) medieval personal names
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
marshall kirk
Re: Anglicisation and foreign (European) medieval personal n
I've never seen a really satisfying approach to this problem, and
doubt that one exists. Much depends on the purpose and audience of
the work in preparation -- if you're writing a narrative history for
an English audience, no great harm is done by making consistent use of
modern English equivalents. (Altho' even there you'll run into
perplexities: the Frankish Genovefa = modern Genevieve -- I think --
but Marcovefa, which should be something like Marcavieve, has no
modern equivalent, AFAIK. And what do you do when you're referring to
personages in the history of various non-English-speaking regions?
'Lewis' is the modern English equivalent of Chlodowech, Hlodwig,
Ludwig, Ludowik, Lodovico, Clovis, Louis, Luigi, and probably others.
You wouldn't want to refer to Ludwig the Mad, should it be desirable
to mention him, as Lewis the Mad.)
And you may not be writing a narrative history. If, for example, your
intent is to lay out an onomastic argument, suggesting descent on the
basis of familial transmission of names, you'd want to indicate not
only a modal form -- to show the continuity -- but actual
contemporaneous forms, so that the reader can see whether you're
dealing with different renderings of the same name, or with names that
look similar, but in fact have distinct origins.
This is all complicated yet further by the fact that, especially in a
region like medieval Lotharingia, a man's name might well be rendered,
during his own lifetime, in several different languages -- for
example, Latin, one or more forms of medieval German, and one or more
forms of medieval French -- and quite likely with a variety of
spellings in each language, and the further headache of bynames and
hypochorisms.
I'd be delighted to see a consistent system that makes historical and
linguistic sense. You might look at Christian Settipani and Patrick
van Kerrebrouck on the Merovingians, Carolingians, and Capetiens.
They're reduced to a fairly unwieldy system comprising a modal name
and a long string of variant forms, in following parentheses.
dunsland@yahoo.com (Mark Harry) wrote in message news:<d5e99e54.0410260102.4a207e57@posting.google.com>...
doubt that one exists. Much depends on the purpose and audience of
the work in preparation -- if you're writing a narrative history for
an English audience, no great harm is done by making consistent use of
modern English equivalents. (Altho' even there you'll run into
perplexities: the Frankish Genovefa = modern Genevieve -- I think --
but Marcovefa, which should be something like Marcavieve, has no
modern equivalent, AFAIK. And what do you do when you're referring to
personages in the history of various non-English-speaking regions?
'Lewis' is the modern English equivalent of Chlodowech, Hlodwig,
Ludwig, Ludowik, Lodovico, Clovis, Louis, Luigi, and probably others.
You wouldn't want to refer to Ludwig the Mad, should it be desirable
to mention him, as Lewis the Mad.)
And you may not be writing a narrative history. If, for example, your
intent is to lay out an onomastic argument, suggesting descent on the
basis of familial transmission of names, you'd want to indicate not
only a modal form -- to show the continuity -- but actual
contemporaneous forms, so that the reader can see whether you're
dealing with different renderings of the same name, or with names that
look similar, but in fact have distinct origins.
This is all complicated yet further by the fact that, especially in a
region like medieval Lotharingia, a man's name might well be rendered,
during his own lifetime, in several different languages -- for
example, Latin, one or more forms of medieval German, and one or more
forms of medieval French -- and quite likely with a variety of
spellings in each language, and the further headache of bynames and
hypochorisms.
I'd be delighted to see a consistent system that makes historical and
linguistic sense. You might look at Christian Settipani and Patrick
van Kerrebrouck on the Merovingians, Carolingians, and Capetiens.
They're reduced to a fairly unwieldy system comprising a modal name
and a long string of variant forms, in following parentheses.
dunsland@yahoo.com (Mark Harry) wrote in message news:<d5e99e54.0410260102.4a207e57@posting.google.com>...
Is there a customary -- or a recommended -- approach nowadays to the
rendering of personal names in historical or genealogical works
written in English? Rightly or wrongly, I was under the impression
that the traditional way was to anglicise foreign names wherever
possible, but also that there was an emerging trend (in at least some
quarters) in more recent years to render the names in the form used in
the relevant modern European language, although I notice that not all
works in English published in the last few years are doing this. Am I
correct in this impression, and is this the way to go?
I posted a couple of months back specifically in relation to the
spelling of Irish names, and the advice I got back then was to avoid
anglicisation altogether and render names into modern Irish forms.
Should I do the same with personal names in other parts of Europe as
well?
I first came across this issue in relation to names in continental
Europe some time ago upon reading John Bowle's 1979 "A History of
Europe", where he has given the names of various medieval French and
German monarchs as Henri, Philippe Auguste, Baudouin, Konrad, Heinrich
and Friedrich in preference to the anglicised versions of these names
often found elsewhere. I have also noticed that some works will use
anglicisations for rulers, but use what I am assuming are modern
foreign forms for lesser folk who have the same names, but who would
not be so well known in historical literature.
I also see in the pages of the fairly recently launched "Medieval
History Magazine" that in several instances the contributors to that
journal are going with a foreign spelling for various names. In the
same way I have noticed a trend in recent books to use Greek forms for
Byzantine people, including rulers, whereas in the past I have most
often encountered Latinised forms for the same individuals. The
exception to this seems to be names like "Constantine", presumably
because the anglised version is so well known.
The question becomes even harder for me to answer when dealing with
the names of people -- and it is mainly the local rulers and nobility
I am thinking of here --- originating in the swathe of territory that
originally formed part of the kingdom of Lothar I, and which at
various later stages was subject to the French kingdom or to the Holy
Roman Empire, such as Flanders, Hainault,and Burgundy. A good example
would be the name of Otto I's empress, who was the daughter of Rudolf
of Burgundy. Since Burgundy is now a part of France, I was initially
of the opinion that I should go with "Adelaide" but I have since
discovered that some modern works written in English -- not German --
render her name as "Adelheid", which i understand to be the German
form of the name. I am now wondering whether I should perhaps follow
their example.
Someone's advice to me was "whatever you do, be consistent". Certainly
the name of any particular individual should be given the same way in
any one work, even if alternate forms of the name are supplied in a
note.
While this issue might seem trivial to some, I am curious to know what
other posters' views might be on this subject.
-
David Webb
Re: Anglicisation and foreign (European) medieval personal n
"Mark Harry" <dunsland@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d5e99e54.0410260102.4a207e57@posting.google.com...
Many historical personages have a well-known form in English. Peter the
Great of Russia is not often referred to in English as Pyotr, and it would
be quirky to do so, knowning that he is known as Peter the Great. It seems
to me to be wrong to use forms not traditionally used in English-language
references to these persons. I suggest the empress of Otto I is Adelaide of
Burgundy, rather than Adelheid or Alice. This can be awkward as some
wellknown genealogy sites on the Internet eg Leo van de Pas' website go out
of their way to insert "authentic" names rather than giving the accepted
English-language equivalents...
news:d5e99e54.0410260102.4a207e57@posting.google.com...
Is there a customary -- or a recommended -- approach nowadays to the
rendering of personal names in historical or genealogical works
written in English? Rightly or wrongly, I was under the impression
that the traditional way was to anglicise foreign names wherever
possible, but also that there was an emerging trend (in at least some
quarters) in more recent years to render the names in the form used in
the relevant modern European language, although I notice that not all
works in English published in the last few years are doing this. Am I
correct in this impression, and is this the way to go?
I posted a couple of months back specifically in relation to the
spelling of Irish names, and the advice I got back then was to avoid
anglicisation altogether and render names into modern Irish forms.
Should I do the same with personal names in other parts of Europe as
well?
I first came across this issue in relation to names in continental
Europe some time ago upon reading John Bowle's 1979 "A History of
Europe", where he has given the names of various medieval French and
German monarchs as Henri, Philippe Auguste, Baudouin, Konrad, Heinrich
and Friedrich in preference to the anglicised versions of these names
often found elsewhere. I have also noticed that some works will use
anglicisations for rulers, but use what I am assuming are modern
foreign forms for lesser folk who have the same names, but who would
not be so well known in historical literature.
I also see in the pages of the fairly recently launched "Medieval
History Magazine" that in several instances the contributors to that
journal are going with a foreign spelling for various names. In the
same way I have noticed a trend in recent books to use Greek forms for
Byzantine people, including rulers, whereas in the past I have most
often encountered Latinised forms for the same individuals. The
exception to this seems to be names like "Constantine", presumably
because the anglised version is so well known.
The question becomes even harder for me to answer when dealing with
the names of people -- and it is mainly the local rulers and nobility
I am thinking of here --- originating in the swathe of territory that
originally formed part of the kingdom of Lothar I, and which at
various later stages was subject to the French kingdom or to the Holy
Roman Empire, such as Flanders, Hainault,and Burgundy. A good example
would be the name of Otto I's empress, who was the daughter of Rudolf
of Burgundy. Since Burgundy is now a part of France, I was initially
of the opinion that I should go with "Adelaide" but I have since
discovered that some modern works written in English -- not German --
render her name as "Adelheid", which i understand to be the German
form of the name. I am now wondering whether I should perhaps follow
their example.
Someone's advice to me was "whatever you do, be consistent". Certainly
the name of any particular individual should be given the same way in
any one work, even if alternate forms of the name are supplied in a
note.
While this issue might seem trivial to some, I am curious to know what
other posters' views might be on this subject.
Many historical personages have a well-known form in English. Peter the
Great of Russia is not often referred to in English as Pyotr, and it would
be quirky to do so, knowning that he is known as Peter the Great. It seems
to me to be wrong to use forms not traditionally used in English-language
references to these persons. I suggest the empress of Otto I is Adelaide of
Burgundy, rather than Adelheid or Alice. This can be awkward as some
wellknown genealogy sites on the Internet eg Leo van de Pas' website go out
of their way to insert "authentic" names rather than giving the accepted
English-language equivalents...
-
Adalbertus Magnus
Re: Anglicisation and foreign (European) medieval personal n
This might not mean anything, but since I do all my European genealogy
in Polish I "Polishize" (or Polonize or whatever its called)
absolutely every name wherever possible.-AM
in Polish I "Polishize" (or Polonize or whatever its called)
absolutely every name wherever possible.-AM