The Journal of Scottish Name Studies Vol. 6
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, i–vi The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, i–vi The Journal of Scottish Name Studies Vol. 6
edited by Richard A.V. Cox and Simon Taylor
Clann Tuirc 2012
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, i–vi The Journal of Scottish Name Studies6 (2012) edited by Richard A.V. Cox and Simon Taylor
First published in Scotland in 2012 by Clann Tuirc, Tigh a’ Mhaide, Ceann Drochaid, Perthshire FK17 8HT
ISSN 1747-7387
© text: the authors 2012 © book and cover design: Clann Tuirc 2012
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, known or otherwise, without the prior consent of the publisher.
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies JSNS is a peer-reviewed journal that exists to publish articles and reviews on place and personal names relating to Scotland, her history and languages.
Editors Professor Richard A.V. Cox and Dr Simon Taylor
Reviews Editor Mr Gilbert Márkus
Editorial Advisory Board Professor Dauvit Broun Dr Rachel Butter Professor Thomas Clancy Mr Ian Fraser Dr Jacob King Mr Gilbert Márkus Professor W. F. H. Nicolaisen Professor Colm Ó Baoill Dr Maggie Scott Mr David Sellar Dr Doreen Waugh
Contributions Prospective contributors to the journal should refer to the Notes for Contributors, available from the publisher and at
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, i–vi Contents
Personal Names in 18th-Century Scotland: a case study of the parish of Beith (North Ayrshire) Alice Crook 1
The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages. Part 2: Scot as a surname, north of the Firth of Forth Matthew H. Hammond 11
An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom Michael Parker 51
Reviews Gilbert Márkus Stephen T. Driscoll, Jane Geddes and Mark A. Hall, Pictish Progress: New Studies on Northern Britain in the Early Middle Ages 81 Thomas Owen Clancy John MacQueen, Place-Names in the Rhinns of Galloway and Luce Valley and Place-Names of the Wigtownshire Moors and Machars 87
Bibliography of Scottish Name Studies for 2011 Simon Taylor 97
Notes on Contributors 100
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, i–vi The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, i–vi Personal Names in 18th-Century Scotland: a case study of the parish of Beith (North Ayrshire)1
Alice Crook University of Glasgow
Summary This paper reports upon an investigation into the personal naming patterns of 18th-century Scotland through studying the parish records of Beith (North Ayrshire). Primarily, the widespread theory that Scottish children were traditionally named in a definite pattern was examined: ‘the eldest son and second daughter were named after their paternal grandparents, the second son and eldest daughter after their maternal grandparents’ (Scots Ancestry Research Society) and this pattern was extended to incorporate further ancestors if more children were born to the family. A clear lack of research into Scottish naming patterns meant that this theory may be refuted. The project aimed to support or disprove the theory through a study of the name-stock, rates of parental naming, the role of godparents and the practice of substitution as well as examining those families where the pattern may potentially be most clearly observed. After analysis of over 7,000 records and 1,803 distinct families, no definite proof of the naming pattern being in practice was discovered. However, clear instances of families choosing not to follow the pattern were found. It therefore seems that the theory of a traditional Scottish naming pattern may have to be re-evaluated.
1 Introduction A common feature of many publications which mention Scottish naming is a statement that a single naming pattern was in widespread use, especially during the 18th century. Regional differences and occasional variations have been noted (Hamilton-Edwards 1983, 71), but the pattern is usually outlined as follows: first son for paternal grandfather; second son for maternal grandfather; third son for father; subsequent sons for other relatives or influential townsfolk; and a similar pattern for daughters, although honouring the maternal grandmother before the paternal (Cory 1990, 68). It has been generally claimed that the pattern was ‘highly developed’ (Hamilton-Edwards 1983, 71), its usage driven by an ‘almost ritual [...] attitude to the naming of children’ (James 2009, 175),
1 I would like to gratefully acknowledge funding from The Carnegie Trust, who granted me a Carnegie Vacation Scholarship (July‒August 2011) in order to conduct this research project.
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 1–10 2 Alice Crook and was used throughout the whole of Scotland regardless of factors such as social class. These are bold statements, but the theory itself does not seem to have been comprehensively examined and the little research undertaken has been based on qualitative rather than quantitative analysis. Thus, it is difficult to accept the claim that the pattern was in common use, and it is possible that, with suitable analysis, such a claim could be refuted.
2 Methodology In an attempt to find evidence supporting or negating this theory, an investigation into the naming patterns of Beith (North Ayrshire) was conducted. The primary source was the Old Parish Registers (hereafter OPRs): records of baptisms, marriages and burials taking place within a particular parish. The OPRs are an invaluable source of Early Modern Scottish personal names, as, from the mid-16th century, the Church of Scotland required its representatives to keep an accurate record of a parish’s inhabitants (ScotlandsPeople 1). Although not all Scottish people were members of the church and some records are illegible or were infrequently updated, the OPRs remain one of the largest sources of 18th-century Scottish personal names, and, if a naming pattern does exist and was widely used by the Scottish population, it should be visible in the registers. Using microfilm copies of the OPRs for the years 1701‒1800, details of 7,035 baptisms were entered into an electronic database, comprising 3,561 males and 3,474 females. A purpose-built relational database was used, built on MySQL. The data in a MySQL database are stored in tables which consist of columns (or ‘fields’) and rows (or ‘records’). SQL (Structured Query Language) is useful as it allows the user to easily run queries against the data. A sample of such a query is:
SELECT * FROM `table_name` WHERE `PeopleID` = ‘1’;
This query would return all records from the table ‘table_name’ where the field ‘PeopleID’ is 1. Each record in the database has a unique identifier known as a primary key. In this case, the primary key is the field ‘PeopleID’. This particular query would give the user a list of all records within the specified table where the PeopleID is 1 and expected output would be only one record. A more complex query would be:
SELECT * FROM `people` WHERE `first_name` IS LIKE ‘Mar%’;
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 1–10 Personal Names in 18th-Century Scotland 3 This query would return all records in ‘people’ table where the name begins with ‘Mar’. Using this database, I was able to gain my results efficiently and without the possibility of human error. The records were then organised into familial units. This was done by selecting all baptisms clearly related by aspects such as surname, name of parent(s), location and/or occupation of parent and period of birth. If it could be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that records were related, they were grouped together within the database. Those records for which there was doubt were collated into ‘mass groups’, generally organised by surname and father’s name. The records within these mass groups were analysed for aspects such as their presence in the name stock of the parish but were not analysed for the presence of naming patterns. After the grouping had been completed, the database contained 1,803 distinct familial units, with each familial unit representing a single father, mother and their children. These units were comprised of 5,562 records, which meant that 1,473 records (20.9% of the total) were not analysed in relation to other sets of records. These 1,803 familial units did not universally have both male and female children; 1,390 families contained at least one male child and 1,319 families contained at least one female child. By linking individual People IDs together in the database, chains of ancestors and descendants were created for those families I could be sure were directly related. SQL queries were then run against the data to analyse aspects such as number of unique names, name-sharing between parent and child, and the number of those with godparents.
3 Results 3.1.1 Name stock It was important that a study of the name stock be carried out as, with a small name stock, the chance of coincidental name sharing is higher (as opposed to name sharing caused by the presence of a particular naming pattern). After disregarding those records where names were illegible or likely misspellings (e.g. Jeant which was probably meant to be either Jean or Janet), the name stock of the parish totalled 112 distinct names (50 male and 62 female). Due to the removal of certain name forms from the data for the calculation of the name stock, these results account for 98.5% of the records (6,903 of 7,035). Of these 112 names, 17/50 (34%) of male names and 26/62 (41.9%) of female names were used once, giving a regular name stock of 33 male names and 36 female names. Thus, although the overall female name stock was 24% larger than the male, there were many more unique female names and the regular name stocks were almost equal for each sex.
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 1–10 4 Alice Crook To observe the popularity of names used more than once, a table (Fig. 1) was created, which displays the top 10 names for each sex and the percentage of children baptised with each name over the period studied. Fig. 1 MALE FEMALE Name Count % Name Count %
John 872 24.68 Margaret 659 19.40 William 635 17.97 Jean 560 16.49 Robert 606 17.15 Janet 488 14.37 James 463 13.10 Mary 395 11.63 Hugh 182 5.15 Elizabeth 288 8.48 Thomas 161 4.56 Agnes 249 7.33 Andrew 133 3.76 Ann 152 4.47 David 123 3.48 Marion 136 4.00 Alexander 81 2.29 Martha 98 2.88 Matthew 36 1.02 Isabel 87 2.56 3,292 93.16 3,112 91.61
As can be seen in Fig. 1, despite 33 male and 36 female names being used more than once, the vast majority (93.16% male and 91.61% female) have a name among the 10 most popular in the parish. It is also striking that 72.9% of males were baptised with one of the top four names (compared to 61.89% of females). Therefore, despite the actual name stock of the parish being 112 names, over 90% of the 6,930 records analysed for this section have one of 20 names. This is likely to cause problems when assessing the likelihood of a naming pattern being in use, as names may not be picked expressly to follow the pattern; instead they may be picked simply because there are very few well- known names to choose from. This small name stock was also one of the reasons that many records could not be definitively linked together in the grouping stage of the data organisation. With the parish’s rural location and the reasonably small geographical area, there were a number of especially prominent families; it was difficult to decipher which John Shedden, for example, was referred to in a single record when there were 101 other records which mentioned a person with the same name.
3.1.2 Patrilineal and matrilineal naming Patrilineal and matrilineal naming, or naming a child for the parent, tends to be a common feature of the early modern naming traditions in places such as
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 1–10 Personal Names in 18th-Century Scotland 5 England. In an earlier study of the parish of Castle Camps in Cambridgeshire (Crook, forthcoming), I discovered that an average of 61% of families with a male child had a case of potential patrilineal naming and an average of 46.2% of families with a female child had a case of potential matrilineal naming. After analysing birth order, it appeared that this was deliberate rather than coincidental. My conclusions supported similar studies by Smith-Bannister (1997, 65). Therefore it could be expected that, were the pattern not in use, the level of potential patrilineal and matrilineal naming would be fairly high. With an average of 2.56 sons and 2.63 daughters per family with children of those sexes, many families would not have had the third child which would traditionally share the parent’s name. Therefore, if the pattern were followed, it could be expected that the percentages for potential patrilineal and matrilineal naming would be fairly low. Of the 1,390 familial units which contain a son, 1,368 include the name of the father. Of these, 688 contain a son who shared a name with his father: 50.3%. Of the 1,319 units which contain a daughter, 975 include the name of the mother. Of these, 388 contain a daughter who shared her mother’s name: 39.8%. The percentage for mother-daughter name sharing is representative only for the period 1740‒1800, as the mothers’ names were rarely included in the baptismal records of the earlier decades. There are very few cases where the father’s name is missing and thus the percentage for the potential patrilineal naming is a good representation of the naming in the parish. The fact that the 50.3% seen in the Beith records is lower than the 61% of the English parish may simply be a geographical difference, as Smith-Bannister (1997, 42) noted that rates of parental naming did differ between areas of England. However, it is also possible that the lower percentage is due to the presence of a naming pattern, with the grandfathers’ names taking precedence over the fathers’. If this were the case, the fact that half of all families with a son (and a recorded father’s name) see an occurrence of father-son name sharing could be explained by the small name stock and thus probable instances of name sharing between grandfathers and father.
3.1.3 Godparental influence Of the 7,035 entries, only 32 (0.45%) contained note of a godparent (referred to as a ‘sponsor’ in this particular parish). These 32 entries consisted of 11 males and 21 females, and one male and three females also had a recorded second godparent. Of the males, 10 of 11 could have conceivably shared a name with a godparent, as the godparent of the 11th was of the opposite sex. Three (30%) do share a name with a godparent; one of these shares a name with the only
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 1–10 6 Alice Crook listed godparent, another shares with the second listed godparent and the third has a name common to both his godfather and father. Of the females, five of 21 could have shared a name with a godparent, with the other 16 having a male godparent. Two (40%) do share a name with a godparent. One of these shares her godmother with an older sister, i.e. of two children who could have shared a name with a godparent, the second shared rather than the first. Altogether, these results indicate that godparents probably did not have much influence in the naming process in this parish at the time of the study. Only five children appear to share a name with a godparent, and one of these may be a coincidence due to the father having the same name. Also, although more godparents may have been in existence in the parish at this time, the fact that only 0.45% of all records studied contain information about them cannot be ignored and suggests that godparents did not play an especially prominent role in this society. Therefore, if a traditional naming pattern were generally in use, it is likely that potential pressure to name children for godparents would not be disruptive to this pattern.
3.1.4 Substitution It was originally intended that an examination of substitution be conducted, to establish whether a potential naming pattern was affected by the death of a child. Unfortunately, this part of the study could not be undertaken. Although the baptismal and marital records were generally good for this particular parish, it emerged that the burial records were only available for the years 1783‒87. On attempting to take note of the deaths for even this brief period, it was discovered that the records lacked information (e.g. ‘Daniel McDonald’s child stillborn Dec. 31 1784’), usually with no indication of the name, age or sex of the child.2 Despite the sparseness of data, the burials did yield some useful information. It transpired that many of the children who were stillborn or died soon after birth had not been baptised, as it was indicated when a child listed in the burials had in fact been baptised: ‘Archbald Taylors child Baptised 26 May 1784’. This meant that it could be expected that a greater proportion of those entered in the baptismal records had lived past childhood, as the sickliest were
2 I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer who has suggested that these unknown, stillborn children may be the missing links in the pattern, as they may have been named according to the pattern but died before baptism. In this study, conclusions have been based solely on the available information in the OPRs, but future research will involve analysis of infant mortality rates to ascertain whether these deaths have indeed been affecting usage of the pattern.
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 1–10 Personal Names in 18th-Century Scotland 7 often not baptised before death. This, then, in turn suggested that substitution would not have been easy to spot even if the burial records had survived for the entire period studied, as many of the relevant births would not have been included in the baptismal records.
3.2 Possible presence of naming pattern As has already been mentioned, the small name stock and the number of very common surnames caused it to be especially difficult to link familial units to ancestors and descendants with a good degree of accuracy. In total, 24 familial units were linked to at least one ancestral branch (either paternal or maternal). It is hoped that, if later studies are conducted in more urban areas, the surnames will be more varied and allow more ancestral groupings to be created. Of those 24 linked groups, 15 did not adhere to the pattern at all and two followed it only partly. Another two cases could have been following the pattern but could also have been instances of patrilineal naming. The remaining five followed the pattern but did not have the opportunity to follow it past one child of each sex. Therefore, there were no definite instances of a family following the naming pattern for a considerable number of children, although there were instances of families in which the pattern was clearly not used. These latter families are a more useful indicator of whether the pattern was generally used in the parish, as name sharing between grandparents and parents may also have been coincidental rather than a deliberate attempt to follow the pattern. This approach is useful as it can theoretically provide evidence of families which clearly follow the naming pattern. However, to gain this evidence, the familial units must be suitable for grouping together; unfortunately this parish contained too many ambiguous records for a good proportion of the parish’s population to be represented in this way. Due to the difficulty of accurately linking relations together outwith their immediate family, it is often impossible to see whether the naming pattern is in use. However, through another method of analysis, it is possible to see cases in which the pattern is clearly not in use. The most widespread perception of the ‘traditional’ Scottish naming pattern is ‘the eldest son named after the paternal grandfather; the second son named after the maternal grandfather; the third son named after the father’, with a similar pattern for the female children (Cory 1990, 68; supported by Durie 2009, 52). One difficulty caused by a small name stock is the reasonably high likelihood that the grandparents and parent have the same name; if the first child, for example, also has that name, it cannot be deduced whether it is a case of patrilineal/matrilineal naming and not within the pattern, or whether the child is named for the grandparent and
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 1–10 8 Alice Crook therefore within the pattern. However, whether the grandparents and parent are identically named or not, one of the first three unique names of same-sex children in a familial unit must necessarily be the same as the parent’s if the pattern is followed. It is important to specify ‘first three unique names’ rather than ‘first three names’ as, if a child named for a grandparent had died, it is possible that the next child would also be named for the grandparent, thereby delaying but perhaps not ignoring further use of the pattern. In such a case, the fourth son may share a name with the father, but it is the third unique name of the family and thus within the naming pattern. A list was made of all families containing at least three sons or three daughters. This list was then analysed for the appearance of the parents’ names among the unique names of their children. The results are given in Fig. 2. Fig. 2 Count % Count % Father’s name 239 77.35 Mother’s name 158 62.20 appears appears Father’s name 70 22.65 Mother’s name 96 37.80 does not appear does not appear in first 3 in first 3 309 254
In total, 309 families had a minimum of three uniquely-named sons and 254 had a minimum of three uniquely-named daughters. In the father/son analysis, 22.65% of the families did not have the father’s name appearing in the first three unique names of the children. With more than three children, the father’s name was sometimes used for a later child or not at all. With either case, it is significant that the father’s name did not appear until later in the birth order, as it indicates a clear deviation from the assumed pattern. Similarly, 37.8% of the families with more than three unique female names did not see mother/daughter name sharing in the first three unique names. These are highly significant results, as it shows that a considerable proportion of the families in Beith were not following the naming pattern popularly believed to have been a widespread Scottish phenomenon. In addition, these figures prove that a minimum percentage of these families were not using the pattern, rather than proving that a minimum percentage were. The number of families in the above table who may still have used the pattern is likely to be significantly lower than the 77.35% and 62.2% shown above: it is possible that the use of the parent’s name for one of the eldest children was not a deliberate attempt to follow the naming pattern, but instead due to the small name stock
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 1–10 Personal Names in 18th-Century Scotland 9 and the subsequent lack of choice. Otherwise it may be a decision made in order to preserve the parent’s name but not necessarily to follow the naming pattern. If the families were choosing to follow a patrilineal and matrilineal naming system, this would explain why the figure for mother/daughter name sharing is lower than for father/son name sharing: previous research has consistently shown higher rates of patrilineal naming than matrilineal. This figure accounts for less than a third of all distinct families in the parish, as many did not have enough children for this type of analysis. Therefore, the percentages above do not represent all of the parish’s familial units, only those with more than three same-sex children. It is more difficult to assess the presence of a specific pattern in smaller families, but it must be remembered that the alleged Scottish naming pattern specifies the naming of a large number of children. Therefore, it is wise to devote sufficient attention to those larger families who could follow the pattern further than the smaller families. It is possible that the widespread belief in this Scottish naming pattern has caused the evidence to be somewhat circular in nature. For example, the ScotlandsPeople website acknowledges that the pattern was not universally used, but recommends that those struggling with finding the correct record adhere to it: ‘it can still be helpful in determining the correct entry when confronting the relative lack of information in the OPRs’ (ScotlandsPeople 2). I would suggest that such advice has perhaps led to people wrongly assuming that the pattern exists in their own family and further strengthening belief in a naming system which has not been critically assessed.
Bibliography and references Primary Sources Old Parish Register: Beith: 581/1; 581/2.
Secondary Sources Bigwood, R., 2006, The Scottish Family Tree Detective: Tracing your Ancestors in Scotland (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Cory, K.B., 1990, Tracing Your Scottish Ancestry (Edinburgh: Polygon). Crook, A., forthcoming, ‘Naming Patterns in Castle Camps, 1563‒1704’, Nomina. Durie, B., 2009, Scottish Genealogy (Stroud: The History Press). Hamilton-Edwards, G., 1983, In Search of Scottish Ancestry (Chichester: Phillimore & Co. Ltd). Holton, G.S. and J. Winch, 1998, My Ain Folk: An Easy Guide to Scottish Family History (East Linton: Tuckwell Press).
The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 1–10 10 Alice Crook James, A., 2009, Scottish Roots (Midlothian: Macdonald Publishers). Smith-Bannister, S., 1997, Names and Naming Patterns in England 1538‒1700 (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Steel, D.J., 1962, ‘The Descent of English Christian Names’, Genealogists’ Magazine 14, 44-47. Scots Ancestry Research Society: The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 1–10 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages Part 2: Scot as a surname, north of the Firth of Forth Matthew H. Hammond University of Glasgow1 The first part of this article (Hammond 2007) examined the use of the second name Scot as a by-name in the central middle ages and explored the contexts for the coining of this ethnonymic among three groups of people: merchants, clerics and knights. The remaining two parts of the article will consider the use of the name Scot as a hereditary surname, asking why families adopted the surname Scot, what contexts they operated in and how their naming practices changed across generations. Part 2 will take in turn three case studies of families based north of the Forth-Clyde isthmus who used the surname Scot – those based at Allardice KCD, Monorgan PER and Balwearie FIF. Part 3, in a future issue, will examine Scot families based in southern Scotland. I Scot of Allardice KCD The text of a charter of King William the Lion dated 16 October 1198at Stirling, which survives only in an official transumpt of the original charter made in 1703 (NRS, GD 49/1), records the gift of Allardice (Arbuthnott parish) KCD to Walter son of Walter Scot ‘for the service of one archer with horse and hauberk and the performance of common aid due from thirteen oxgangs of land’ (RRS ii no. 404; H1/6/372).2 This was apparently a charter of succession, by which Walter Scot the younger succeeded to the estate of his father, who had recently died. Walter Scot and his son Walter had only recently witnessed the perambulation of Balfeith (Fordoun parish) KCD, which Humphrey of Berkeley had given to Arbroath Abbey (Arb. Lib. i no. 89; H3/83/6). Humphrey’s charter mentions Alexander, the son of King William and Queen Ermengarde, in the pro anima clause; he was only born on 24 August 1198. Thus the charter can be dated to between 24 August and 16 October 1198. 1 I would like to thank Dauvit Broun, Roibeard Ó Maolalaigh, Alice Taylor and especially Simon Taylor for commenting on aspects of this article. 2 This article incorporates the new system of referencing charters and people employed in the People of Medieval Scotland database ( The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 12 Matthew H. Hammond Master Isaac, the clerk of bishop-elect Roger of St Andrews, interviewed the elder Walter Scot,3 ‘a person of known integrity’4 on the matter of Donnchad or Duncan of Arbuthnott’s illegal expropriation of episcopal land in the parish, writing that ‘he saw his death approaching’, sometime in the months leading up to Roger’s consecration at St Andrews on 15 February 1198 (Spalding Misc. v, 211; H4/36/1). In a recent article, Dauvit Broun suggests that Walter Scot the elder had actually died that winter and was thus deceased at the time that the Balfeith charter was produced the following autumn. It is likely that Walter, if he were ill enough to be on his deathbed, would be too ill to venture out to Balfeith and witness a perambulation en plein air (Broun 2011, 267–69). Whenever Walter Scot died, what is clear is that he had been settled in Allardice for some length of time by 1198. Master Isaac’s interview with the dying Walter included a mention that he had lived there ‘in the time of eight thanes or more’. Walter was a perambulator and witness for Richard de Fréville in his gift of Mondynes (Fordoun parish) KCD to the new Arbroath Abbey, 1178 × 4 August 1188 (Arb. Lib. i no. 91; H3/235/2). Walter Scot also perambulated another ploughgate on the Bervie Water in Fordoun parish, with William de Montfort, Humphrey of Berkeley and Alan son of Simon, with which the king intended to replace that given by Richard de Fréville, 1183 × 1188 (RRS ii no. 277; H1/6/251). Indeed, Walter was evidently already present in the area by 19 August 1179, when he witnessed a charter of Abbot Henry of Arbroath anent the ferry of Montrose (BL, Add. MS 33245, fo. 138v; H2/64/2). According to the Kirkton of Arbuthnott testimony, from 11 April 1206, Osbert Olifard had possessed the land of Arbuthnott in the time of Bishop Richard of St Andrews (1165 × 1178). G.W.S. Barrow reckons that King William infefted Osbert there during this time (RRS ii, 478, no. 569). Isaac of Benvie testified in 1206 that Osbert left on crusade during the time of Bishop Hugh (1183 × 1188), and that Isaac held Arbuthnott from Osbert and from his successor Walter Olifard, who later gave the land to Hugh of Swinton (Spalding Misc. v, 207–13; H4/36/1). Indeed, Osbert witnesses three royal charters during the 1160s and 1170s but there is no evidence of his return to Scotland (RRS ii nos. 125, 154, 155). Interestingly, King William’s charter to Walter Scot the younger in 1198 is phrased as a gift – with the verb dare, rather than omitting that verb, as is usual in charters of succession. It is possible 3 PoMS no. 848 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 13 that Allardice was a dependent estate of Arbuthnott into which Osbert Olifard ‘subinfeudated’ Walter Scot the elder at some point before 1179; in any case Walter Scot the younger held it directly of the king. The balance of probability is that, like their neighbours the Swintons of Arbuthnott and their other neighbouring landholders, the Frévilles (later Frivills), Berkeleys, Melvilles and Sibbalds, Walter Scot was a newcomer to the Mearns in the 12th century. Unlike the other two ‘Scot’ families north of Forth, there is no evidence of this family using Gaelic names or having close ties with the older aristocracy and institutions of east central Scotland. The name Walter Scot is much more in keeping with examples which were encountered in Part 1 of this article south of the Forth, and indeed we will revisit this family in Part 3. Walter Scot (II)5 was present at the perambulation of the maritagium of Eve, daughter of Walter son of Sibald, along with Eve’s husband, Philip de Maleville (Melville), Duncan of Arbuthnott (son of Hugh of Swinton) and Hervey of Pitskelly (by Mondynes) (Arb. Lib. i no. 93; H3/534/1). The dowerlands, which Philip and Eve granted to Arbroath Abbey, were confirmed in a royal charter of probably 17 April 1205.6 It was probably the younger Walter Scot who witnessed a charter recording a gift by John of Hastings of a saltpans and an acre of land and common pasture in Dun ANG (Arb. Lib. i no. 142; H3/274/1). The following generation is represented by Hugh Scot,7 although whether he is the son or some other descendant or successor of Walter Scot the younger is unclear. He was clearly still active in the Mearns, witnessing a charter concerning lands in the parish of Conveth or Laurencekirk KCD probably late in the 1240s (St And. Lib., 285–86; H3/83/15). Again as Hugh Scot, around the same time, he witnessed a charter of Walter of Lundin to his cousin Philip of Feodarg, alongside other KCD and ABD knights (SHS Misc. iv no. 14; H3/369/7). At some point between the 1240s and the 1270s, the family appears to have dropped the ‘Scot’ surname in favour of the local toponymic.8 This process was not unknown and, as will become evident in what follows, also occurred in the case of the ‘Scot’ family of Monorgan PER. Alexander of Allardice9 was the beneficiary of a davoch of land called Inverquharity in the feu of Kirriemuir ANG, from Gilbert de Umfraville, earl of Angus, in a charter dated 12 October 1271 at Ballindalloch (Fraser, Douglas iii no. 286; H3/10/17). The charter 5 PoMS no. 1116 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 14 Matthew H. Hammond specified that the land was to be inherited by Alexander’s son Walter and his legitimate heirs. This is presumably the same Alexander of Allardice who witnessed a charter of Bishop Henry Cheyne of Aberdeen to Adam of Pilmore, relating to Glack (Daviot parish) ABD, between 1282 and 1296 (of which more in section II, Scot of Monorgan, below) (Abdn. Reg. i, 36–37; H2/1/41); and the same Alexander of Allardice ‘of the county of Kincardine’ who swore fealty to King Edward at Berwick on 28 August 1296, although it is always possible this was a son of the same name (CDS ii, 209). A Walter of Allardice10 performed homage to King Edward on 14 March 1304 along with many other men; he is presumably to be identified with Walter, the son of Alexander (CDS ii, no. 730).11 As Black’s Surnames of Scotland makes clear, the family continued to be active in the later middle ages (Black 1946, 18–19). Genealogical Tree: Scot of Allardice Walter Scot (I) fl. 1180s, d. c. 1198 Walter Scot (II) fl. 1200s ? Hugh Scot fl. 1240s ? Alexander of Allardice fl. 1270s Walter of Allardice fl. 1270s–1300s 10 PoMS no. 6391 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 15 II Scot of Monorgan PER Bishop Andrew of Caithness and Monorgan in the 12th century The family holding the estate of Monorgan (Longforgan parish) PER used both the ethnonymic ‘Scot’ and the toponymic ‘of Monorgan’ in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. In a charter dated at Markinch FIF which must have been produced early in 1172, David, younger brother of King William the Lion, and lord of the multiple estate of Longforgan, one of the four royal maneria of Gowrie,12 gave Monorgan to Gilbert, ‘nephew of the bishop of Caithness’13 (NLS, Ch. 7710; Stringer 1985, 235–36, no. 28; H3/6/1). King William’s charter of confirmation makes clear that Gilbert’s uncle was Bishop Andrew of Caithness (RRS ii no. 133; H1/6/116).14 The land was to be held in feu and heritage but no military service was specified; the only expected return to Earl David was a goshawk of less than one year old. Could this indicate that the charter was confirming an existing arrangement on the ground rather than signalling a new gift of land from Earl David? The multiple estate of Longforgan was part of a large package of lands across the kingdom, including Lennox, Garioch ABD, Dundee, Lindores FIF and Newtyle ANG, which King William gave his brother; the surviving charter text appears to date from 1178 but it has long been clear that Earl David was in control of some of these lands well before that date (RRS ii no. 205; H1/6/181).15 Clearly this charter of Monorgan to Gilbert in 1172 was produced soon after Earl David’s actual acquisition of the lordship. As charters to laypeople were still not routine, it was likely the involvement of Gilbert’s uncle, Bishop Andrew, which led to the acquisition of Earl David’s charter. Furthermore, Bishop Andrew’s position in the royal court circle since the time of King David suggests a coordinated effort to establish his nephew’s position in light of the new landholding situation from both the new lord, Earl David, as well as the king, whose charter of confirmation was dated soon thereafter at Stirling and includes at least three of the same witnesses.16 Bishop Andrew, who died at Dunfermline Abbey on 29 or 30 December 1184, was a major local landholder in his own right.17 Although he held the title 12 The four royal maneria of Gowrie were Scone, Coupar Angus, Longforgan and Strathardle (RRS i no. 243). 13 Gileberto Nepoti episcopi katenessis. 14 Gileberto nepoti episcopi de Catenes Andree. 15 Stringer, Earl David, 145, 82. 16 Earl Donnchad of Fife, Matthew, bishop-elect of Aberdeen, and Robert de Quincy appear in both witness lists. William de la Haye witnesses the royal charter and may have witnessed the charter of Earl David, where the surname has been rubbed off. 17 Chron. Holyrood, 169; Chron. Bower iv, 349; Chron. Melrose, facsimile edn., 45; Chron. Melrose, Faustina B.IX, fo. 24r, s.a. 1185; Fasti, 78. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 16 Matthew H. Hammond of bishop of Caithness, this was a titular post probably resurrected by King David I, as the province of Caithness was in practice controlled by the powerful Norse jarls of Orkney in the 12th century. Instead, Bishop Andrew was a court retainer, witnessing large numbers of royal charters (RRS i, 6–7; ii, 6). Andrew held a great deal of land in Angus, but this was probably the result of royal munificence, as King William was able to alienate Dunnichen, Kingoldrum and other lands in favour of Arbroath Abbey after the bishop’s death (RRS ii no. 223; H1/6/199). Bishop Andrew also held land in Longforgan parish PER; late in his reign, King David gave him *Auchtercomon (Hoctor comon) free from all service save common army. This short charter is recorded in the cartulary of Dunfermline Abbey; as the bishop had been a monk there (Dunf. Reg. no. 24; David I Chrs. no. 156; H1/4/83). Barrow has identified Hoctor comon as the upland portion of Longforgan, which later became known as Littleton and Lauriston.18 It seems likely that Bishop Andrew or his family held land elsewhere in the parish and that Monorgan was likely inhabited by them even before 1172. A Fulk of Hontrecommun (no doubt for Houtrecommun, i.e. *Auchtercomon), witnessed a charter dealing with neighbouring Fowlis Easter probably in 1165 × 1166; it is possible that he was a tenant of Bishop Andrew (St And. Lib., 264–65; H3/389/2).19 Notably, Fulk or Foulques is a relatively rare name in the ‘People of Medieval Scotland’ database, with only 10 individuals of that name. These included Fulk, the first abbot of Coupar Angus,20 who died in 1170, as well as Fulk, a canon of St Andrews21 in the late 1160s: could this Fulk be a relative of one of these men? Gillebertus scotus, Gilla Brigte or Gilbert the Scot,22 ‘son of Ewen of Monorgan’, ‘with the assent and will of his wife Christina, daughter of Merleswain’, gave 13 acres on the Pillic next to the mill to St Andrews Priory at some point on either side of the year 1200.23 The Pillic can probably be identified as the Huntly Burn that flows through Monorgan (St And. Lib., 269–70; H3/411/1). Gilbert Scot is evidently the same man as the nephew of Bishop Andrew. The charter was witnessed by Magnus son of Earl Colbán of Buchan and uncle of Gilbert’s wife Christina, lords of the nearby estates of Ballindean and Inchture, and men associated with Earl David’s household.24 Nothing else is known of Gilbert’s father except that he was 18 For more on this place-name, which contains a saint’s name, see Taylor 1999, 55 and n. 85. 19 PoMS no. 14572 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 17 presumably the brother25 of Bishop Andrew of Caithness. As he seems to have been known as Ewen of Monorgan (unless we are to read this as Gilbert, son of Ewen, of Monorgan), it is possible that Ewen died prior to the 1172 charter of Earl David to Gilbert. Given that Ewen held a dependent estate of one of the four royal manors of Gowrie, and that his family was evidently prominent enough to produce a major bishop and court figure, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he may have been the man named Ewen (or Old Gaelic Éogan) who was sheriff of Scone in the early 1160s. Ewen, sheriff of Scone,26 witnessed Bishop Arnold of St Andrews’ grand confirmation of the cathedral priory’s possessions, turning up after Merleswain (of Kennoway FIF), Ness son of William (of Leuchars FIF) and Orm son of Áed (of Abernethy PER), and before Swain of Forgan and his two sons, Archibald and Hugh (Forgan and Monorgan are neighbouring vills)27 (St And. Lib., 130–32; H2/10/38). Gilbert was evidently alive until about the turn of the century: he witnessed a charter of Roger de Mortimer, lord of neighbouring Fowlis Easter, dating to 13 April 1189 × 15 February 1198, alongside a number of people associated with the household of Earl David of Huntingdon (St And. Lib., 41–42; H3/417/2). Gilbert’s status as a tenant of Earl David is also evident from his attestation of a charter of the earl, 1199 × 1215, to Lindores Abbey, of land in Ecclesgreig (St Cyrus parish) KCD, where David was also lord (Stringer 1985, 248, no. 46; Lind. Cart. no. 8; H3/6/26). In summation, Gilbert’s own charter refers to him as Scottus and his father as ‘of Monorgan’, while in his two charter attestations, he appears simply as Gilbert Scot. In the following century, his successors would use both surnames, before apparently settling on Monorgan. The Scot / Monorgan family in the 13th century At some point between about 1203 and about 1233, Magnus son of Gilbert (or Gilla Brigte) Scot28 renewed the 13 acres on the Pillic for St Andrews Priory and added to it a further one and a half acres (St And. Lib., 270; H3/411/2). Magnus was evidently named for his uncle, Magnus son of Earl Colbán of Buchan, who witnessed Gilbert Scot’s initial gift of the 13 acres. For whatever reason – perhaps to distinguish themselves from the increasingly prominent Scot family based in east Fife and spreading into west Fife and Gowrie at this time (see section III, Scot of Balwearie, below) – the family seems to have 25 Or, if nepos means grandson, he was conceivably a son of the bishop. Another possibility is that Gilbert’s mother was Bishop Andrew’s sister. 26 PoMS no. 262 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 18 Matthew H. Hammond dropped ‘Scot’ in favour of the toponymic surname ‘of Monorgan’, much in the same way as the Scot family of Allardice adopted the name of their estate. As Magnus of Monorgan, he gave a toft and an acre lying next to the land of Lord Henry of Stirling, son of Earl David, in Monorgan, to Lindores Abbey (Lind. Cart. no. 65; H3/411/3). In addition to being a neighbour, Henry of Stirling witnessed the charter. Magnus of Monorgan also witnessed a charter of Lord Henry establishing a chapel at his curia of Inchmartine (Errol parish) PER on 1 November 1241 (Fraser, Melvilles no. 11; H3/550/1). This signals an important connection that would apparently continue on into the 14th century. Magnus’s surviving acts reflect the two strands which continue to characterise the family into the 14th century – an ongoing relationship with the descendants of Earl David of Huntingdon and a newfound connection with the kindred of the earls of Buchan; the first, evidently, was due to Gilbert Scot’s late-12th-century tenancy of Monorgan from Earl David as lord of Longforgan; the second is clearly due to Magnus’s mother Christina’s position as a granddaughter of Earl Colbán of Buchan. The next generation is represented by one Lord Gilbert Scot (II), knight,29 who was possibly in the service of Alexander Comyn, earl of Buchan. The likelihood of this, suggested by his two surviving acts of witnessing, combined with his use of the name Gilbert (probably doing double duty for Gilla Brigte), go a long way toward identifying him as a member of the Monorgan family. Between 1273 and 1289, Earl Alexander Comyn of Buchan gave the monks of Lindores Abbey 10 marks in exchange for certain lands; it should be kept in mind that Lindores was founded by the superior lord of Monorgan, Earl David of Huntingdon, and supported by his successors (Lind. Cart. no. 124; H3/12/37). Moreover, Gilbert Scot (II) witnessed a charter by the same earl to St Andrews Priory, renewing the gift made by his parents of a half mark from Inuerinhe, probably Inverie, St Monans FIF30 (St And. Lib., 282–83; H3/12/27). Gilbert’s predecessor – probably his grandmother – was Christina daughter of Merleswain, a member of the Buchan kindred, more specifically of a branch of the family tree rooted in Fife. Thus, Gilbert’s appearance as witness in these charters fits with his family’s former overlords (whose male line ended in 1237) and suggests that they may have looked to their Buchan relations for patronage as the situation changed over time. Another family member appearing in the middle of the 13th century is Andrew of Monorgan, burgess of Dundee.31 In 1268, Andrew witnessed 29 PoMS no. 3762 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 19 a charter by Henry of Hastings, one of the inheritors of the former earls of Huntingdon lordship which also included Longforgan and Dundee, to Balmerino Abbey, relating to a burgage plot in that burgh (Balm. Lib. no. 32; H3/274/5). Moreover, Andrew is the first of a list of four burgesses to witness, suggesting a role of some importance in the town. His name, Andrew, of course, is redolent of his likely great-great-uncle, a man of power and influence in the region, Bishop Andrew Scot of Caithness. In 1271, an inquest into the inheritance of the late Dubgall, brother of Earl Máel Domnaig of Lennox, was held by royal precept: this found his true heirs to be Mary, wife of John de Wardrobe, Helen, wife of Bernard of Airth, and Forbflaith, daughter of the late Finlay of Campsie and wife of Norin of Monorgan32 (Paisley Reg., 191–92; H4/38/20). A document of 12 October 1270 makes clear that this inquest was the result of a dispute between these three couples and Paisley Abbey, where in the court of Earl Máel Coluim of Lennox they supposedly resigned their rights for 140 marks (Paisley Reg., 189– 90; H3/598/1). In 1273, however, despite the findings of the royal inquest in their favour, Norin and Forbflaith bound themselves to appear in the earl’s court when summoned at their land of Campsie STL (Paisley Reg., 201–02; H3/411/5). Shortly thereafter, it would seem, after collecting the remainder of their 140 marks (46 marks 8 s. 10½ d.), the couple renounced their claim to the various Lennox lands (Paisley Reg., 198–201, 203; H3/411/4 and 6). The existence of Norin of Monorgan is a fascinating reminder ofthe widespread effects of contacts made a century before. The only other person in the PoMS database named Norin was one Norin of Leslie ABD. Evidently a hypocoristic form of Norman, Lord Norman of Leslie, son of Norman the constable of Inverurie, was the grandson of Malcolm son of Bertolf, a man of Flemish descent whom Earl David made one of his most important tenants in the lordship of the Garioch (Stringer 1985, 254–55, no. 55; NRS, GD 204/23/1; H3/6/7). The use of the name Norin by a member of the Monorgan family suggests a marriage tie with a member of the Leslie family, perhaps Magnus of Monorgan’s wife. Furthermore, the family’s ties with the earls of Buchan already gave the Scots of Monorgan a link with Aberdeenshire, and Norman / Norin of Leslie even witnessed a charter of Earl Fergus of Buchan. The most likely suggestion here is that Magnus of Monorgan, whose mother Christina was a descendant of Earl Colbán, and whose father was a tenant of Earl David, married a sister of Norin of Leslie. Neither should we be surprised to see members of this family on the west side of the kingdom, in the Lennox. Earl David had also been earl of Lennox, before it was given or returned to 32 PoMS no. 2161 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 20 Matthew H. Hammond the predecessors of Earl Máel Domnaig. Indeed, Earl David gave the church of Campsie STL to Kelso Abbey in 1174 (Kelso Lib. i no. 226; H3/6/4).33 Could descendants of Earl David and his tenants have continued to hold land in Lennox in the 13th century? That Finlay of Campsie’s daughter Forbflaith would be married to Norin of Monorgan, possibly the son of Magnus of Monorgan, suggests as much. Genealogical Tree: Scot of Monorgan Andrew ‘Scot’, Ewen of Monorgan Merleswain bishop of Caithness d. Dec. 29/30, 1184 ‘nepos’ Gilbert Scot, m. Christina, fl. 1163 × 1200 fl. 1190s Magnus of Monorgan, fl. 1241 ? Lord Gilbert Scot, Norin of Monorgan, m. Forbflaith Andrew (I) fl. 1244 × 89 fl. c. 1273 of Campsie of Monorgan, burgess of Dundee, fl. 1268 ? Andrew (II) of Monorgan, fl. 1304 33 The gift to Kelso was ultimately unsuccessful and it was later re-given to Glasgow Cathedral by Earl Alwine II. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 21 The above generation is represented by another Andrew of Monorgan,34 who witnessed the charter of 21 June 1304 recording the sale by John Butler (‘de Pincerna’) to Lord John of Inchmartine, of land in the holding of Pitmiddle PER35 ‘by reason of the exchange of the barony of Elcho’: Andrew is the last recorded witness in a witness list which includes a number of important Perthshire individuals, such as the sheriff and constable of Perth and members of the Hay, Mortimer, Blair, Alyth and Leys families.36 This suggests that the family continued to hold their eponymous estate and in effect take part in the local community as members of the local gentry. Andrew’s likely grandfather had witnessed Henry of Stirling (son of Earl David)’s endowment of a chapel at Inchmartine in 1241; these ties were evidently still important 63 years later. John of Inchmartine was Henry’s direct descendant. The existence of a Gilbert of Monorgan in 1452 suggests the family continued to hold its own, but their dalliance with the ethnonym ‘Scot’ seems to be a thoroughly pre-1300 phenomenon (Black 1946, 607–08; Perth Blackfriars, 22). Two comparator families: Forgan and Pilmore PER An interesting parallel exists in the family taking its name from Forgan, the main central estate of Longforgan. As early as 1153 × 1156, Bishop Andrew37 and Swain of Forgan38 both witnessed King Máel Coluim IV’s grant to St Andrews Priory of the half ploughgate of land in the shire of Longforgan called Kingoodie which he had previously given to the church of Longforgan (RRS i no. 123; H1/5/17); this is presumably the same half ploughgate which was disputed between Earl David and the canons in the first decade of the 13th century (Stringer 1985, 265–66, no. 74; H3/6/29). Swain and his two sons, Archibald39 and Hugh,40 were on record in 1161 × 1162 (St And. Lib., 130– 32; H2/10/38). As Longforgan was a royal manor to which Scone Abbey had rights, King William commanded Archibald and Hugh to render teinds to that abbey, 1165 × 1174 (RRS ii no. 16; H1/6/12). Archibald married the daughter 34 PoMS no. 17161 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 22 Matthew H. Hammond of William Maule and held the neighbouring estate of Fowlis Easter from him; subsequently, King William gave the estate to Maule’s grandson Roger de Mortimer (RRS ii no. 302; H1/6/273). It is likely that there were no children of Archibald’s marriage rather than that there was any ‘pro-Norman, anti-native’ expropriation taking place on the part of King William. Archibald, as William Maule’s son-in-law, witnessed two of his father-in-law’s charters to St Andrews Priory. In the first, probably in the late 1160s, he gave the chapel and related lands of Fowlis to the priory (St And. Lib., 264–65; H3/389/2); in the second, probably in the 1170s, William Maule seems to have turned the chapel into a church and bestowed it on his nepos (nephew?), Thomas the clerk St( And. Lib., 40–01; H3/389/3). There is no sign of either Archibald or his brother Hugh by the time of William’s gift to de Mortimer, probably in the early 1190s. There is also no real sign that Archibald was a local thane who was given the hand of the daughter of William Maule, and with her the estate of Fowlis, in compensation for the loss of Longforgan, when it was given to Earl David (cf. Grant 1993, 57–58). Indeed, Longforgan was clearly a royal multiple estate whose lordship was transferred from the king to his brother – hardly a radical change on the local level. Not only do we see continuity both in the family of Bishop Andrew and the family using the surname of Forgan, we also see these families being taken into the patronage of Earl David and taking part, quite successfully it might seem, in networks fostered by the earl’s descendants. The families living on these estates and managing them seem to have been the same in 1225 or 1275 as in 1175. The early-13th-century figure Ketill of Forgan41 was likely part of the same family, if the Scandinavian name is any indicator: he witnessed Magnus of Monorgan’s charter of renewal to St Andrews Priory. Whether the family had any relation to Thor of Fowlis is uncertain, although the use of Scandinavian names and the fact that Archibald of Forgan held Fowlis in the time before Roger de Mortimer might be used as evidence for a speculative connection. As we have seen with the Monorgan family, ties of tenancy to Earl David and his descendants meant new opportunities in new burghs – in that case Dundee. In the Forgan family, we see the same process. Walter of Forgan42 was a burgess of Berwick in the mid-13th century; he married Margery,43 daughter of John Hanyn, burgess of Berwick, so it is quite possible that he was a newcomer to that prosperous burgh, perhaps by way of Dundee. Walter and Margery sold to Kelso Abbey an annual return of two marks which they used to receive on some 41 PoMS no. 14608 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 23 land in Berwick in order to rebuild their (Walter and Margery’s) devastated and demolished lands (Kelso Lib. i nos. 31, 34; H3/632/2 and 3). The charter also mentions that they held land on The Ness in Berwick next to the land of the late Henry of Stirling. Henry of Stirling, illegitimate son of Earl David, held land in Longforgan, and had links to the Monorgan family. This suggests that Walter of Forgan was indeed part of the same Forgan family, and similarly was expanding along new avenues due to that network. Between the central estate of Longforgan and Kingoodie lies Pilmore. A number of individuals using the toponymic surname of Pilmore existed at this time, and they represent the third family based in the parish. Like the Forgans, they existed within a broader network defined by Earl David of Huntingdon and his descendants. Since the first member of the family to show up in charters does so around 1200, it is impossible to know whether they were on the land before Earl David became lord, or were introduced to it by him. In several ways, however, their experience bears comparison with the Monorgan and Forgan families. Adam (I) of Pilmore,44 the first on record, witnessed Magnus Scot of Monorgan’s renewal (c. 1203 × c. 1233) of the 13 acres on the Pillic to the canons of St Andrews, along with Ketill of Forgan (St And. Lib., 270; H3/411/2).45 Magnus of Monorgan’s gift around the same time to Lindores Abbey of land in Monorgan was witnessed by Adam ‘my man’ (homine meo): it is possible that this is the same person as Adam of Pilmore, although Adam was a common name at the time and there is no strong evidence that Pilmore was under Monorgan lordship (Lind. Cart. no. 65; H3/411/3). The next generation is represented by John of Pilmore,46 who witnessed a charter of Matilda, countess of Angus, to Arbroath Abbey, regarding Monifieth ANG, in the 1240s (Arb. Lib. i no. 115; H3/10/15). The next generation on record is that of the 1280s and 1290s, represented by Adam son of Robert of Pilmore.47 At that time Henry Cheyne, bishop of Aberdeen, gave the land of Glack in the shire of Daviot ABD to Adam, ‘in compensation for benefices which he held of the bishop’s predecessors’, which he would hold at feuferme by the same terms as his father Robert had held it, i.e., for 20 shillings’ annual rent (Abdn. Reg. i, 36–37; H2/1/41). Glack is in Daviot parish just outside the border of the Garioch, a lordship held by Earl David and his successors. Presumably the Pilmore family 44 PoMS no. 22521 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 24 Matthew H. Hammond was able to take advantage of these networks and expand into the northeast. Strengthening this notion is an early 14th-century charter of William Brown, burgess of Dundee, concerning land on Castlegate in the burgh of Dundee, between the land of Adam of Pilmore and the land of William of Garioch (NRS, GD 76/148). Thus Adam (II) of Pilmore links together Longforgan parish, the burgh of Dundee and the Garioch, showing that as with the Monorgan family these patronage networks remained strong up to 1300 and beyond. Adam’s contemporary Roger of Pilmore48 seems to have been based in Dundee; a 1292 charter of William Maule, lord of Panmure, stated that he had received from Ralph of Dundee and Roger of Pilmore payment for 17 sacks of wool (NRS, GD 45/27/115; Panmure Reg. ii, 151–52). The Alan and Thomas of Pilmuir, both of the county of Berwick, who swore fealty to Edward I in 1296 were likely from the place of that name in Berwickshire, as was William of Pilmuir, ‘of the county of Edinburgh’, who also witnesses a charter of John Maitland, lord of Thirlestane, in the 1280s CDS( ii, 206, 207, 211; Dryb. Lib. no. 284). The Robert of Pilmore or Pilmuir ‘of the county of Edinburgh’ who swore fealty in 1296, however, may just possibly have been the father of Adam (II) noted above (CDS ii, 201). The family was to reach its apogee in the 14th century in the ecclesiastical arena, if Dowden and Keith are correct in reporting that the John of Pilmore who was bishop of Moray from 1326 to 1362 was indeed the son of a burgess of Dundee named Adam of Pilmore, presumably to be identified with Adam (II) (Dowden 1912, 152–53, n. 4; Black 1946, 662).49 The family also included Richard of Pilmore, bishop of Dunkeld and probable brother of Bishop John, as well as their nephews Thomas of Pilmore and John of Kettins (Watt 1977, 294, 450–53). Unlike the Scot family based at Allardice, it is likely that the Scots of Monorgan were a Gaelic-speaking family based in the old heartland of Alba, thus representing the pre-13th century notion of Scottishness defined as someone from Alba. As we have seen in part one of this article, the majority of people using ‘Scot’ as a by-name in the 13th century seem not to have had Gaelic personal names and seem to have lived south of the Forth-Clyde isthmus. The personal names used by the Monorgan family were mostly Gaelic, Scandinavian or saints’ names of a type that would be common in Scotland, such as Andrew. Spelled in Latin, the recurring name Gilbertus is as likely to stand for the Gaelic Gilla Brigte as the French name Gilbert. Bishop Andrew is 48 PoMS no. 17429 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 25 explicitly called Scottish (nacione Scoctus) in the late 12th-century geographical treatise ‘De Situ Albanie’ (Anderson 1980, 242). It was not uncommon, as we saw in Part 1 of this article, for clergy to have the name ‘Scot’, as did John Scot, bishop of Dunkeld, who was likely born in Cheshire (Hammond 2007, 49–50). What is interesting about Bishop Andrew is that he did not apparently use the by-name Scot (nor did Bishop Gregory of Dunkeld and Bishop Samson of Brechin, also likely Gaelic-speaking colleagues of Andrew), but the use of the term nacione by a contemporary writer, ‘by birth, a Scot’, shows that by late 12th-century definitions, Andrew was a man of Alba (not to mention being a major source for ‘De Situ Albanie’, ‘On the Location of Alba’). The use of the names Éogan / Ewen and Gilla Brigte / Gilbert support this ethnolinguistic identification for the family. But why would a Gaelic-speaking family north of the Forth be an unusual thing? Presumably this was due to the company they kept. As we have seen, the Scot family were settled on one of the four royal manors of Gowrie, a location ripe for Europeanising influences. But it is probably the household of Earl David of Huntingdon and his son Earl John (d. 1237) which provided the context for seeing the Scot family as ‘Scots’. Whether or not their neighbours in the parish, the Forgans and Pilmores, saw themselves as ‘Scots’ in the same way is unclear; at least, the Forgan family seems to have had Scandinavian roots. Bishop Andrew, as a court figure in the reigns of Máel Coluim IV and William I, would have been noteworthy for his Scottishness; the same was likely true of Gilbert (I) and Magnus in the context of the followings of Earl David and Earl John. As with the Scot family of Allardice, this family dropped the use of Scot in favour of its chief estate, Monorgan. While this may have been driven to a certain degree by confusion with another Scot family, that of Balwearie in Fife, it is also likely that increasingly after 1200, ethnic distinctions in Scotland were becoming less noticeable and less important to people. III Scot of Balwearie FIF Probably the most well-known Scott family after that of the dukes of Buccleuch are the Scotts, earlier Scots, of Balwearie (Kirkcaldy & Dysart parish) FIF (PNF 1, 473).50 A prominent family of Fife gentry throughout the later middle ages and early modern period, later scions included Lord William Scott of Balwearie 50 To date the most complete and useful discussions of the family are the section entitled ‘The Scotts and Strathmiglo’ in PNF 4, 657–63, and Barrow, ‘East Fife Documents’, 31–32. Sir Robert Douglas included a chapter on the Scots of Balwearie in his The Baronage of Scotland (1798); this is unfortunately full of errors and should be avoided. In the middle ages, Balwearie was in the parish of Kirkcaldy. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 26 Matthew H. Hammond (d. 1532), a keeper of Falkland Palace and lord of council,51 as well as Lord James Scott of Balwearie (d. 1607 × 1613), a major supporter of the earl of Bothwell in the 1590s.52 We can trace the origins of this family back to c. 1200 and, while the evidence must be considered with care, we probably know more about the early history of this family than any of the other families using the second name ‘Scot’ in the central middle ages. As with the Scot family of Monorgan, the Scot family based in Fife was descended from an individual using an unequivocally Gaelic personal name, one Malothen. It is difficult to assign the form ‘Malothen’ to any one known Gaelic personal name with absolute certainty but, in a forthcoming publication, Roibeard Ó Maolalaigh suggests Máel Othna and Máel Suthain as the two most likely possibilities.53 Malothen himself 54 does not appear in the documentary record, but his son Michael witnessed three charters as ‘Michael son of Malothen’ in the first half of the 13th century. This Michael was also the first member of the family on record as using the epithet ‘Scottus’ ; therefore, this is the clearest example of a family adopting the name ‘Scot’ because they were Gaelic-speakers from the old Alba heartland north of the Forth. Lord Michael Scot, son of Malothen Lord Michael Scot, son of Malothen,55 was a knight of the emergent gentry class in Fife. As Michael son of Malothen, he witnessed charters of Máel Coluim (I), earl of Fife, to Archibald Douglas (Morton Reg., App. I, no. 1; H3/16/18) and to Alexander Blair (SHS Misc. iv no. 7; H3/16/23), as well as a charter of John son of Michael the clerk to St Andrews Priory (St And. Lib., 269; H3/403/1). As Michael Scot, he witnessed a 1233 agreement between the abbot of Inchcolm and some west Fife landholders (Inchcolm Chrs. no. 15; H4/20/28), a royal renewal of the possessions of Kinloss Abbey in 1226 (Moray Reg., Carte Originales, no. 5; H1/7/116), a 1227 royal grant to St Nicholas’s Hospital in St Andrews (RMS iii no. 2132(4); H1/7/129), and four documents 51 John Finlay, ‘Scott, Sir William, of Balwearie (d. 1532)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [ The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 27 preserved in the Dunfermline Abbey cartulary mostly dating from the 1230s (Dunf. Reg. nos. 175, 179, 196, 223), all dealing with lands in west Fife. For example, Lord Michael Scot is the first lay witness listed in a 1236 quitclaim of Kinglassie and Pitlochie (Kinglassie parish) FIF by Constantine of Lochore (Dunf. Reg. no. 179; H3/357/3): the Lochores and the Scots each held parts of Pitfirrane (Dunfermline parish) FIF.56 Michael is called ‘lord’ (dominus) on five occasions57 and is referred to explicitly as a ‘knight’ (miles) once, while acting as a juror in Moncreiffe kirkyard between 1227 and 1231 (Moncreiffes no. 2; H3/177/1). Given that the monks of Dunfermline in the 13th century apparently saw themselves and their neighbourhood as not Scottish,58 it is possible that Michael ‘son of Malothen’, after becoming a dominus and a miles, and operating in a west Fife milieu dominated by the monks of Dunfermline, was given the by-name ‘Scot’ by that Dunfermline establishment. Another possibility is that, if Lord Michael were briefly a royal household knight in 1226 and 1227, individuals in that predominantly Anglo-French setting may have identified him as ‘Scot’ for being a Gaelic speaker. Either way, the name probably was coined around this time, and, for whatever reason, it stuck. If this is true, it is probably relevant that Michael gained the by-name Scot not in an east Fife, St Andrews-dominated context, but in a west Fife, Dunfermline- dominated one. Michael married Margaret,59 a daughter of Donnchad or Duncan of Ceres,60 a prominent knight in the service of Donnchad (II), earl of Fife (1154–1204).61 56 Around the same time as this quitclaim, Constantine son of Philip of Lochore gave a third of Pitfirrane to his brother Hugh (NLS, Ch. 6002), which Constantine’s son Constantine later renewed (NLS, Ch. 6003). Another third of Pitfirrane was held by Michael Scot’s wife Margaret of Ceres and given to her son John (NLS, Ch. 6004). This third of Pitfirrane was still held by her descendant Sir William Scot of Balwearie in 1532, when he gave it to Patrick Halkett. Pitfirrane Writs nos. 80, 81. 57 Dunf. Reg. nos. 175, 176, 179, 223; St And. Lib., 269. 58 Bartlett 2003, xli, 84–86; Broun 2009, 64–68; see also A. Taylor 2010, 14. 59 PoMS no. 4640 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 28 Matthew H. Hammond They jointly gave to Dunfermline Abbey, with the consent of their son and heir Donnchad or Duncan, Gask (Gaskinienemfi) near Outh (Dunfermline parish) in west Fife at some date before 22 April 1231 (Dunf. Reg. no. 174; H3/529/1).62 This land had evidently come to Michael through Margaret, who issued her own charter of confirmation at the same time (it has the same witnesses) (Dunf. Reg. no. 175; H3/529/2). The gift was also confirmed by King Alexander II in 1231 (Dunf. Reg. no. 80; H1/7/174). Margaret of Ceres later confirmed the gift in her widowhood, at some point between 1238 and 1250 (Dunf. Reg. no. 176; H3/135/1). The Ceres family, household knights of the earls of Fife who mimicked comital naming practices very closely, seem to have had a fairly far-flung patrimony. As widow, Margaret gave her younger son, John, with the consent of the older son, Duncan, Caputh and the two Mucklies in Perthshire and a third part of Pitfirrane by Dunfermline in Fife (NLS, Ch. 6004).63 This suggests concentrations of Ceres family landholdings in Ceres parish (east Fife), in Dunfermline parish (west Fife) and in Caputh parish (near Dunkeld), Perthshire. This also provides a context for Lord Michael son of Malothen’s extensive activities in west Fife, particularly if the narrative of Michael son of Malothen’s transformation into ‘Michael Scot’ goes along with a shift of emphasis from east and north Fife to (south-)west Fife, as I am suggesting. There is also direct evidence linking Lord Michael with east Fife. At some point between 1238 and 5 October 1240, Michael Scot, describing himself as ‘of the kingdom of Scotland’ (de regno Scocie), probably travelled to Canterbury Cathedral in order to make an offering to St Thomas the Martyr, whose cult was widespread in Scotland at this time. Accompanied by a bevy of Fife worthies, including the abbot of Dunfermline, Lord Thomas of Kilmaron (Cupar parish), a comital knight, and Duncan Scot, surely his son, this looks very much like the kind of pilgrimage meant to cap a successful career and prepare for the hereafter (Barrow 1974, 30–32, no. 6). Michael gave 20 shillings annually for the lighting of the martyr’s shrine, from his feu of Rumgally. Rumgally is in the parish of Kemback, also known as Bleboshire, in east Fife; the charter is witnessed by John of Blebo and Adam of Kemback.64 It is to this region in east Fife that we must look for Lord Michael’s own family’s landholding and background. 62 For Gaskinienemfi, see PNF 1, 316–17. 63 Pitfirrane Writs no. 4; NLS Ch. 6004 (1238 × 12 May 1250). For Muckly, see RRS v no. 23. 64 PNF 2, 187, 202–03. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 29 Duncan Scot (I), son of Michael Michael and Margaret had two sons – Duncan (or Donnchad), their heir, and John, to whom we have seen Margaret gave various lands which must have been held by her right and thus were previously part of the Ceres patrimony. The only lands which we have so far encountered which seem to have been directly held by Michael son of Malothen were those of Rumgally FIF. Duncan consented to and witnessed his parents’ gift of Gask to Dunfermline Abbey (Dunf. Reg. nos. 174, 175), in addition to his mother’s gift of lands to his brother John, in her widowhood (NLS, Ch. 6004). As ‘Duncan Scot’, he almost certainly witnessed his father’s gift to St Thomas’s shrine at Canterbury (Barrow 1974, 30–32, no. 6). Fortunately, the only surviving charter text in the name of Michael’s son Duncan can start to flesh out the picture for us. While the witness list was not copied into St Andrews Priory’s cartulary, the text of the document is instructive: Omnibus Christi fidelibus presens scriptum visuris vel audituris . Dune- canus filius Michaelis filii Malotheny . eternam in domino salutem . Noverit universitas vestra me caritatis intuitu dedisse concessisse et hac presenti carta mea confirmasse deo et ecclesie sancte Andree et canonicis ibidem deo seruientibus et seruituris in puram et perpetuam elemosi- nam pro salute anime mee et pro animabus patris mei . et bone memorie domini mei Malcolmi comitis de fyf et antecessorum et successorum nostrorum totam [terram] meam de kernes . cum molendino in eadem terra fundato . et cum omnibus libertatibus et asiamentis ad eandem terram et molendinum spectantibus . adeo libere . quiete . plenarie . et honorifice . sicut ego vel predecessores mei eam tenuimus . vel tenere debuimus . sine aliqua contradictione vel reclamacione mei vel heredum meorum in posterum . volo . etiam quod alie terre mee quas habeo ex dono dicti comitis . videlicet . Eglismarten . petenlouir . et Ratmagallyn faciant forinsecum seruicium domini Regis pro predicta terra de kernes . ut autem hec mea donacio perpetue firmitatis robur optineat . eam pre- sentis scripti munimine . et sigilli mei et sigilli domini Ad ‘To all Christ’s faithful seeing or hearing this writing, Duncan son of Michael son of Malothen, eternal greetings in the Lord. Let it be known to all of you that, for the sake of charity, I have given, granted, and by 65 See also PNF 4, 657 n. 20. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 30 Matthew H. Hammond this my present charter confirmed to God and the church of St Andrews and the canons there serving God, in pure and perpetual alms, for the salvation of my soul and of the souls of my father and of my lord Máel Coluim earl of Fife, of good memory, and of our ancestors and succes- sors, all my land of Cairns (St Andrews & St Leonards FIF) with the mill built on the same land, and with all liberties and easements belonging to the same land and mill, as freely, quietly, fully and honourably as I or my predecessors held it or ought to have held it, without any contradiction or claim by me or by my heirs forever. I also will that my other lands which I have by gift of the said earl, namely Eglismarten (Strathmiglo FIF), Pitlour (Strathmiglo FIF)66 and Rumgally should perform the for- insec service of the lord king for the aforesaid land of Cairns. Moreover, so that this my donation may stay strong forever, I have corroborated this present script by the application of my seal and the seal of Lord Adam, archdeacon of St Andrews. By these witnesses [not named].’67 This document confirms the hints that we have already encountered that the family was closely associated with the earls of Fife and had their own landed centre of gravity in east and north Fife, despite their later tendency to witness charters in the Dunfermline area. This charter is dated by the tenure of Archdeacon Adam – at some point after 9 July 1238 and before 12 May 1250. It is occasionally repeated that it may date to c. 1248 (e.g. PNF 4, 657): this is in fact a typographical error in the Syllabus of Scottish Cartularies: St Andrews for 1240, which was Barrow’s suggestion in his article on ‘East Fife Documents’ (1974). Barrow must have got this date from Archdeacon Adam’s first known attestation on 29 March 1240 (Dunf. Reg. no. 221; Fasti, ed. Watt, 394). In any event, this charter makes clear that Earl Máel Coluim (I) of Fife (d. 1229) was Duncan’s lord,68 and that he held his lands by gift of the earl of Fife. But only Strathmiglo appeared in a 1294 extent of the earl of Fife’s landholdings (PNF 5, App. 2).69 We will return to this in short order. Readers will have noticed that Balwearie (by Kirkcaldy FIF), the estate later most closely associated with the family, has not yet made an appearance. It is only in the life of Duncan’s successor, and likely son and heir, Michael Scot 66 For the complex administrative history of Pitlour, see PNF 4, 663–64. 67 St And. Lib., 309–10. U and V have been standardised. 68 The earl mentioned in thepro anima clause of the charter is already dead and thus must be Earl Máel Coluim (I); of course, it is a safe assumption that at the time Earl Máel Coluim (II) of Fife (d. 1266) was his current lord. 69 Simon Taylor’s new edition of this important text is the first since Joseph Stevenson published it in 1870. See Stevenson, Documents i, nos. 317, 319, 320. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 31 (II), that that estate comes into the family’s purview. As Barrow points out, Duncan Scot ‘must have married the daughter and heir of Lord Richard of Balwearie, knight, son of that important royal servant and sometime sheriff of Fife, Geoffrey son of Richard steward of Kinghorn’ (1974, 32).70 George Black suggested that ‘the Scots became “of Balwearie” only by marriage with the heiress of the estate between 1260–80’ (1946, 714). Perhaps we should look at the dating of these references in order to test Black’s assertion. Geoffrey son of Richard71 was active in the king’s service in the later years of William the Lion’s reign. Balwearie FIF, which had been bestowed on the church of Dunfermline by King Alexander I, was later given by Abbot Patrick of Dunfermline to Geoffrey and confirmed by King William in the early years of the 13th century (RRS ii no. 451). Geoffrey was sheriff of Fife (Crail) and Perth at various points in the first quarter of the 13th century and continued to witness charters in the first decade of Alexander II’s reign (1214–49). He was succeeded by Lord Richard of Balwearie,72 whose career lasted from the 1230s to the 1270s. A dispute between Lord Richard and Dunfermline Abbey was settled by papal judges-delegate in the 1230s (Dunf. Reg. no. 223; H4/32/66).73 Abbot William asserted that the lands of Balwearie had been illegally alienated from the abbey, but the papal judges upheld Richard’s position, maintaining that Richard merely had to pay the abbey six marks per year and perform military service: this was a decision that suggests that Lord Richard had powerful friends on his side. The fact that this settlement was witnessed by Lord Michael Scot (I) in a prominent position – second after Lord Henry of Abernethy – suggests that there was a close link between the two families as early as the 1230s. The picture that emerges is that Michael son of Malothen became a prominent landholder in west Fife due to his marriage to Margaret of Ceres, a marriage which must have been arranged by the earl of Fife, their common lord: note that Ceres and Rumgally are neighbouring estates in a part of the county dominated by the earl. In the 1220s and 1230s, both Michael Scot (I) and Geoffrey son of Richard were active ‘trustworthy men’ (probi homines) in west Fife, and Michael Scot (I) is a prominent witness to the settlement of the dispute between Richard of Balwearie, probably Geoffrey’s son, and Dunfermline. This challenge from Dunfermline is likely to have come soon after Geoffrey’s death, after Richard had inherited Balwearie, as we know Geoffrey disappears from the record in the 1220s. So what is much more likely to have happened is that Michael Scot (I) 70 The family also held ‘Inuirkunglas’, which has erroneously been identified with Kinglassie (in west Fife). See PNF 1, 45. Taylor suggests Inverkunglas was in Dunkeld diocese. 71 PoMS no. 1226 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 32 Matthew H. Hammond married his son and heir Duncan to Geoffrey’s daughter and Richard’s sister, and that Richard died much later without children. Michael Scot (II) of Balwearie, probably son of Duncan Lord Michael Scot of Balwearie is very likely to have been the child of Duncan Scot and this sister of Richard of Balwearie. Richard was alive as late as 127274 but was dead by 12 May 1280, when Dunfermline Abbey made an agreement with the new landholder, Michael Scot (II) (Dunf. Reg. no. 228; App. I, no. 603; H4/20/55).75 Michael was to continue to hold the lands of the abbey as Richard did, for a pair of white Parisian gloves or 3 d. on the Feast of St Margaret. Furthermore, the abbot agreed to farm out his millpond at Kirkcaldy and two local watercourses to Michael. There is also ample evidence that Michael continued to hold the lands which he inherited from his father and his grandmother. The 1294 extent of earldom of Fife lands notes Lord Michael Scot, knight, as a landholder in Strathmigloshire (PNF 5, App. 2). A 1310 agreement between Lord Michael and Lord Gilbert Hay of Errol shows that Michael Scot had an annual rent of five marks for Caputh and the two Mucklies in Perthshire, although Hay bought him out for 30 pounds (RRS v no. 23). Lord Michael Scot of Balwearie was the beneficiary of two generations of social climbing and land acquisition, and this fact is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the choice of Michael as an envoy to Norway in 1290. As Walter Bower states, ‘the nobles of Scotland formally despatched to the king of Norway two knights distinguished by their knowledge and character – Michael Wemyss and Michael Scot – to effect the marriage and bring the girl [i.e. Margaret, the ‘maid of Norway’] to the kingdom’ (Chron. Bower vi, 5).76 He went on to play a significant role in the Wars of Independence period. He first swore fealty to King Edward in the chapel at Kinghorn alongside other knights on 19 July 1291 (CDS ii, p. 124). Michael was captured after the Battle of Dunbar and imprisoned in ‘Crukyn’ Castle in England in May 1296 (CDS ii, p. 177). Michael was evidently moved to Wallingford Castle in Oxfordshire along with several other Scottish knights in February 1297, when the king allocated them each a sum of money (CDS ii no. 873; CDS iv no. 1768). An Isabel Scot of the county of Fife swore fealty to King Edward at Berwick-upon-Tweed on 28 August 1296 (CDS ii, p. 204); given that Lord Michael was in captivity at this time it is perhaps likely that Isabel was his wife or daughter. A Michael Scot also 74 Richard attached his seal to a Dunfermline Abbey agreement with William of Mastertown dated 12 June 1272. Dunf. Reg., no. 319 (H4/20/47). 75 This document survives as a contemporary single sheet, NLS, Adv. MS 15.1.18, no. 63. 76 This episode is not mentioned inGesta Annalia. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 33 swore fealty in 1296 but is described as ‘of the county of Linlithgow’: this clearly was a different person CDS( ii, p. 205). We have a record of a petition by Mary, the wife of Duncan Scot, son of Lord Michael Scot, requesting 40 pounds from the king for her support, due to the fact that Duncan was captured in Dunbar and imprisoned in Rochester (Stevenson, Documents, ii, 93; CDS iv no. 1768).77 This explains the absence of both Lord Michael and Duncan from swearing of fealty at Berwick in August 1296. Duncan is mentioned as one of four ‘esquires’ (armigeris) who, along with two knights, were liberated from the royal castle of Rochester from the morrow of the feast of St Nicholas in year 25 of King Edward’s reign to the Monday after the feast of St Peter ad vincula (either 7 December 1296 to 5 August 1297, or, if the translation of St Nicholas is meant, then 10 May 1297 to 5 August 1297) (Stevenson, Documents, ii, 257). Duncan Scot performed homage to King Edward in 1306 for lands in the county of Forfar (Foedera I, ii, 995).78 King Edward issued a writ at Ghent on 25 October 1297 restoring the lands of Michael Scot knight, Duncan Scot79 and two others (CDS ii no. 952). This is likely Lord Michael Scot of Balwearie and Duncan Scot is likely the Duncan mentioned as his son and heir in the 1310 agreement. Lord Michael had presumably been released and had his lands restored in promise for military service to King Edward, and he seems to have fulfilled this duty around the time of the Battle of Falkirk in 1298, apparently in the company of Fife knight Lord Richard Siward – Michael had a bay horse worth 10 pounds (CDS ii no. 1011). Michael Scot (II) was also a juror at an inquest in Perth on 31 May 1305 regarding the barony of Crail (CDS ii no. 1670). Lord Michael Scot of Balwearie had a younger son, also named Michael (i.e. Michael (III)).80 He was described as Michael Scot, the son, when he witnessed the sale of a tenement in Pitmiddle PER by John Butler (‘Pincerna’) on 21 June 1304 (Fraser, Melvilles no. 12). Michael the son was taken prisoner along with Lord Michael and Duncan after Dunbar (CDS ii no. 742) and agreed to serve in King Edward’s army in August 1297, when he is described as a valet (CDS ii no. 942). 77 Mary’s petition follows those of Mary, wife of Lord Richard Siward, and Elizabeth, wife of Richard son of Richard Siward. See also M. Hammond, ‘Women in the Ragman Roll, pt. 2’, Breaking of Britain Feature of the Month, March 2012, The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 34 Matthew H. Hammond Master John Scot of ‘Monedy’ Donald Watt identified a Master John Scot or Master John ‘de Monedy’ as a possible member of the Scots of Balwearie family (Watt 1977, 488). The Walter of Cambo extent of earldom lands identified a recently deceased Master John Scot as tenant in ‘Monethy’ in Strathmigloshire (PNF 5, App. 2);81 as Watt states this must be the Master J. ‘de Monedy’ mentioned as rector of schools in St Andrews (Newb. Reg., 49). The landholdings of the family in Strathmigloshire suggest that John was a family member. However, it must be kept in mind that the land of ‘Monedy’ was held directly of the earl and thus was not part of the Scot of Balwearie patrimony. Furthermore, ‘Scot’ was a very common by-name for magistri, who seem to have picked it up whilst studying abroad, as discussed in Part 1 of this article. Indeed, Watt identifies a number of other Master John Scots in the 13th and 14th centuries. So the identification of Master John as a member of the Scot family is not certain, although the balance of probability still works in that assumption’s favour. Indeed, it is just possible that Master John Scot was the same person as John, son of Michael (I) and Margaret, and brother of Duncan (I). If Margaret’s charter to her son John dates from later in the date range, around 1250, then John could have been born in the early 1230s (NLS, Ch. 6004). If Master John died in 1294, this would have made him about 60 at the time, which is perfectly reasonable. Watt’s suggestion that Master John Scot was the man of that name active in Brechin diocese in the 1270s is entirely plausible but impossible to prove. Later Scots of Balwearie In his discussion of the Scotts in Strathmiglo parish, Simon Taylor mentions that Lord Michael Scott was ‘one of the earl of Fife’s men who did homage to Edward Balliol at Perth in 1332’, was present at a Perth parliament in 1344 and was killed at the Battle of Neville’s Cross in 1346, and asks whether he was the same Lord Michael Scot who is mentioned in the 1294 extent of Fife, or perhaps his son or grandson (PNF 4, 658).82 We have seen already that Lord Michael Scot of Balwearie was captured at Dunbar in 1296 with his son Duncan and his younger son Michael. A 17th-century inventory of the barony of Caputh notes that Michael Scot son and heir of Duncan Scot laird of Balwearie resigned his right to these five marks at Scone on 22 January 1327 81 The name has long been obsolete and is discussed under Monethy (Strathmiglo) PNF 4, 698–99. 82 See also Penman 2004, 107, 136. The evidence for the Perth homage to Edward Balliol comes from the Lanercost Chronicle. Chron. Lanercost, 269. Lord Michael Scot’s death at Neville’s Cross is mentioned by Walter Bower. See Chron. Bower vii, 261. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 35 and that this was confirmed by the king on 1 February 1327 (RRS v no. 315). This Michael son of Duncan, Michael Scot (IV), was likely the man involved in the Second War of Independence and thus a grandson of the Lord Michael Scot who was active in the First War of Independence. As Taylor mentions, this Michael Scot witnessed a charter of Earl Duncan (IV) of Fife to Andrew of Strathmiglo between 1315 and 1332 (PNF 4, 657).83 Family of Scot of Balwearie Malothen Duncan / Donnchad of Ceres Lord Michael Scot (I) m. Margaret of Ceres d. × 1250 Duncan Scot (I) m. Sister (?) of John fl. c. 1250 Lord Richard of Balwearie (= Master John d. 1294?) Lord Michael Scot (II) of Balwearie m. (?) Isabel Scot fl. 1290s fl. 1296 Duncan Scot (II) m. Mary Michael Scot ‘the son’ (III) Michael Scot (IV) d. 1346 83 For the text and translation of this charter, see PNF 4, 654–57. See also PNF 5, 624, for omitted line in PNF 4 translation. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 36 Matthew H. Hammond Lands of the Scot family As we have seen, we know more about the lands acquired by the Scots through marriage than those which were initially held by Michael son of Malothen, and possibly by his forebears. Michael’s marriage to Margaret of Ceres brought land in Caputh parish PER (Caputh, Muckly) and lands in Dunfermline parish (Gask near Outh, a third of Pitfirrane). Duncan’s marriage to the heir of Lord Richard of Balwearie, of course, brought Balwearie itself into the hands of the Scots. The lands which seem to have been held independently of these marriages fall into two categories: (a) those in northwest Fife, centred around Eglismarten, the central church settlement of Strathmiglo parish FIF, and the estate of Pitlour, immediately to its north; and (b) those in east Fife. According to Duncan’s charter, these included Rumgally, in Kemback parish FIF. This region was central to the earl’s lordship: Cupar was a caput for the earl himself, and families based on the neighbouring vills of Ceres and Kilmaron were major household dependants of the earls. Rumgally itself, however, was not part of the earl’s demesne. The other estate mentioned in Duncan’s charter is Cairns, which lay in St Andrews and St Leonards parish FIF, to the south-west of St Andrews. By what right and tenure did the Scots hold these lands, and can that tell us anything more about who they were and where they came from? The lands in Strathmiglo parish seem to have been secular lands held by the earl of Fife, although one (Eglismarten) was the site of the parish church. The lands in east Fife, Cairns (PNF 3, 457) and Rumgally (PNF 2, 202–03), on the other hand, were clearly lands held by ecclesiastical institutions. The first mention of Cairns, in 1198 × 1199, is in an agreement between the Augustinian priory of St Andrews and the house of Céli Dé there (St And. Lib., 318–19; H4/8/10). This agreement is concerned with teinds from a number of lands in east Fife and so it does not necessarily shed light on ‘ownership’. In it, the Céli Dé are to keep their teinds in Cairns, which is paired with neighbouring Cameron, although the canons are to have rights in those lands of ‘spousal dues, purification dues, oblations, baptismal dues and burial dues, except the bodies of the Céli Dé who may be buried wherever they wish.’ Cairns and Rumgally both make an appearance in the c. 1220 terrier of St Andrews lands, where they are more explicitly stated as being ‘held by’ the Culdees: ‘terrae quas tenent Keledei’ (PNF 3, 621). So there can be no misunderstanding that they only held teinds or other rights in the lands: Cairns and Rumgally are Culdee lands. But Duncan Scot (I)’s charter refers to ‘my land of Cairns’. And Michael Scot (I)’s charter to Canterbury mentioned ‘the feu of Rumgally’. The Céli Dé were clearly in the habit of letting out some of their lands in ways that could be described using feudal language. Indeed, Odo, progenitor of the Kinninmonth family and steward of the bishops of St Andrews, held Kinkell, *Pitsporgy and The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 37 *Pitkenny (all in St Andrews and St Leonards parish FIF) from the Céli Dé as early as the 1170s (Barrow 1971, 119–20, no. 2; H2/62/1). As confirmed in Bishop Richard’s charter to Odo from around the same time, Odo was to hold the lands from the Céli Dé ‘in feu and heritage’ (Barrow 1971, 120–21, no. 3). Unlike the bishop’s charter to Odo for Moonzie and Lordscairnie FIF (Barrow 1971, 118–19, no. 1), Gilla Críst, abbot of the Céli Dé of St Andrews’ charter to Odo, also specified the forinsec service owed to the king on the lands. The only renders owed by Odo to the Céli Dé for Kinkell, *Pitsporgy and *Pitkenny were apparently 32 melae of cheese, 32 melae of barley and a one-year-old pig every year.84 So, while Culdee lands carried with them the burden of military service to the king, the bishop of St Andrews’ lands did not. Perhaps this was because Odo’s service to the bishop, as an important member of his household, was already understood by the parties involved. There is also 13th-century evidence that theCéli Dé were farming out lands heritably to the wealthy lay landholders, whether merchant or knightly. Another of the Culdees’ lands listed in the terrier is Letham (Lambieletham), which Adam son of Adam of Letham gave to William son of Lambin in or shortly before 1235, in exchange for 25 marks and two burgage plots in St Andrews (NRS, GD 45/27/97; H1/7/239).85 As is well known, the Céli Dé reconstituted themselves as a college of secular canons, St Mary’s on the Rock, by around 1250 (NLS, Adv. MS 15.1.18, no. 30; H4/32/92).86 Adam of Makerstoun, who was provost of the college for over 30 years from c. 1250 into the 1280s, issued a charter to William son of Lambin’s son John, at some point between 1273 and 1286 (Laing Charters, no. 15; H2/105/2). In it, Provost Adam makes clear that the Céli Dé had given both Letham as well as ‘Kyninnis’ in feu and heritage, for his homage and service, to Adam son of Gilla Muire son of (mac) Martin, who must have been the father of the Adam son of Adam of Letham whom we have already encountered. As Simon Taylor describes, ‘Kyninnis’ and Letham were both part of the original endowment for the Augustinian cathedral priory of St Andrews in 1140, but were given in exchange to the Céli Dé for part of Strathkinness at some point between 1156 and 1160; in any event, both ‘Kyninnis’ and Letham are mentioned as Culdee possessions in 1160 and again in the c. 1220 terrier (PNF 3, 110). ‘Kyninnis’, like Letham, was in the post-Reformation parish of Cameron and was later known as Carngour (PNF 3, 91). Indeed, as the following table makes clear, nine or ten of the 14 lands held by the Céli Dé in the early 13th century were farmed out to local gentry 84 By contrast, Odo owed Bishop Richard an annual payment of 40 shillings for Moonzie and Lordscairnie. 85 See also PNF 3, 112, 442. 86 See also Reeves, Culdees, 113–14, Barrow 2003, 191, and Ferguson 1997, App. no. 116. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 38 Matthew H. Hammond or lesser aristocracy; for the remaining four lands, there is insufficient evidence, but certainly not contrary evidence. It is quite possible that all 14 of these lands were held ‘in feu and heritage’ by lay families. This is not to suggest that members of these families were Céli Dé or even had a particular interest in the spiritual life of the Céli Dé; rather these arrangements were more likely to have been in place to help support that spiritual life, just as a donation of land or silver to a reform monastery would have done. Lands of the Céli Dé c. 1220 Land87 Landholder Kinkell SSL Odo the steward Kinaldy fihs CMN unknown Kinaldy Egu’ (Aoidh) CMN Aed the Red88 Lambieletham CMN Adam of Letham / William s. Lambin Cameron CMN or Carron Mill SSL possibly Cameron family Cairns SSL Michael Scot (I) Carngour (‘Kyninnis’) CMN Adam s. Gilla Muire / John s. William s. Lambin Rumgally KMB Duncan Scot (I) Ceres CER Ceres family Balquhy ? CER unknown89 Baltilly ? CER unknown Ballachton CER or *Pitsporgy SSL Odo the steward (if *Pitsporgy) *Pitkenny SSL Odo the steward Kingask SSL unknown As Barrow put it, ‘the earls of Fife may have possessed an interest in the culdees and their estates, suggested by Earl Duncan II and three of his sons witnessing the important agreement of 1198–99, St And. Lib., 319 – and have granted some of their lands to trusted dependants’ (1974, 32). While the exact nature of this ‘interest’ is difficult to tease out, it seems very likely that the earls of Fife had enough influence over the Céli Dé to arrange land deals for his household knights. However, the feuing of lands to Odo the bishop’s steward 87 As identified by Simon Taylor,PNF 3, 619–21. 88 See PNF 3, 108–09. 89 In 1365 these lands were held by the Uviet or Wingate family; as the Uviets were active in Fife in the preceding two centuries, it is possible that they held it from the céli Dé as well. PNF 2, 65. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 39 suggests that the bishop of St Andrews may have been able to exercise similar sway with the Culdees, so perhaps we should not envisage a too well legally defined interest on the part of the earls, so much as the power of the patron to ‘lean on’ the abbot or prior of his favoured institution. The mention of Ceres FIF as one of the lands held by the Céli Dé is perhaps our most compelling evidence of this phenomenon. The knightly family taking the toponymic ‘of Ceres’ were influential figures in the household or familia of the earls of Fife, as evidenced by their prominent position in comital charters as well as their close emulation of the comital family’s naming practices – there were Adam90, David91, Donnchad / Duncan92 and Máel Coluim / Malcolm93 of Ceres. There is no surviving charter of the Céli Dé feuing the land of Ceres to Adam of Ceres or his son Donnchad / Duncan, but the fact that the Céli Dé held Ceres, the use of the name by the knightly family, and their relationship to the earls of Fife, all suggest a similar arrangement as that which the Scot family had. There is no evidence that the earl himself held Ceres but he did hold Teasses and Bandirran (SHS Misc. iv, 311, no. 7; H3/16/23) in Ceres parish, as well as the neighbouring ‘three Tarvits’ which in the middle ages formed the defunct parish of Tarvit (Campbell 1910–11, 222; H3/16/22).94 The lands of Kilmaron in Cupar parish are not on the above list of Céli Dé lands, but the knightly family taking the name of Kilmaron bears comparison with the Scot and Ceres families. Like them, the Kilmarons had close links with the earls of Fife. Lord Thomas of Kilmaron, knight,95 witnessed six charters96 of the earl of Fife and four charters97 as part of the same group of witnesses as the earl of Fife, as well as witnessing the charter of Michael Scot to St Thomas of Canterbury discussed above (Barrow 1974, 30–32, no. 6). The importance of the family to the earls is suggested by William of Kilmaron’s tenure of Livingston in West Lothian from Earl Máel Coluim I (Morton Reg., i, App. I; H3/16/18). The appearance of the names Duncan (or Donnchad) and Malcolm (or Máel Coluim) and, to a less extent, William – all names used by the comital family at this time – is further evidence of their connections. Little is known about the status of Kilmaron in the early 13th century, but the place-name, indicating a ‘church of St Rón’, and the likely inclusion of Pitlug in Monimail parish, with its own 90 PoMS no. 889 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 40 Matthew H. Hammond place-name indicating a ‘farm of the bell’, are strongly suggestive of associations with the church (PNF 4, 296, 601). It is not known whether a 12th- or 13th- century church establishment had rights in the land of Kilmaron, but viewed against the backdrop of two other families in the Fife comital affinity, a pattern emerges of the earl retaining his own lands in the Howe of Fife for himself and his close kin, while arranging for household knights to hold lands traditionally associated with the church. The Scot landholdings in Strathmiglo parish and the Kilmaron holdings in West Lothian may suggest that the earl was more willing to allow retainers to hold some of his own more peripheral lands.98 Is there any further evidence for landholding by the Scot family in east Fife? A charter of Michael Scot of Balwearie (probably Michael (II)), dating to c. 1300, notes that the ‘trustworthy men of the country’ had upheld that Michael’s ancestors had heritably infefted ‘of old’ (ex antiquo) Ivo of Bruntshiels and his ancestors by charter in the land of Bruntshiels (Fraser, Wemyss ii no. 6).99 Bruntshiels is in the very north-western tip of Kilconquhar parish and is surrounded on three sides by Ceres parish. In the 1202 agreement between Earl Donnchad (II) and Bishop Roger, the earl retained the lands and right of patronage of the church of Kilconquhar (PNF 5, App. 4). Indeed, a cadet branch of the comital line took their surname from the Kilconquhar estate, eventually marrying into the earldom of Carrick. Further, the right of patronage of the church of Kilconquhar was later disputed between Adam earl of Carrick and the Priory of North Berwick, a Fife comital foundation (North Berwick Carte nos. 19, 20; H3/14/16 and H3/14/17).100 In 1294, much of Kilconquhar parish was still in the hands of the earls of Fife, in the form of a shire based on Rires and taking in Balcarres and Balniel as well as Rires itself (PNF 5, App. 2). As most of the parish was evidently held by the earl of Fife in the 12th century, it is likely that the estate of Bruntshiels was acquired by Michael Scot (I) or one of his predecessors from the earl of Fife. The ‘prehistory’ of the Scot family Now that we have explored the landholding patterns of the Scot family, in particular those going back to the time of Michael Scot (I), son of Malothen, who the reader will recall flourished in the 1220s and 1230s, we can attempt to speculate on Michael’s own background and family ‘prehistory’. It is first 97 St And. Lib., 260 (H3/337/1); A.B. Coll., 407–09 (H3/12/6); Fraser, Douglas iii no. 281 (H3/599/1); North Berwick Carte no. 10 (H3/369/10). 98 See PNF 4, 296, 601. 99 Also printed as Fraser, Buccleuch ii no. 474. 100 Adam of Kilconquhar, earl of Carrick, also held Balgrummo and Durie in the shire and parish of Scoonie. See Barrow 1971 no. 14, and Scots Peerage viii, 245, n. 1. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 41 important to stress that there is no surviving evidence identifying definitively the parentage of Michael’s father, Malothen. However, we have a starting place for our investigation in the social milieu around the earls of Fife and the St Andrews Céli Dé which was clearly so important in the early history of the Scot family, so perhaps this will provide us with clues for where to look. As Geoffrey Barrow points out, the Gaelic personal name ‘Malothen’ is not all that rare in 12th-century Scotland (Barrow 1974, 32). At least, there are four men with that name in the People of Medieval Scotland database (other than Michael’s father):101 (1) Malothen, first known sheriff of Scone: fl. 1130s (PoMS no. 596)102 (2) Malothen the marischal: fl. 1140s (PoMS no. 665)103 (3) Ewen (Éogan) son of (mac) Malothen, thane of Dairsie: fl. c. 1160 (PoMS no. 2996)104 (4) Malothen son of (mac) Matadín, fl. 1200s/1210s (PoMS no. 6107) While the existence of Ewen mac Malothen, thane of Dairsie (which is about 2km north-east of Rumgally), is intriguing, there are probably two generations separating him from Michael son of Malothen. The only Malothen surviving in the charter record whose dates are consistent with the father of a person who was largely active in the 1220s and 1230s is the final example, Malothen mac Matadín. Fortunately, what we know about this Malothen fits very well with our understanding of Michael son of Malothen (or Michael Scot I). Malothen mac Matadín flourished in the first two decades ofthe 13th century and appears to have operated in a milieu around the earl of Fife. Malothen witnessed a charter of Máel Coluim (I), earl of Fife, in which he gave the church of St Peter of Inveravon with the davoch and parish of Strathavon (in Moray) to Brice, bishop of Moray, in 1204 × 1222 (Moray Reg. no. 50; H3/16/17). Other witnesses included the earl’s brother and household knights Thomas of Kilmaron, William of Wyville, Alexander of Blair and Henry of Abernethy. About the same time, Malothen witnessed a charter of Fergus, earl of Buchan, giving Fedderate in Buchan105 to John son of Uhtred in exchange for Slains and Cruden (Aberdeen-Banff Coll., 407–09; H3/12/6). 101 Who is identified as PoMS no. 6122. 102 David I Chrs. nos. 44, 56. 103 David I Chrs. nos. 56, 129. 104 This is the PoMS number for Ewen; his father Malothen’s number is PoMS no. 2998. He appears in a charter of Bishop Arnold of St Andrews: St And. Lib., 128. 105 A large estate in New Deer parish ABD consisting of three davochs, namely Estir Auhi[oc] (Easter Aucheoch), [A]uhetherb (Atherb), Auhethas (Affath) andConwiltes . The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 42 Matthew H. Hammond Despite its Aberdeenshire context, this document has very clear links with Fife: also witnessing the charter are Máel Coluim, earl of Fife, and his brother David, the Fife household knights Thomas of Kilmaron, Alexander of Blair and Henry of Abernethy. In this charter, Malothen appears alongside his brother, Cospatric.106 The appearance of the earls of Fife north of the Mounth should not surprise us; as lords of Strathbogie and Strath Avon they were active there (PNF 5, chapters 3 and 4). Furthermore, as Alan Young has pointed out, there may have been marriage connections between the families of the mormaers of Fife and Buchan in the early and mid 12th century (Young 1993, 179–80). Malothen’s brother Cospatric was himself the beneficiary of estates in Buchan: Fergus’s successor Earl William Comyn gave him Strichen ABD and Kindroucht ABD in feu and heritage, 1211 × 1224 (Abdn. Reg. i, 14–15; H3/12/13). This charter was probably produced in the Buchan area, with such witnesses as William Prat, sometime sheriff of Aberdeen, and Fearchar, judex of Buchan. It is possible, although far from certain, that Malothen’s brother Cospatric is to be identified with one Cospatric of Rires.107 Rires, in Kilconquhar parish, Fife, was the centre of a cluster of secular lands (a ‘shire’) held by the earl in the late 13th century and that part of the parish of Kilconquhar not held by the bishop of St Andrews must have been held by the earl of Fife in the 12th century. Furthermore, the likelihood that the Scot family seems to have held the lands of Bruntshiels in north-western Kilconquhar parish at least by the early 13th century fits well with this theory. Admittedly, the dating of Cospatric of Rires’s charter attestations is a bit early, as he witnessed charters in the 1170s and 1180s: a charter of Bishop Richard of St Andrews, 1172 × 1178 (St And. Lib., 135; H2/10/93), an agreement between Bishop Hugh of St Andrews and Earl Donnchad II of Fife, 1178 × 1188 (St And. Lib., 353; H4/15/1) and a confirmation by Máel Coluim, son of Earl Donnchad II (the future earl Máel Coluim I) to North Berwick Priory, c. 1180 × 1204 (SHS Misc. iv no. 4, H3/16/12). Thus, Cospatric of Rires appears in charters linked to the earls of Fife and uses a topoynymic second name linked to an estate probably owned by the earl of Fife. Moreover, Cospatric of Rires seems to have been relatively important in the society of east Fife, rubbing shoulders in witness lists with men such as Odo the bishop’s steward (of Kinninmonth), Merleswain, lord of Kennoway, Hugh of Nydie, the bishop’s butler, and Adam of Kilconquhar and members of the Abernethy family. Whether or not Cospatric of Rires is to be equated with Cospatric brother of Malothen, son of Matadín and uncle of Michael Scot (I), he clearly moved in the same east Fife social milieu. If this 106 PoMS no. 6257 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, X–X The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 43 theory is correct, then we should see Cospatric and Malothen, sons of Matadín, as mainly east Fife landholders using their connections with the earls of Fife and possibly Buchan in order to gain new lands in the North-East; indeed, their charters probably exist precisely because they were incomers; those with longstanding ties to the province probably had no need of written record in the early 13th century. Following the same principle of exploring the east Fife social world, is it possible to tease out the identity of Malothen and Cospatric’s father, Matadín? We would be looking for somebody with ties to the earls of Fife and the St Andrews church establishment and active in the mid- to late-12th century. Three charters of donation of Earl Donnchad II of Fife to St Andrews Cathedral Priory – those giving the churches of Markinch FIF and Cupar FIF and the right to build a millpond at Nydie FIF, all probably dating from the mid-1160s, were witnessed by Madechin mac Mathusalem, or Matadín son of Methuselah (St And. Lib., 241–44; H3/16/3, 4 and 5).108 The other witnesses to these charters are retainers and tenants of the earl, so Matadín fits into the same context as Malothen and Michael Scot (I). Are we able to say anything else about this Matadín? His other surviving charter attestation draws together many of the strands we have teased out thus far. A charter of Gilla Críst, abbot of the Céli Dé of St Andrews – the only charter text of such an abbot surviving – dates probably to the 1170s: this is the charter giving Kinkell FIF and other lands to Odo (of Kinninmonth), the bishop’s steward and brother of Matthew, bishop of Aberdeen, who witnesses the charter (Barrow 1971, no. 2; H2/62/1). The other witnesses were Walter, prior of St Andrews, Earl Donnchad (II of Fife), Ness son of William (of Leuchars), ‘Maduchyn et Gyllechrist filiis Machasal’, Robert of ‘Cambun’, Adam of Ceres, William of Hoddam (?), Gilla Míchéil son of Fogan or Sogan and Máel Coluim son of Gilla Míchéil. Earl Donnchad and Ness son of William were the most powerful secular landholders in east Fife in the late 12th century; Adam of Ceres, as we have seen, was a household knight of the earl. Robert of ‘Cambun’ may be ‘of Cameron’, an estate which was probably held by the Céli Dé. Considering the order of witnesses, we would expect ‘Maduchyn’ and Gilla Críst, sons of ‘Machasal’, to be relatively important persons with links to the earls of Fife and the Céli Dé. This document only survives in a 1395 notarial transumpt and the more obscure names are somewhat garbled, but, as Barrow suggests, this is clearly Matadín son of Methuselah and his brother, Gilla Críst. Gilla Críst son of Methuselah also witnessed a charter of Walter son of Philip, lord of Lundin 108 The charter anent Markinch clearly dates to between January 1164 and December 1166; that dealing with Cupar is January 1164 × 1178, and that dealing with Nydie is 1154 × 1178. Their similar witness lists may suggest a mid-1160s date for all three charters. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 44 Matthew H. Hammond in Fife, to St Andrews Priory, alongside Earl Donnchad II, Odo the steward and others (St And. Lib., 264; H3/369/1). Furthermore, Matadín may have left his mark on the toponymic landscape through the place-name of Magask Madech in Ceres (formerly St Andrews) parish, the name it carried around 1220 when the St Andrews terrier recorded it as belonging to Adam son of Odo of Kinninmonth (PNF 2, 95–96).The place-name Balmeadie in Dunbog parish FIF, which Simon Taylor suggests originally meant ‘Matadín’s or Matadán’s farm’, gives us another tantalising hint at the possible earlier landholdings of the family (PNF 4, 341–42; PNF 5, 231–32). It is noteworthy that Matadín son of Methuselah does not appear in any charters after 1178, around the time that Cospatric of Rires began appearing in charters. Unfortunately, there are no Fife comital charters before the 1150s and it is not possible to say anything about Methuselah himself. Nevertheless, within the east Fife social milieu we have been able to tease out a plausible and hopefully convincing story of the origins of the Scot family of Balwearie. Indeed, it may just be possible to tease out the generation before Mathuselah. The gift, dating to 1131 × 1132, by Gartnait son of Cainnech and Éte, daughter of Gilla Míchéil, a mormaer of Buchan and a probable daughter of a mormaer of Fife, to the clerici of Deer, was witnessed by a Mataidín the judge whose name and social context would make an excellent candidate (if sadly unproveable) for Mathuselah’s father.109 Proposed family tree for the ‘prehistory’ of the Scots of Balwearie Methuselah Matadín Gilla Críst fl. 1160s fl. 1160s/70s Cospatric Malothen, fl. 1200s/10s fl. 1200s/10s = Cospatric of Rires? fl. late 12th century Michael ‘Scot’, fl. 1220s/30s 109 See Forsyth, Broun and Clancy, Book of Deer, 139, Text III (H3/12/1). The appearance of a Máel Domnaig son of MacBethad in both this document as well as in a contemporaneous record of a Fife court case bolsters the possibility of Mataidín the judge as a Fife-Buchan elite figure. See PoMS no. 6218 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 45 The ‘Scot’ families of Monorgan and Balwearie present us with two relatively clear-cut examples deeply rooted in the social structure of Scotland north of the Forth, the region still often known as Albania in the 12th century. In contrast to many of the individuals using the term ‘Scot’ as a by-name examined in Part 1 of this article, these two families seem to have been using the name ‘Scot’ in the older, ethnolinguistic sense of Gaelic speakers from Alba. In addition to the social milieu which tied them to north-of-Forth institutions like the earldoms of Fife and Buchan and the church at St Andrews, the use of Gaelic and Scandinavian names suggests that these families took the surname ‘Scot’ precisely because they were noticeably ‘Scottish’ in a Europeanising world. For some uncertain reason, the Fife family continued to use the surname ‘Scot’ when the others did not. The family based on Allardice in the Mearns, by contrast, fits a different model: their use of European forenames, especially Walter, and their participation in social networks dominated by immigrant families suggest that they were also outsiders and had more in common with the many individuals using the by-name ‘Scot’ based south of Forth who were discussed in Part 1. The final part of this article will discuss families south of the Forth, in areas not traditionally thought of as ethnically or linguistically Scottish, to ask why the surname ‘Scot’ there caught on, not least among the ancestors of Sir Walter Scott and the powerful dukes of Buccleuch. References Aberdeen-Banff Coll.: Collections for a History of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff, ed. J. Robertson, Spalding Club, 9 (Aberdeen 1843). Abdn. Reg: Registrum Episcopatus Aberdonensis, ed. C. Innes, 2 vols, Spalding Club, 13 and 14, Maitland Club, 63 (Edinburgh 1845). Anderson, Marjorie O., 1973, Kings and Kingship in Early Scotland (Edinburgh, 2nd edn 1980, reprint with an introduction by Nicholas Evans, 2011). Arb. Lib.: Liber Sancte Thome de Aberbrothoc, ed. C. Innes and P. Chalmers, 2 parts, Bannatyne Club, 86 (Edinburgh 1848–56). Atlas of Scottish History to 1707, ed. P. G. B. McNeill and H.L. MacQueen (Edinburgh 1996). Balm. Lib.: Liber Sancte Marie de Balmorinach, ed. W.B.D.D. Turnbull, Abbotsford Club, 22 (Edinburgh 1841). Barrow, G.W. S., 1971, ‘The early charters of the family of Kinninmonth of that ilk’, in The Study of Medieval Records, ed. D.A. Bullough and R.L. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 46 Matthew H. Hammond Storey (Oxford), 107–31. Barrow, G.W. S., 1974, ‘Some East Fife Documents’, in The Scottish Tradition: Essays in honour of Ronald Gordon Cant, ed. G.W.S. Barrow (Edinburgh), 23–43. Barrow, G.W. S., 2003, The Kingdom of the Scots: Government, Church and Society from the eleventh to the fourteenth century, 2nd edition (Edinburgh; 1st edn 1973). Bartlett, Robert, 2003, The Miracles of Saint Æbbe of Coldingham and Saint Margaret of Scotland (Oxford). BL: British Library, London. Black, George F., 1946, The Surnames of Scotland: Their Origin, Meaning, and History (New York; reprinted Edinburgh 2004). Broun, Dauvit, 2009, ‘Attitudes of Gall to Gaedhel in Scotland before John of Fordun’, in Miorun Mor an Gall, ‘The Great Ill-Will of the Lowlander’? Lowland Perceptions of the Highlands, Medieval and Modern, ed. D. Broun and M. MacGregor (Glasgow). Available online at The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 47 1839). Chron. Melrose: The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey: A Stratigraphic Edition, vol. 1, ed. Dauvit Broun and Julian Harrison, Scottish History Society, Sixth Series, 1 (Woodbridge 2007). Chron. Melrose (facsimile): The Chronicle of Melrose (Facsimile edition), ed. A.O. Anderson and others (London 1936). Dalrymple, James, 1705, Collections concerning the Scottish History preceeding the death of King David the First in the year 1153 (Edinburgh). David I Chrs.: The charters of King David I: King of Scots, 1124–53 and of his son Henry earl of Northumberland, ed. G.W. S. Barrow (Woodbridge 1999). Douglas, Baronage: The Baronage of Scotland, Sir Robert Douglas (Edinburgh 1798). Dowden, J., 1912, The Bishops of Scotland (Glasgow). Dunf. Reg.: Registrum de Dunfermelyn, ed. C. Innes, Bannatyne Club, 74 (Edinburgh1842). Fasti: Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae Medii Aevi Ad Annum 1638, rev. edn., ed. D.E.R. Watt and A.L. Murray, Scottish Record Society (Edinburgh 2003). Ferguson, Paul C., 1997, Medieval Papal Representatives in Scotland, Stair Society (Edinburgh). Foedera: Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae et Cuiuscunque Generis Acta Publica, ed. T. Rymer, Record Commission edition (London 1816–69). Forsyth, Katherine, Broun, Dauvit, and Clancy, Thomas, 2008, ‘The property records: text and translation’, in Studies on the Book of Deer, ed. Katherine Forsyth (Dublin), 131–44. Fraser, Buccleuch: W. Fraser, The Scotts of Buccleuch, 2 vols (Edinburgh 1878). Fraser, Douglas: W. Fraser, The Douglas Book, 4 vols (Edinburgh 1885). Fraser, Melvilles: W. Fraser, The Melville Earls of Melville and the Leslies Earls of Leven, 3 vols (Edinburgh 1890). Fraser, Wemyss: W. Fraser, Memorials of the Family of Wemyss of Wemyss, 3 vols (Edinburgh 1888). Grant, Alexander, 1993, ‘Thanes and Thanages, from the Eleventh to the Fourteenth Centuries’, in Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community: Essays Presented to G.W.S. Barrow, ed. A. Grant and K.J. Stringer (Edinburgh), 39–81. Hammond, Matthew H., 2007, ‘The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages, Part 1: Scot as a by-name’, The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 1, 37–60. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 48 Matthew H. Hammond Inchaff. Chrs.: Charters, bulls and other documents relating to the abbey of Inchaffray, ed. W.A. Lindsay, J. Dowden and J.M. Thomson, Scottish History Society, First Series, 56 (Edinburgh 1908). Inchcolm Chrs.: Charters of the abbey of Inchcolm, ed. D.E. Easson and A. Macdonald, Scottish History Society, Third Series, 32 (Edinburgh 1938). Kelso Lib.: Liber Sancte Marie de Calchou, ed. C. Innes, 2 vols, Bannatyne Club, 82 (Edinburgh 1846). Keith, Bishops: R. Keith, An Historical Catalogue of the Scottish Bishops, ed. M. Russel (Edinburgh 1824). Laing Charters: Calendar of the Laing Charters 854–1837, ed. J. Anderson (Edinburgh 1899). Lind. Cart.: The Chartulary of Lindores Abbey, ed. J. Dowden, Scottish History Society, First Series, 42 (Edinburgh 1903). Moncreiffes: The Moncreiffs and the Moncreiffes, ed. F. Moncreiff and W. Moncreiffe (Edinburgh, 1929). Moray Reg.: Registrum Episcopatus Moraviensis, ed. C. Innes, Bannatyne Club, 58 (Edinburgh, 1837). Morton Reg.: Registrum honoris de Morton, ed. T. Thomson, A. Macdonald and C. Innes, 2 vols, Bannatyne Club, 94 (Edinburgh 1853). Newb. Reg.: Registrum Sancte Marie de Neubotle, ed. C. Innes, Bannatyne Club, 89 (Edinburgh 1849). NLS: National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh. North Berwick Carte: Carte Monialium de Northberwic, ed. C. Innes, Bannatyne Club, 84 (Edinburgh 1847). NRS: National Records of Scotland (formerly National Archives of Scotland), Edinburgh. Paisley Reg.: Registrum monasterii de Passelet, ed. C. Innes, Maitland Club, 17 (Edinburgh 1832). Panmure Reg.: Panmure Registrum, ed. J. Stuart, 2 vols (Edinburgh 1874). Penman, Michael, 2004, David II: 1329–71 (Edinburgh). Perth Blackfriars: The Blackfriars of Perth, ed. R. Milne (Edinburgh 1893). Pitfirrane Writs: Inventory of Pitfirrane Writs 1230–1794, ed. W. Angus. Scottish Record Society (1932). PNF: Taylor, Simon, with Gilbert Márkus, The Place-Names of Fife, 5 vols (Donington 2006–12). Reeves, Culdees: Reeves, W., The Culdees of the British Islands (Dublin 1864). RMS: Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum, ed. J.M. Thomson et al. (Edinburgh 1882–1914). The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 The Use of the Name Scot in the Central Middle Ages (2) 49 RRS i: Regesta Regum Scottorum, Vol. i: Acts of Malcolm IV, ed. G.W.S. Barrow (Edinburgh 1960). RRS ii: Regesta Regum Scottorum, Vol. ii: Acts of William I, ed. G.W.S. Barrow, with W.W. Scott (Edinburgh 1971). RRS iii: Regesta Regum Scottorum, Vol. iii: The Acts of Alexander II, King of Scots, 1214–49, ed. K. J. Stringer (Edinburgh forthcoming). RRS v: Regesta Regum Scottorum, v, Acts of Robert I, ed. A.A.M. Duncan (Edinburgh 1988). Scots Peerage: The Scots Peerage, ed. Sir J. Balfour Paul (Edinburgh, 1904– 14). SHS Misc. iv: ‘Miscellaneous Charters, 1165–1300, from transcripts in the collection of the late Sir William Fraser, ed. William Angus, in Miscellany of the Scottish History Society, vol. iv, Scottish History Society, Third Series, 9 (Edinburgh, 1926). Simpson, ‘de Quincy’: Simpson, Grant G., ‘An Anglo-Scottish Baron of the Thirteenth Century: The Acts of Roger de Quincy, earl of Winchester and Constable of Scotland’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1965. Volume 2. Spalding Misc. v: The miscellany of the Spalding Club, vol. v, ed. John Stuart, Spalding Club, 24 (Aberdeen 1852). St And. Lib.: Liber Cartarum Prioratus Sancti Andree in Scotia, ed. C. Innes, Bannatyne Club, 69 (Edinburgh 1841). Stevenson, Documents: Documents Illustrative of the History of Scotland, 1286–1306, ed. J. Stevenson, 2 vols (Edinburgh 1870). Stringer, Keith J., 1985, Earl David of Huntingdon 1152–1219: A Study in Anglo-Scottish History (Edinburgh). Swinton, G.S.C., 1904–05, ‘Six Early Charters’, Scottish Historical Review ii, 173–80. Syllabus of Scottish Cartularies: St Andrews, ed. M. Ash, I.C. Cunningham and W.W. Scott (1999). Taylor, Alice, 2010, ‘Historical writing in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Scotland: the Dunfermline compilation’, Historical Research 83, 228–52. Taylor, Simon, 1999, ‘Seventh-century Iona abbots in Scottish place- names’, in Spes Scotorum Hope of the Scots, ed. D. Broun and T.O. Clancy (Edinburgh), 35–70. Watson, William J., 1926, The History of the Celtic Place-Names of Scotland (Edinburgh and London; reprinted with an introduction by Simon Taylor, Edinburgh 2004; and, with an extended introduction, Edinburgh 2011). Watt, D.E.R., 1977, A Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Graduates to AD The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 50 Matthew H. Hammond 1410 (Oxford). Young, Alan, 1993, ‘The Earls and Earldom of Buchan in the Thirteenth Century’, in Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community: Essays Presented to G.W.S. Barrow, ed. A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (Edinburgh), 174–202. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 11–50 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom Michael Parker Ipswich Introduction This study is intended to put on record the discovery of what appears to be an eighth-century Anglo-Saxon reference to the monastery at Hoddom in Dumfriesshire, for which, till now, no direct historical evidence has been acknowledged. I shall be concerned firstly to show that the reference is of good textual quality and is not a late interpolation into the text where it appears; secondly, to show that the reference really is to Hoddom and supports a new etymology for the name; and, thirdly, to begin a discussion of the historical implications of the reference. The proposed reference is more than three centuries older than what is otherwise the first citation for this place, in the inquisition of Earl (later King) David (1124), in which Hoddom appears as a possession of the see of Glasgow in a list of places including several in or near to the modern Dumfriesshire.1 As far as I can tell the apparent earlier reference to Hoddom remains unknown and unpublished;2 while the spelling of the name is not referred to in any place-name publication I know.3 The source of the reference The reference occurs in the long-published collection of the letters of Alcuin in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolarum vol. iv, edited by Ernst Dümmler.4 Alcuin’s letters, written mostly from the palace school at the court of Charles the Great in Aachen to a variety of addressees across the Christian world, are preserved in numerous medieval manuscript collections, but the manuscript sources of the relevant letter are two late pre-conquest English 1 Lawrie 1905, 44–47, notes 299–304, list on p. 46, Innes 1843 i, 1–5. 2 There is an extensive academic bibliography for Hoddom, including (history) Rawnsley 1888, esp. 9, 24–5, Jackson 1958, Cowan 1967, 82, s.n. Hoddam (sic, the alternative modern spelling), Whidden Green 1998, esp. 3, 26–29, Gough-Cooper 2003, (art and archaeology) Radford 1952–53, Crowe 1982, Bailey and Cramp 1988, esp. 3, 6, Lowe 1991, Lowe 2006, the excavation report. 3 Place-name sources checked include Watson 1926, Johnston-Ferguson 1935, Williamson 1942, Nicolaisen 1976 and 2001, Fellows-Jensen 1985 and Daphne Brooke in Lowe 2006, 199–204. For a collection of early Old English place-name spellings see Cox 1976, but this deals only with material to c. 735 (i.e. the death of Bede). No analysis currently exists, to my knowing, of the corpus of pre-Scandinavian or pre-Conquest place-name material for Northumbria. 4 Dümmler 1895, specifically letter 70 on p. 113. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 52 Michael Parker collections of letters written by Alcuin and others. The relevant letter, Dümmler’s no. 70, is addressed from Alcuin to an abbot Wulfhard (Vulfhardo in Dümmler’s heading), who is described in the lemma or head-note of Dümmler’s manuscript A1 as abbatem Hodda Helmi ‘abbot of Hodda Helm’. Dümmler took his text here from three manuscripts which he called A1, A1* and A2. His A2, from which he takes the head-note for his printed heading, is B(ritish) L(ibrary), Cotton Vespasian A XIV. This manuscript, of about 1000 AD (henceforward V – the description refers to fos 114r–179v), is described by various authorities as a letter-book of Wulfstan, bishop of London (996–1002), bishop of Worcester (1002–1016) and archbishop of York (1002–1023). A1* is a copy (end of 17th century, henceforward Gale) by the antiquarian Thomas Gale of A1, which is BL Cotton Tiberius A XV (fos 1–173, henceforward T). This manuscript was very badly damaged in the Ashburnham House fire of 1731, so Gale’s copy is often used for the parts of it which are damaged or illegible. A1 (T) is dated 11th century by Dümmler and is closely related to A2 (V) and to Archbishop Wulfstan. Probably but not certainly from our MS T come the summaries by Leland, published by Hearne in the Collectanea.5 Extensive excerpts of the letters, also from T or a close relative, were incorporated by William of Malmesbury into his Gesta Regum and Gesta Pontificum, and there are more in the two manuscripts of William’s edition of the Liber Pontificalis, as described by R.M. Thomson.6 In his edition of Alcuin’s letters, Dümmler used V, T and the Gale copy extensively (as well as many continental manuscripts), presenting variant text and variant headings frequently in his footnotes. Though over a century 5 Dümmler 1895, 9–10. The discussion and dating of Tiberius in the authorities refers to fos 1–173, see below. Subsequent items are later additions or attachments. Gale’s copy is Trinity College Cambridge (Wren Library) O.10.16 (1468), pp. 1–220, which I checked. Gale ‘improved’ his exemplar, however (Chase 1975, 10, Bullough 2004, 81), perhaps using early foreign printed editions of Alcuin letters and William of Malmesbury’s extracts, which he cites in his margins – to judge from some of his headings possibly MS V as well. Leland’s extracts (see Collectanea: Hearne 1715 and 1770) are from T or a close relative (see Thomson 2003, 158 and n. 24, Carley and Petitmengin 2004, 205). Wulfstan’s handwriting has been identified and Ker (1971, 326–27) gives a list of his contributions and annotations in MS V. 6 Thomson (2003, 154 n. 3, originally published 1987) indexes Malmesbury’s extracts in the Gesta Regum and Pontificum; from this index their text can be found in Mynors, Thomson and Winterbottom 1997–98, Winterbottom and Thomson 2007; William’s Liber Pontificalis is unpublished, but see Thomson 2003, 119–36, Bullough 2004, 152, esp. n. 73. The Wulfhard letter is wanting in Leland and Malmesbury, though several of the other relevant letters appear, see below. Bullough (2004, 82 and n. 199 and 98–99) was in two minds on the relationship between T and the versions of Malmesbury and Leland. One relevant letter, that of Pope Paul (757–58 AD), is also in Wilkins 1737, see below. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 53 old, his edition is still in general use among academics. Letters in the two manuscripts which were not written by Alcuin appear in various other publications.7 In this study I shall be concerned with the letter to Wulfhard, but also with the specialists’ opinions about the scribal transmission of the two English letter collections down to the 11th century and the representation in them of Old English names. The spellings of place- and personal names in Alcuin’s letters (and in the other letters, of the eighth to tenth centuries, in the two collections) have as a group attracted little comment, as the numbers are small, though the texts themselves, and the identities of Alcuin’s correspondents, have long been the subject of detailed academic study. The main exception to this lack of interest was Professor D.A. Bullough, who wrote on Alcuin’s Northumbrian context at some length and made various observations about the place- and personal names.8 He wondered if this abbot Wulfhard might be the same person as a bishop of Hereford of a slightly later date but did not identify the place-name.9 Wulfhard (Wulfheard in the more usual West Saxon spelling of Old English) is a common name in Old English records, but Bullough’s identification of him is still possible; to my mind the distance between Dumfriesshire in northern Northumbria and the Mercian diocese of Hereford does not rule it out. Yet Wulfhard’s monastery, apparently called Hodda Helm, may be named in the head-note precisely because there was at the time more than one prominent man bearing this name.10 The online BL manuscript catalogue describes both V and T as early 11th century. Modern research has entertained the possibility that one manuscript might be a copy of the other; however, the latest authorities maintain that the two may have been compiled over an overlapping period of time, by separate groups of monks who were in contact with one another and helping one another’s letter-collecting activities. The result was two related collections of letters, many by Alcuin, but a number by other authors, most of the latter of 7 E.g. Haddan and Stubbs 1869–71 iii, 394–96 and 615–16, Whitelock 1979, 830–31 and 875–76, the letters Pope Paul to Ecgberht and Eadberht and of Ecgred to Wulfsige, both cited below. 8 Northumbria, Bullough 2004, 127–76; Hexham, Bullough 1993, 99, n. 11, Bullough 1999, Bullough 2004, 92; Wearmouth, Bullough 2004, 92 and n. 226, with an observation about the conservative character of the spelling; Coxwold, Bullough 2004, 152 and n. 73, though I do not follow the comment. 9 Bullough consulted Dr Margaret Gelling on the question of whether helm was a plausible place-name element in that part of England and was told that it was; see Bullough 1984, 77 and n. 14, repeated in Bullough 2004, 92. Both correspondents have since died (Bullough 2004 was posthumous), so I do not know any detail. 10 For Wulfheard, see, for example, lists in Searle 1897, 500–10, 584. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 54 Michael Parker the eighth and tenth centuries. T was probably written in the south of England, Canterbury, Glastonbury and Malmesbury being noted as possible places, and V possibly in Worcester, otherwise York, though with a question-mark: perhaps really all of the copying activities took place a good deal further south than York, so that Wulfstan could have a copy to take north with him (from Worcester?) after he became archbishop.11 Although the various authorities argue persuasively that the letters preserved in the 11th century derived from a collection at York, it is far from clear whether they were actually retrieved from York in the 11th century or were taken south at an earlier date, perhaps by some ecclesiastical refugee who left the city in the late ninth. In his survey of the use of Latin in the ninth century, Dr Lapidge was able to show that, despite the decline in the writing and copying of books in the relevant period, some books were probably preserved at York and survived into the post-Scandinavian era. He included the two English manuscripts of Alcuin’s letters in his discussion of the evidence for Latin books at or from York and suggested that a manuscript of the letters might have been compiled there c. 825.12 He also suggested that an early manuscript might still have been available at York when Wulfstan arrived there as archbishop. I tend to favour the earlier date for the departure of Alcuin’s letters from York, along with the long-standing theory, most recently stated by Thomson, that MS T was compiled from a mixture of smaller gatherings and individual letters. Thomson’s view best accounts for the relationship between the two collections. Given Lapidge’s observation that high quality decorated books were the most 11 BL Online Catalogue under search items Cotton MS Vespasian A XIV and Cotton MS Tiberius A XV. Bullough (1993, 95) dated T ‘(?mid-)eleventh century’ and V ‘somewhat earlier’ (p. 96); cf. Bullough 2004, 81–82 (T) and 82–83 and n. 200 (V). Gneuss 2001, 68 no. 368 dates T fos 1–173 ‘s.xi in.’ (i.e. start of 11th century). Chase (1975, 8) dated V early 11th century. Ker’s evidence (1971, 326–27), and the association with Wulfstan, places V in his lifetime. Dumville (1993), in discussion of the handwriting of the two MSS (pp. 66 n. 290, 108 and n. 125 (to which cf. pp. 2–4)), implies a date for both not much after c. 1020. Thomson (2003, 157–58) suggested a Canterbury origin for T. Brett (1991) dated T fos 1–173 first half of the 11th century and suggested it might have been begun in Canterbury and finished at Glastonbury, an idea noted by Carley and Petitmengin 2004, 204–05 and n. 41. Overlap in composition: Brett 1991, 56–57. Ganz 1993, 169, Thomson 2003, 154–55 and Mann 2004 say V was made for Wulfstan; Ganz adds that it is a copy of T (contradicted Bullough 2004, 98), date c. 1000. Judging from the authorities referred to, Carley and Petitmengin’s date of c. 1100 (p. 204) for T seems to be a misprint for c. 1000. Only Bullough explicitly stated that he thought V the older text, though the dating in the BL Online Catalogue may imply this. Compilation of the letter books, Wallach 1959, esp. 266–74, Allott 1974, Chase 1975, esp. 1–2, 8–9. 12 Lapidge 1996, 425–32, esp. 428, and 438; Alcuin’s letters, 429. I owe this important reference (see also text and next note) to an anonymous referee. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 55 valued and therefore the most likely survivors through the difficult period of the Scandinavian invasions, the gatherings and loose sheets required by this theory seem more likely to have survived in the more favourable conditions of southern England.13 Alcuin’s letter to Wulfhard is a short one and the contents add nothing about this abbot or his church, beyond what is in the words of address.14 This fact, along with its relegation by Dümmler to his notes, may have contributed to lack of academic scrutiny of the place-name. Dümmler dated the letter to c. 789–796. The reference, its spelling and textual history. The alternative lemma or heading reads in the original manuscript (MS T, microfilm at the British Library) EPLΔ ΔI MG ΔDPULE HΔRDUM ΔBBΔTEM HODDΔ HELMI. From this Dümmler printed Epistola Albini magistri ad Pulehardum abbatem Hoddahelmi ‘a letter of Master Albinus (Alcuin’s pen-name) to Pulehard, abbot of Hodda Helm’. The letter As are almost without feet and the apparent name Hoddom is divided as shown, but the script is clear, apparently because the ink used in the headings resisted water damage more than the rest of the text. Here Pulehardum is a misreading by a scribe who struggled with the insular Anglo-Saxon script in his exemplar, at least in the letters of the heading. For this reason initial P- has been written instead of the English insular W (initial Ƿ, small ƿ) known as wynn, which resembles a P, and e (mis-)represents an insular f; doubtless the name spelling in front of the scribe was really Wulfhard(um). As the Vespasian manuscript reads uulfhardo (V- as printed is editorial, though the lemma in MS V has 13 Thomson (2003, 156) cites Dümmler 1895, 10–11 and his source, all suggesting that T was compiled from at least three small collections, plus scattered single letters. This agrees with Bullough’s analysis (2005, 85–86), in which groups of Alcuin’s letters are given different source locations in England, at or near York and Canterbury. Mann (2004) analyses the quires of MS V in detail and concludes that the presence of items in quire 6 (which includes the Wulfhard letter) was down to Wulfstan and that their positions in T are of earlier origin (pp. 240–41, 256–57). Any single compendium of letters surviving at York would probably have had to have been young enough to include the letter of Bishop Ecgred to Archbishop Wulfsige (Whitelock 1979, 875–76, Haddan and Stubbbs 1869–71 iii, 615–16) (only in T), dated c. 830–837. York is the obvious place of preservation of this letter: the date is at the start of Lapidge’s (1996, 432–36) lean period for Latin literacy and book production – he cites this letter as a unique example of literary composition from the period. We could allow for the addition of oddments to a single volume, but this is itself a partial concession of the theory in favour of separate quires and items. 14 Duckett (1951, 163 and n. 111 (last item)) calls this a pleasant letter, noting that it ‘commends a penitent to the charity of Wulfhard, an English abbot’. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 56 Michael Parker UULFHARDO), V is not the source of the variant heading in T, and that is certainly the implication of the fact that the name Hodda Helm is not in V.15 If we look at the evidence of spellings to find evidence of the date of the Wulfhard letter’s heading, the result is favourable to an early date. To judge from philological reference works, the immediate exemplar of the Wulfhard letter was probably not Northumbrian, but 10th-century and southern English: the rune-derived symbol for w was not established in Northumbrian writing, even after Wulfhard’s day, though it is present in early Mercian texts.16 And there is more of relevance to the transmission of the Wulfhard letter in this area of enquiry. Firstly, both place- and personal names in the letters show evidence of occasional updating to late West Saxon spelling norms and suggest that the exemplars (whether books, gatherings or loose items) of all or a part of the letter collections in T and V were southern English 10th-century texts.17 Another peculiarity of the manuscripts is that mistranscription of Old English letter forms (which occur only in the Anglo-Saxon names in both) seem to be quite common, and there are close parallels for the scribe’s trouble with Wulfhard’s 15 As printed by Dümmler 1895, 113. I checked the two manuscripts at the British Library using their microfilms: T fos 13r–14r, V fo 163v. Mann (2004, 240) says that a decorative initial letter (?wynn) has been omitted from MS V, whereas Dümmler treated the first of the visible letters as initial and capitalised it. 16 For wynn, see Hogg 1992, 10, 41 §2.2, 2.77, Campbell 1959, 20 §50 and n. 1, and 26 §60. Wynn appears early in the Corpus and Erfurt Glossaries, which are mainly Mercian (Campbell 1959, 9 §12, 26 §60). Bullough (2004, 91) made no distinction of dialect in the use of Old English rune-derived signs but, if the observations of Hogg and Campbell apply, the wynn spellings cannot belong to the early Northumbrian phases of transmission. Chase (1975, 10) noted two examples in MS V. Campbell (1959, 26) discusses the start date of the use of these symbols in Northumbrian and more southerly English. For P-, see Bullough 1984, 77 and n. 14, also notes on -e- for -f- etc. in Bullough 2004, 91. The scribe may have been especially confused by the large initial letter wynn of Wulfhard in the head note. Similarly in the copy letter of Pope Paul I, wynn is present in the name Coxwold (see below). The large insular initial wynn (Ƿ) is a more angular letter than the clear P (with a round loop) of the lemma in MS T. The implication of Campbell 1959, 25 §57 (6) and n. 1, is that þ is also unlikely to be a spelling from Alcuin’s time. 17 Cf. the place-name form adhegstalding for Hexham noted in Bullough 1993, 99 n. 21, Bullough 2004, 92, from Dümmler 1895, 72, letter 31, -ing perhaps simply a false expansion of -ig, or of a smudged -esig, -ig being ‘island’ etc. in a late West Saxon spelling; possibility not noted by Bullough 2004, 92 and n. 227, cf. Bullough 1999, Cox 1976, 22. T (at Dümmler’s 26´, really an adjacent folio) is illegible to me; Gale 27, p. 38, has ad Hegs|talding (| is a line end) in a marginal note; this is where he put headings from T when he used a different one for his text. Also relevant here is Nyniga for the name of St Ninian in letter 273 (Dümmler 1895, 431: nynia, nyniga, V, Gale 34, p.46: Nynja, Niniga, both crossed out and Niniani written); -iga is also a late Old English spelling. Malmesbury in Gesta Pontificum iii §118.2 (Winterbottom and Thomson 2007, 389) hasNiniae (genitive) from Alcuin, Ninia (nominative) in extracts of the letter, a Latinisation of the above spelling, and does not employ the conventional Ninianus. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 57 name. In Dümmler’s letter 122, MS T has ardpulfuus rex ‘King Ardwulf’;18 in the letter of Ecgred, Bishop of Lindisfarne, to Archbishop Wulfsige of York, in MS T, we find PULESIGUM for Wulfsigum, and Gale has pulesigum in one version of the head note, pulesigo in the other, both crossed out and Wulfsigo, -um substituted. In text V of Dümmler letter 8, Alcuin’s letter to Joseph, the words of the name aeðelraedus filius aeðelƿaldi have been written in scratchy letters which contrast with their neighbours; apparently over a full or partial erasure. Perhaps a first scribe had made a mess of them, and the corrected w is clearly wynn and not p.19 There may be a clue as to why the first scribe struggled in the same letter, where he wrote the personal name eanfriðo (Latin dative) as eanfrigiðo, a mis-spelling which suggests to me that he may not have been a native speaker of English.20 This is important because it tells us something about the transmission of the letters which would not otherwise be apparent. It is clear that the scribes of manuscripts T and V were not responsible for introducing the Anglo- Saxon letters into their text, but were struggling with letters that were in their exemplars. At the same time, the evidence of Northumbrian spelling is very 18 Dümmler 1895, 178–80, no. 122 on p.179; T fos 136´–138´ (checked; Dümmler’s numbering). Gale no. 115, pp. 161–64, has Ardulfus, Leland 402 Ardulphus. Malmesbury in Gesta Regum i, §70.4, §94.2, Mynors, Thomson and Winterbottom i, 114–15, 138–39, does not have this name. 19 Ecgred’s letter, T fos 61–62 (Haddan and Stubbs’ numbering, iii, 616). For Dümmler 8 to Joseph, MS V, fos 167v–168r (Brett 1991, 68); for which Gale has Ædhelrædus filius Aedhelpaldi and Eanfrido, Leland has Aethelredus filius Ethelwaldi. Dümmler (1895) letter 8, pp. 33–34, seems to be taking readings from Gale and from T, though the microfilm is scarcely legible; Chase 1975, 27–29, no. 5 uses V. Bullough 2004, 343 n. 35 notes the corruption of Eanfrið’s name but has no explanation. Malmesbury in Gesta Regum i, §72.2, Mynors, Thomson and Winterbottom (i, 106–07) modernises as Ethelredus filius Adelwaldi. I did not find Ecgred’s letter in Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum (see Winterbottom and Thomson 2007, i, 376–77, 406–11), though his information on ninth-century York and Lindisfarne was limited. Cf. also Duckett 1951, 29, 158–59. 20 Rather than hypercorrection based on Old English sæde- beside sægde ‘said’, frīnan beside frignan ‘to ask’, unlikely in a formally transparent name, this looks like an error explained by the fact that the Old French freid, froid ‘cold’ is derived from and equivalent to the Latin frigidus ‘cold, chilling’, i.e. a hypercorrection by a native speaker of French who at that date still perceived Latin spelling as the proper way to put down the words of his vernacular. Unconsciously he saw the similar sequence of sounds and letters in the name Eanfrið as if to do with that French word. If this is right, one of Wulfstan’s scribes would have been a Frenchman. See Gamillscheg 1928, 444 s.v. froid; Campbell 1959, 104 §243, Hogg 1992, 284–85 §7.70–71 and footnotes. This would explain why mistakes with insular letters were made even in a 10th-century letter in the Wulfstan collection (Bullough 2004, 91). Damage to T makes it hard to prove that individual mistakes were common to both, but an e for f in V fo 133 (the letter of Alchfrid, who is Alcheridi (Latin genitive) in V and Gale (Bullough 2004, 91 n. 224, Levison 1947, 297 and n. 5) may be an example. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 58 Michael Parker much against the Anglo-Saxon letter-form wynn having been present since the early ninth century. This stratigraphy of spelling affects both the headings and the body of the letters in the two manuscripts and, in the case of Wulfhard’s letter, indicates that the heading cannot have been introduced at the latest stages of transmission, but does not prove whether or not it belongs to the earliest part of the transmission process. On various grounds, however, Bullough and the other authorities seem to believe that the headings are early and this philological evidence is either compatible with that or supportive. Nothing therefore in the academic literature and nothing about the process of transmission of the letters down to the time of Wulfstan’s collections has undermined my confidence that the apparent reference to Hoddom is ancient. In cases like this, where manuscripts have been copied several times and the spelling of names has been inconsistently updated along the way, the nature of individual spellings is the most important guide to their age. The spelling of Wulfhard’s name with final-hard , not -heard, and of Hodda Helmi with an apparent genitive case of a personal name in the weak declension as -a, not -an (see below), both look Northumbrian, and both certainly look out of place in the 10th century or the early 11th, even though the spelling of Wulfhard’s name has gone through a 10th-century stage. I feel that common sense and the general history of the period is in favour of the age of both items. It is unlikely that an 11th-century scribe would have known or added the name of any pre-Viking Northumbrian monastery not mentioned in Bede’s history or in one of the other northern sources known to us, and extremely unlikely that he would have known of Wulfhard or of Hoddom from verbal report. He must have had written evidence for a Wulfhard of Hoddom and it seems very unlikely that this wasn’t simply his source text of the letter. It is equally unlikely that he had heard of Hoddom as a place, or independently of Wulfhard, by any other means, a century or more after a time when southern English contact with what remained of the Northumbrian church had become very limited. I find it convincing that the apparent reference to Hoddom is original to the letter it heads, or was at least an addition made in Northumbria at a date before the Scandinavian conquest of York by somebody who knew who Wulfhard was and counts for our purposes as a more or less contemporary witness. The opinions of the modern authorities are certainly compatible with this. In one discussion, Bullough proposed that a collection of Alcuin letters was made at York by Alcuin’s correspondent Dodo (alias Cuculus, as identified by Dümmler and Bullough) soon after 800, and if this is right he could have added the place-name Hodda Helmi in the head note, even The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 59 if it is not absolutely original.21 Elsewhere, however, Bullough suggested that the detailed headings in MS T are from an original register of Alcuin’s letters, assembled in Francia in the 790s. Bullough proposed a lost register to explain the presence of personal information which identifies or describes the addressees of numerous letters. Some of this information may not have been in the actual address wording of the letters as sent, for example the noting of an addressee Adalhard (of Corbie in France, a common personal name) as propinquum Caroli ‘kinsman of Charles (i.e. Charlemagne)’. But this does make a useful distinction for a register of addressees created to help search through an archive of letters.22 This is a context to which the naming of Wulfhard and Hodda Helm may also belong (Bullough quoted it among the examples) and would make the two names into very early content. Obviously, further clarification by specialists in the field of the transmission through the ninth and tenth centuries of the two Wulfstan letter books could help to make all of this clearer; I am reliant on the opinions already published. Important for Hoddom is other onomastic information in Alcuin’s letters, which supports the contention that Wulfhard’s letter came from a collection at York and contained name references and spellings appropriate to the late eighth and early ninth century. The letters in the two manuscripts name several places and monasteries known from Bede: York, Lindisfarne, Whithorn, Hexham, Wearmouth and Jarrow, Canterbury, and Mayo, the English monastery in Ireland.23 Wearmouth appears in the early spelling ad uuiorensis familie abbatem, in which familia indicates a monastic community.24 Alcuin’s spelling of York as Euborica, -aca, -acia, from various manuscripts and apparently representing an Old English form *Eoforic,25 is of 21 For Dodo, see Bullough 2004, 93–94, following Dümmler 1895, 107–09 letter 65, cf. verses on 107 and 109, 109 n. 4, discussing a poem of Alcuin’s about Cuculus and the identification; also letters 226 and 232, pp. 369–70, 376–78, when Dodo was returning to York; also Duckett 1951, 153–54, 297. York was Bullough’s favoured place for the proto-T collection (2004, 85, 88). Dodo looks like a continental form for Doda in Old English. For the register kept in Francia, see Bullough 1999, 424 and n. 9. 22 Bullough 2005, 91–92, Dümmler 1895, 34–35 letter 9; lemma from A1 (T) in the footnotes, p. 34. 23 E.g. Lindisfarne, Dümmler 56–58 no. 20, lemma p. 57, alternative p. 56; Whithorn 431–32 no. 273, lemma on p. 431; Hexham 72–73 no. 31, in alternative lemma on p. 72; Jarrow 444–45 no. 286, lemma on p. 444; Wearmouth and Jarrow 53–56 no.119, lemma and variants on p. 53; Canterbury 191–92 no. 129, lemma with variant on p. 191; Mayo 445–46 no. 287, lemma and variants on p. 445. 24 In the head note of Dümmler letter 67 (pp. 110–11), Alcuin ‘to Aethelbald abbot of the community of Wearmouth’, Guiorensis in Gale, uuiorensis read by Bullough (2004, 92) from MS T fo 4v; discussion of spelling ibid., p. 92 and note 223. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 60 Michael Parker considerable interest. Also interesting are the spellings of obscure names not known from Bede and therefore immune to emendation towards his spellings by a copier. The letter of Pope Paul 1 to Ecgberht, Archbishop of York, and his brother Eadberht, king of Northumbria, (in both T and V) dated 757–58, names three apparent Yorkshire monasteries, Stonegrave and Coxwold and ‘Don Mouth’; also an abbot Forthred. The various copies of the letter have slightly differing spellings of the names. Leland’s summary in the Collectanea looks very Old English and is similar to Gale: their spellings are evidence for the now illegible text of MS T.26 The best spellings of the names in this letter make it clear, however, that it has gone through much the same sequence of copying as the Wulfhard letter and the other Alcuin items.27 There are six versions plus the illegible T.28 Also relevant are the unidentified australes fratres Baldhuninga in Dümmler 7, Alcuin’s letter to Colcu.29 The letter of 25 See Dümmler 1895, 43 letter 16 (42–44), 177 letter 21 (175–78). This form is also found in Alcuin’s York Poem, as at Godman 1984, 12 (line 91) Euborica, 4 (18), 110 (1409) Euboricae, the title Versus ... de Sanctis Euboricensis Ecclesiae etc. In Latin text it may be a habit of Alcuin. Discussion of name form, Godman 1982, cx–cxii. *Eoforic may antedate the later type in -wic, see Smith 1937, 275–77; Alcuin’s spelling seems to have been amended over time towards Bede’s Eboraca in many MSS, including the English ones, Euborica letter 177 is Eboraca Gale; similar in letter 16, p. 43, letter 42, p. 85; on p. 87, letter 43, Euboracensibus in Dümmler’s K1 is Eboracensis in V (A2). 26 Birch 1885–93 i, 262–64, item 184, translated with notes in Whitelock 1979, 830–31, item 184. For Stonegrave and Coxwold, see Smith 1928, 54–55, 191–92; see Mann 2004, 256–57, on the position of this letter in V quire 6. ‘Don Mouth’, Parker 1985. Birch is based partly on our text V fos 162v–163r (Dümmler’s fo 161), partly on Haddan and Stubbs 1869–71, iii, 394–96, which is in turn from Wilkins 1737 i, 144–45. Wilkins quotes a manuscript of Archbishop Ussher, which Bullough (2004, 88) identifies as a transcript of T. If so, Ussher or Wilkins modernised all of the insular letters and expanded e to æ. The letter is summarised by Leland on p. 397 (both editions), an independent witness to the name spellings, as T (52v–53v) is illegible at this point. 27 Gale 56–58 is similar to Leland but misrepresents the insular letters. The two versions of William’s Liber Pontificalis (see above at n. 6) H, the BL Harleian MS 633 (late 12th century, fos 44v–45v Bullough, but numbered 46 (v–d) in a relatively recent hand, no gaps in numeration, original checked) has minor differences of wording relative to the Wulfstan texts. K, Cambridge University Kk.IV.6 (2021), dating from the 1130s, though older, is much more corrupt (fos 276v–277v, recent numbering, 276va Bullough 2004, 152 n. 73). Thomson (2003, 126) remarks on the many errors. The mistranscription -frage for -grafe for Stonegrave comes from a common ancestor of the two MSS, but other name errors are specific to K. As the archaic name of Coxwold cannot have been correctly restored without textual authority, H is not here a corrected transcript of K. V (incomplete, microfilm checked) and Wilkins (assuming he followed an old source) look less Old English than Leland and Gale. 28 Spellings: Coxwold: cuha ƿalda V (slight gap), cuchauualda H, cuthalda (t for c and haplography) K, Cuchaƿalda (with possibly early -ch-) L, Cuchapalda (gap before p ?) Gale, Cuchawalda Wilkins. Cuha- in V may have been miswritten for Cuhha- (equivalent to Cucha-). Stonegrave: staninga graue V, sta-|ninga frage (sic for -grafe, | = line end) H, staninga frage K The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 61 Ecgred, Bishop of Lindisfarne, to Wulfsige, Archbishop of York, (dated 830– 37) is valuable because the matter is clearly Northumbrian and the place of archiving, so to speak, must have been York.30 The Ecgred, Colcu, Pope Paul and Wulfhard letters were most probably all among the York collection.31 The name Hoddom At this point I turn to the name Hoddom itself and its relationship to Hodda Helmi in the head note of Alcuin’s letter. The context of the early sculpture at the site has hitherto been, strictly speaking, unknown, and the recent archaeological excavations equally without any clear historical input, other than the legends which were written down in the late 12th century associating Hoddom with Saint Kentigern.32 Hoddom’s authentic history begins, our letter aside, when it appears in the list of property of the see of Glasgow in the early 12th century. It has long been assumed that the site was an Anglian monastery – and with good reason, given the repeated assertions from art historians about the quality and the cultural context of the sculpture – but it makes a serious difference to have this description (indirectly, by means of the Latin word for abbot) in contemporary literature.33 The following remarks can be made, with this new reference as backup, (sic – microfilm checked), Staningagrafe L, Stanjnga|grafe Gale, Staningagrave Wilkins. Don Mouth: done muþe V (with a slight gap), donemuðe H, K, Donemuðe L, Donemude (gap before m?) Gale, Donaemuthe Wilkins. Forthred: forþreth V, forðredus, for|ðredo H, forthered ’, fortheðo (sic) K, Forðredus, -o L, Fordredus, -o Gale, Forthredus, -o Wilkins. 29 Literally, ‘the southern brothers of a place Baldhuningas or of Baldhun’s people’, thus Gale pp. 8–9, Leland 392–93 on 393; V 166v–167v has frs’ for fratres; the place need not be Northumbrian but is still of linguistic value: no version of the letter has a West Saxon spelling Beald-. Cf. Chase 1975, 4. 30 For Ecgred, see Whitelock 1979, 875–76 no. 214. Haddan and Stubbs 1869–71 iii, 615– 16; Bullough (2004, 89) dates this 830–837, Whitelock (1982, 47) to c. 835. One of the persons concerned was named Pehtred: spellings Whitelock (1982, 48–49) (from T (her C), Gale and Leland) gives Pechˋtˊredi, Pehtredi, Pehtred 2x; Gale no. 46, pp. 67–69, has Pechredi, Pethredj, Pehtred 3x; Leland 398 has Pechredi, Pethredi, Peh(t)red, 2nd edn Pethred 2x. The West Saxon spelling Peoht- is absent. 31 Bullough (2004, 88) takes the letter of Pope Paul as belonging to this group. The southern composition but northern relevance of MS V is also the opinion of Mann 2004, 265. 32 See Forbes 1874, Rawnsley 1888, Whidden Green 1998, Gough-Cooper 2003. Modern research associates the Kentigern hagiography with the 10th or 11th century, and no earlier, and with the rise of the see of Glasgow, following Jackson 1958, esp. remarks on 279, 299, 305 (Gaelic etymologising), 315, 336–37, app. 343–57, and 319–21 on Hoddom and Abermilk, 330–32 on the overall date; Jackson is followed by Meyvaert 1992, 160. 33 Items speculatively making Hoddom a pre-English bishopric on the evidence of the life of Kentigern are a case in point, but the absence affects all authorities quoted. Lowe 2006, 192–97, notes academic theorising around Kentigern and also the Northumbrian takeover of The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 62 Michael Parker about the name itself. Firstly, if the form Hodda Helmi (Latin genitive) quoted above is the ancestor of the modern name via the later medieval spellings listed by Fellows-Jensen and others, the name Hoddom is clearly of Old English, not Scandinavian origin. I give a list of spellings which have come to my notice during this research: Hodelme 1119 or 1124 [e. 13] ESC no. 50 (Reg. Glasg. no. 1), 1170 [e. 13] Reg. Glasg. 26, 1170 [e. 13], 1181 [e. 13], 1186 [e. 13], Reg. Glasg. 51, 57, 62, 1199 CDS i, 44 (p), 1211–12 CDS i. 85 (p), Hodelma 1161–74 (1309) CDS ii, 422 (p) Hodolme 1174–99 Mel. Lib. no. 169 (p), l. 13 Bagimond Hodelmia 1179 CDS i, 23 (p), c. 1190 HMC Buccleuch no. 66 (p) [Annandale no. 1], 1200 CDS i, 46 (p) Hodelm c. 1180–90 Vita Kentigerni, 1187–89 [e. 13] Reg. Glasg. 72, 1187– 89 [e. 13] ib. 73, 1189 Bain i, 29, 1191–1214 HMC Buccleuch no. 67 (p), e. 13 Reg. Glasg. 72 (heading), e. 13 ib. 73, (heading), c. 1245 CDS v, 137 (p) Hodolmia 1194–1214 CDS i, 107 (p), c. 1215 CDS i, 112 (p) Hodalmia 1194–1214 (2x) CDS i, 107 (both (p)), 1292 CDS ii, 151 (p) Hodolm 1194–1214 CDS i, 108 (p), 1296 CDS ii, 199 (p) [Ragman Roll], 1296 CDS ii, 203 (p) [Ragman Roll] Hodelmo (Latin ablative) 1194–1214 Annandale no. 2 (p), 1202 [e. 13], e. 13 96 (heading) Reg. Glasg. 96, Hodealme 1209 CDS i, 75 (p) Hodaume 1209 CDS i, 75 (p) Odoum 1201 CDS i, 80 (p) Hodielme 1210–11 CDS i, 83 (p) Hodalme 1210–12 CDS i, 98 (p) Hodalm 1212 St Bees (p) Hodholm 1215–51 Holm Cultram, 1258 [18] Reg. Glasg. 205 (Cod. Univ. Glasg. F. 217b) Hodeholm 1257 CDS i, 408 (p), 1257–58 CDS i, 409 (p) Hodolm’ c. 1296 CDS ii, 550 (seal) (p) Hodume c. 1296 CDS ii, 555 (seal) (p) the area, with no new conclusion. Cf. Meyvaert (1992, 160–61), unsure which meaning of the term ‘Celtic background’ is applicable to Hoddom, if any. I cannot supply the context desired for Ruthwell by Orton 2003, 88–92, and Wood 2003, 109, 113 (cf. 119). If Hoddom were the chief place of a constellation of monasteries and churches covering Ecclefechan, Abermilk etc., this might also provide a sort of context for Ruthwell. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 63 Hodholme 1315–21 RMS i (p) 34 This list shows several features. The first syllable is Hod-: a trace of a connecting vowel between two apparent elements is just possible in Hodielme, Hodealme. The second part is usually -elm(e), which may reflect the ordinary Old and Modern English tree name elm. Spellings with -o- in the second part or element, with and without h-, reflect association (from the early 13th century, and probably the late 12th) with the Middle English and Middle Scots word holm ‘island, water-meadow’, a loan from Norse holmr, holmi. Another group with -alm- might reflect the influence of Old Norse almr ‘elm-tree’, found in Danelaw place-names, but may simply be a scribal Latinisation of the type represented by -aume, -ealme.35 These appear in spellings of the derived surname found in English records and are probably Anglo-Normanisms for -elm or -helm. Although the collection is slightly larger than published hitherto, it is weaker than it looks, for most spellings come from copy charters in the Glasgow Register or from the English sources in Bain’s Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, and the latter are all spellings of a derived surname – the relevant family was prominent in Cumberland in the 12th century. ThatHodda Helm is to be related to this place seems very probable. There are not so many named Anglo-Saxon monasteries that the similarity is at all likely to be a coincidence. The specific element of the early name has the general shape of a personal name, and the second looks like the term helm. Each needs to be considered. The personal name Hodda The first element appears to be an Old English masculine personal name, Hodda. This is formally close to Hoda, a name in the weak noun declension (n-declension), which appears in several place-name derivations listed by Ekwall, including Hodcott, Berkshire (Hodicote 1086), and Hodnell, Warwickshire (Hodenhelle 1086, Hodenhull 1196). In the case of names of similar form in the strong noun declension (a-declension), Ekwall was unable to make a clear distinction between names in -d and -dd on the post-conquest evidence for his list of names, citing Hod in Hoddesden (Hertfordshire, Hodesdone 1086, Hoddesdone 1166), Hodsock, Nottinghamshire (Hodeshac 1188), and a 34 Cf. Fellows-Jensen 1985, 134, also Williamson 1942, 320–21. Early references to Hoddom are also listed in Cowan 1967, 82. In my list, which does not claim to be exhaustive, abbreviations are those used by the Scottish History Society, this journal and Williamson, in upright type, because taken from the printed editions. Figures in square brackets are the dates of manuscripts. 35Smith 1956 i, 8 almr, 150 elm, 258–59 holmr. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 64 Michael Parker boundary point of the same form Hodes ác.36 The large collection of spellings available for Hodsock made the derivation from Hodd a great deal stronger, but Hodd is cited in the English Place-Name Society volumes for Hodgemoor Wood, Buckinghamshire, and Hoddesden, Hertfordshire, on a much lower Middle English prevalence of -dd-.37 Ekwall allowed either in a list of charter boundary points cited as parallels for Hoddington, Hampshire, one of them, Hoddes Stocc (Sawyer no. 468), also clearly having a double consonant.38 The same variation or uncertainty attends the items in the English Place-Name Society volumes ascribed to Hod(d), Hoda and Hodda, though on Middle English evidence it is hard to distinguish between items with an original single or double d without a large number of spellings. There are also some items ascribed to Hudda, which look more like Hoda or Hodda on the spellings cited, and this might reflect a genuine variation or a later confusion between Hudda and Hod(d)a in the names.39 Hudd, Huda and Hoda are also cited for places in the north of England.40 Huda and Hudda, which are recorded in pre-conquest sources, might be variants of Hod(d)a; a Hudda appears as a witness to Sawyer 291, a copy of a charter of 842 AD relating to Rochester.41 The evidence of philology suggests that the duplication of the syllable-final consonants in hypocoristic personal names was very common in Old English names. Redin, the principal authority on this, noted several explanations 36 Ekwall 1960, 243–44. 37 Hodsock, Gover et al. 1940, 82. Hodes ác is from Sawyer no. 786, but Mawer and Stenton (1927) index this under Hōd and it is not necessarily identical to Hodsock. Hodgemoor, Mawer and Stenton 1925, 230; Hoddesden, Gover et al. 1938, 228–29. 38 Gelling 1973–76 ii, 505, quoting examples in Ekwall, 1960, 243–44. Ekwall’s spelling of Hoddington as Hoddingatun 1046 may preserve an error, as all printed authorities I have checked except Ekwall’s immediate source cite the spelling with single -d-. 39 Hodenho, HRT, Gover et al. 1938, 167, to Hodda but mostly -d-; Hodford MDX, Gover et al. 1942, 59 to Hodda but with -dd- only once; in Gloucestershire, Smith 1964–65 ii, 122–23 Hodyntro in Churchdown to Huda, but could be Hod(d)a or Hod(d) iii, 243, The Hudnalls in St Briavels, to Hud(d)a but could be Hod(d)a, and list iv, 206, several items with similar variation, listed under Hod, Hodd(el), and Hud(d)a. Hudd with -dd- is cited for Huddes igge, Hunddes ig 944 (c. 1240) in the bounds of Blewbury BRK, Sawyer 496, Gelling 1973–76, 758, 760 point 35, 794; Mawer 1920, 119, relating to Hudspeth. 40 Smith 1961–63 i, 271, Hodroyd in South Hiendley from 1143–54, to Hoda, with discussion, all -d- before 1500; vii, 299 Huda. Cumberland examples of Hudd (or Hudda) at Armstrong et al. 1950–52 i, 216 and iii, 504, Huddlesceugh. Hoddlesden LAN in Darwen, Ekwall 1922, 75, with frequent -dd-, appears to have Hodd with later intrusive -l-, Hudspeth NTB, Mawer 1920, 119–20, Hod. 41 Redin 1919, 98. Redin 1919, 62, 63 treated Dod(d )a and Dud(d )a as mutual variants, etymologically speaking, see under Dudd (p.16); perhaps with the variation between short -o- and -u- in Germanic languages in mind, as in Campbell 1959, 43 §115. Cf. the same argument in Mawer 1920, 119–20. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 65 for double consonants, some possibly arising from consonants present in dithematic names which were shortened to one theme in hypocorisms, some in the speech of children (the so-called lall-words), some in emphatic address and casual speech. None of these explanations covered all of the names (many are etymologically obscure) and Redin felt that geminations of different origin had coalesced into a generalised phenomenon by historic Old English times, so that variation between Beaga and Beagga, Cuda and Cudda, Tida and Tidda (examples he quotes) simply seemed natural to Old English speakers.42 A hunt through Sweet’s edition of the Liber Vitae of Durham, first scribe, which belongs to the same kingdom and culture as Hoddom, produced almost 50 n-declension hypocorisms, plus duplicates, with a double internal consonant, for several of which apparently parallel names with one consonant also appear: Ana beside Anna, Onna, Tuda beside Tudda, Ofa beside Offa, Baca beside Bacca, Backa, Hada beside Hadda, and more (Abba, Adda, Cudda) which have apparently parallel names with a single consonant in the lists supplied by Redin.43 Personal names in Dumfriesshire place-names Given this evidence, it seems fair to take our spelling from Alcuin’s letters as the personal name form Hodda with double dd in the weak declension and in the characteristically Northumbrian genitive form without the word-final -n of more southerly varieties of Old English.44 The regular interpretation of this sort of evidence would be that Hodda was a person of the seventh or eighth century, who had land at or some association with Hoddom. This may have been his formal name or a byname.45 Old English personal names are rare in the 42An etymology for Hodda might be helped by examples of shortening of first syllable vowels in hypocorisms, with and without double consonants, e.g. Tidda beside Tida from the theme Tīd- ‘time’, Tunna from Tūn-, Tumma sometimes from Tūnberht with an assimilation (or perhaps *Tūnmund ?), Cuda, Cudda from the theme Cūþ-, Redin 1919, XXXV, 55, 56, 72; 16, 62; Cidda Cidding (both recorded) and Cidd (known in ciddesbeara (2x) in the charter, Sawyer 969) beside Cida, from the base of cīdan ‘to contend, quarrell’, are discussed by Smith, 1961–63 ii, 196 in respect of Chidswell in Upper Soothill YOW; citing Tengvik 1936, 141 (Cidding), 303 (Cida, Cidda). Hodda could therefore be from hōd ‘hood’, or from hord ‘hoard, treasure’, with an assimilation like that in Brodd(a) from Brord-, -brord (Redin 1919, 5, 45), with Brodda among the examples of Brorda; Smith 1961–63 i, 71 proposes Brodd from this root for Brodsworth YOW. If Tiddanufri c. 710–20 (Cox 1976, 28) is Tidover YOW (Smith 1961–63 v, 43), the same post-conquest appearance of -dd- as -d- applies as I propose in Hoddom. 43 Sweet 1885, 153–66. Redin 1919, 80, Ab(b)a, 81 Ad(d )a, 62 Cud(d )a, though Cuda is sometimes for Cuða and may be so in the Liber Vitae. 44 Conveniently discussed in Anderson 1941, 118–19, Campbell 1959, 189 §472, Hogg 1992, 298–99 §§7.98–100. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 66 Michael Parker Anglian place-names of Dumfriesshire and not, for that matter, very common in neighbouring Cumberland, so the probable association of Hodda with this place is noteworthy. The Old English personal names in Cumberland place- names in the list supplied in the Place-Names of Cumberland are contained in about 42 place- and field names, but more than half are field names: 19 or less are territorial names in -hām and -tūn or topographical names applied to townships and manorial holdings.46 The list of Scandinavian personal names is considerably longer. In Dumfriesshire, like Cumberland, personal names in place-names seem to increase towards the end of the first millennium; yet even in the etymologically Scandinavian -by (-bie) names in the south-eastern half of Dumfriesshire and the adjacent north of Cumberland, several of the personal names are of Anglo-Norman origin, and these coinages belong to the 12th century.47 Personal names in earlier Dumfriesshire names are very few. Apart from Hoddom itself, already in the reckoning with Brooke’s etymology ‘Hoda’s elm-tree’, there is Shearington (Caerlaverock parish), if from an Old English Scīr or Scīra. Burnswark, if ‘Brūn’s fortress’,48 Barburgh (Closeburn, Bridburgh 1247 Carlaverock, 1319 [1554–79] RMS i, Brydeburgh 1319 [c. 1629] ib.) if *Bridda’s fort makes better sense than ‘fort of the chicks or birds’; the lost Wintertonegan (1227 [13] Glasg. Reg., in Nithsdale) if from an Old English Winter or Wintra,49 Cowdens, if Colehtaun 1124 Glasg. Reg., is this place and corrupt, possibly for ‘Cola’s tūn’ according to Brooke,50 and three other very doubtful items.51 We have to cross the border to the nearest part of Kirkcudbrightshire to get Edingham which I prefer to a location near 45 For the sake of simplicity and probability, I assume for the above discussion that Hodda- represents the genitive case of a masculine name Hodda, though the identical genitive of a feminine *Hodde is not out of the question. The a-declension variant is clearly masculine (genitive -es). 46 List, Armstrong et al. 1950–52 iii, 504–05; Scandinavian personal names, ibid. 505–06. 47 The -by names are discussed in Nicolaisen 1976, 100–03, Nicolaisen 2001, 130–33, following Fellows-Jensen 1985, 25–43, 328–32; noted by Daphne Brooke in Lowe 2006, 202–03. 48 Williamson 1942, 4, Shearington (if not ‘the sheriff’s manor ‘ from Old English cīr-gerēfas and tūn) 71, Burnswark. 49 Johnson-Ferguson 1935, 13, 38. Bridd (strong declension) is known, see Redin 1919, 18. Similar names in England with no -s are usually referred to the word bird (OE bridd). Wintra is cited for Winterton, and Winteringham LIN, Wintringham YOE, HNT (Ekwall 525), but Winterton NFK is ‘tūn used in winter’. 50 Brooke in Lowe 2006, 201. 51 Skelston (Dunscore): Ske[ ]toun 1595 Pont, Skelstoun 1644 Gordon, Skestoun 1654 Blaeu, Skelston 1747–53 Roy, if ‘Sceld ’s tun’ scandinavianised; Sceld is known in place-names, though a Norse *skjaldr is also possible. Cf. Shelsley Beauchamp WOR (Ekwall 1960, 416, with other examples of the personal name). For sk- by Norse influence, cf. Skinford in this parish,Skinfurd 1573 SAS Charters, 1585 Parliamentary Register, 1595 Pont, Skynfurde 1577, 1598 RMS, The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 67 Dumfries as Edyngaheym in the Glasgow Register.52 This is a short and tentative list. Its shortness is perhaps explained by the limited material available for Dumfriesshire, though Old English place-names, including names ending in tūn with a significant word as the preceding element, are more frequent. There are Scandinavian personal names additional to those in the well-known list of bý-names, for example the lost ‘Bagthorpe’ in Middlebie (Bagthrop, Bagthrope 1416 Carlaverock (Baggi, and the only þorp in the county), Arkleton (Ewes) from Arnketill, Arnkell, and Ericstane (Moffat), probably ‘the stone ofEirikr ’).53 The term helm The first question to be considered in respect of the specific element is whether the generic element really is helm. The generic element of the early name, placed second, looks like this term, which is known from Anglian Scotland as well as England. English place-name studies reckon with an extension of meaning for this word from literally ‘helmet’ to ‘shelter’, ‘sheltering structure or hill’, ‘hilltop’ or ‘farm building’. The Scandinavian explanations of Hoddam suggested by Williamson and Fellows-Jensen are parallel with this because a similar extension of meaning affected the Norse cognate hjalmr, which they cite as the generic, and which would appear as -helm in an Anglo-Scandinavian place-name. Obviously, if a pre-Scandinavian example exists, the extension of meaning must be native to Old English, but, for the sake of certainty, the evidence from areas beyond Scandinavian lexical influence is also relevant. The loss of the initial h- of the second syllable is not unusual and has perhaps been helped along by association with the ordinary word elm, although I have noticed no parallel for this term as the generic of a substantial place-name in England.54 In addition, -helm was a common theme of Old English and continental Skinfuird 1618 RMS, 1644 Gordon, from Old English scinna ‘goblin’, scandinavianised, and ford. Fiddleton (Ewes): thought worth citing by Williamson 1942, 34, if from a very doubtful Old English Fidela, better Fitela, if the development is parallelled in Moodlaw (Johnson- Ferguson 1935, 37) in Eskdalemuir, if from ‘moot law, hill’, Old English gemōt, hlāw. Fitela is found in place-names, see examples in Ekwall 1960, 180–81. For Laverhay, in Wamphray, Johnson-Ferguson (1935, 129) has Lēofhere, gehæg, which suits the (late) spellings, cf. Loversall YOW (Smith 1961–63 i, 34–35). 52 Brooke 1987, 50–53, ‘the territory of Ēda’s or Ēada’s people’. 53 Williamson 1942, 152. Bagthorpe appears as Boigthroppil in Johnson-Ferguson 1935, 91, apparently ‘Bagthorpe Hill’. 54 Williamson 1942, 320–21, Fellows-Jensen 1985, 134. Cf. also Johnson-Ferguson 1935, 56, with more spellings but no usable etymology. Hence Daphne Brooke in Lowe 2006, 201, made Hoddom ‘Hoda’s elm’, getting as close as she could have without the ancient spelling. The word (Old and modern English)elm is common in place-names (see Smith 1956 i, 150), but, as a specific, very occasionally a simplex; no examples in the published indexes of English Place-Name Society volumes are generics, except very minor names. Other tree names do The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 68 Michael Parker personal names. It can appear as -elm in the former in late Old English, and as -elme, -aume, -ealme in Old French: association with this doubtless explains the loss of h- and the spellings of the family name de Hodealme (etc.) in Cumberland. But the word elm is clearly not original if Hoddom is Hodda Helm, and interference from elm and holm is found in Scotland’s other major -helm names. These are all Roxburghshire: Buckholm (Melrose), Bucchehelm 1180; Chisholme (Roberton), Chesehelm 1296 (2 sources), Chesolm 1296, Cheiselm 1296, with the same substitutions as in Hoddom,55 and Branxholme (Hawick), Brankishelme 1315–21, but Branxelm 1463–64. In Buckholm, -holm starts as late as the 16th century; Branxholme has much confusion with -hame and a spelling with -emell, which seems to reflect the form with metathesis of its consonants in my notes of the dialect word (see below).56 Williamson also listed two minor names: a lost Gorkhelm c. 1485, possibly the top of Galahill near Galashiels, and Staney Hill (Teviothead parish, Roxburghshire, Stonyhelme, Blaeu); these apply the word to a hill (see below). The English examples of the word are found in several parts of the country, some very distant from Scandinavian influence. The fullest discussion is that of Dr Gelling in connection with Helm in the parish of Hungerford, a name with a good record back to the 12th century. Citing parallels in Worcestershire and Herefordshire, she remarked on the belief then current that the extension of meaning of the word helm must be native in English.57 Examples outside the main distribution of Norse place-names include the Elms in Hallow, appear as generics and also as boundary names in early charters, e.g. in Gelling 1973–76 iii, 769–792 s.vv. āc, apuldor, bēam, þorn, þyrne. But I found no example of elm in this position in the searchable Briggs 2008. 55 Williamson 1942, 55–56. For Buckholm add Buchelm c. 1230 [16] Dryb., Buckhelm 1538 RSS, Bukholme 1547, c. 1564 (2x) 1594 Mel Reg Rec, Bukholm 1578 Mel Reg Rec, Buckholme 1605 RMS, 1658 etc. Mel Reg Rec, Buckhome 1618 RMS, Buckhoom c. 1636–54 Gordon 56, -hoome 1654 Blaeu (2 maps), Buckholm 1658 (2x), Buckeholme 1659 Mel Reg Rec. Chisholm is also Chesholme 1446 SB (p), Chesholm 1456 SB (p), Chesame 1500 SB. 56 Branxholme is also Branxishelme 1329–71 [1554–79] RMS i App. 2A no. 138, Branxhelme 1329–71 [1554–79] RMS i App. 2A no. 138, 1482, 1484 (3x), 1487, 1487 (2x), 1500, 1500 (2x), 1517, 1528 (2x), 1550, 1551, 1553 (5x), 1574 (2x), 1599, 1599 SB [= Scotts of Buccleuch], 1577 Douglas Book, Branchselme 1420 (1431, 2x) SB, Branchsemell 1420 [1431] SB, Brankishelme 1447 (2x) SB, Branxhelm 1456, 1517, 1519 (3x) SB, 1565 RSS, Branxelme 1463 SB (5x), 1488 (4x), 1516 SB, Brankishame 1446 (2x), 1446 (2x), 1446 SB, Brankyshame 1446 SB, Branxhame 1475 SB, 1492 (3x), 1494 SB, Brankisholme 1447 SB, Branxholm 1488, 1663 SB, c. 1636–52 Gordon 56, 1654 Blaeu, 1654 Gordon, 1659 Jansson Map, Branxholme 1329–71 [1629] RMS i App. 2B no. 138 (24), 1571 Annandale (3x), 1574 (6x), 1574, 1633 (3x) SB, Branksholme 1572, 1642 Annandale, 1574, 1575, 1599 (4x) RMS. 57 Gelling 1973–76 ii, 301–02, Helme 1181 (p), 1187–89 et freq., the discussion supplements Smith 1956 i, 242. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 69 Worcestershire, Elm Green Farm in Ewyas Harold, Herefordshire, a lost Helmhouse in Ampney St Peter, Gloucestershire,58 a lost Barlehelme in Lyme Handley, Cheshire, where the meaning is clearly agricultural;59 and, in Durham, Bensham (Gateshead), Helm Park (Wolsingham) and Ravenshelm, an old name of Ravensworth Castle.60 To these I can add the Helms, the name of a stretch of sand-hills at New Romney in Kent, using the word in a topographical sense,61 and the two oldest spellings of the name Goathill in Dorset.62 Conversely, the word is not common in Scandinavian England, apart from modern minor place-names and field names in Yorkshire, mainly the West Riding, and Westmorland. In fact no examples are listed in the short Survey volumes (which have few minor names and field names) for the North and East Ridings of Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, areas with a strong Scandinavian element, largely of East Norse origin. However a search through Access to Archives produced only two field names each for the East and North Ridings, four for the West Riding (excluding those in the published survey) and nothing for Lincolnshire or Nottinghamshire.63 There are six or seven in the 58 Mawer and Stenton 1927, 131: The Elms in Hallow, Helme 1240, 1275, both (p); Coplestone-Crow 1989, 214, Elm Green in Ewyas Harold, Heaume 1215, 1219, la Helme 1300 (p), The Helm1642. Smith 1964–65 i, 55 in Ampney St Peter, le Helmhouse 1542. 59 Dodgson 1970–97, v (1:i), xviii, in addenda to vol. 1. Le Barlehelme, le Barle Helme 1466, ‘the barley barn’, the editor noted that the latter word gives the name a Scandinavian and north-country feel, probably struck by it because this is an area far from most of Cheshire’s Norse place-names. However, in vol. v (2) in his discussion of the Norse element in Cheshire (pp. 230–47), helm was not listed by Dodgson or his posthumous editor among the Norse or ambiguous place-names and elements at pp. 237, 240–41, 246–47. 60 Watts 2002, 7, Benchelm’ 1249, where the specific is benc ‘bench’ used topographically; (p. 57) Helme Park, le Helmepark 1382, possibly from a hill; thus for Helmington Hall (p. 58), discussion of an Old English *Helming and Helm denoting a local hill. Cf. elements list (p.154) where Norse influence is not mentioned. Watts makes helm in the lost Ravenshelm (Ravensworth Castle) ‘stronghold’ (2002, 102), an idea borrowed from the Durham antiquarians; the reference in Ravenshelme 1334, 1352, 1393, Ravenshelm 1351, 1384 (2x), Raveneshelm 1368 (all Durham IPM, for which see Watts 2002 xxviii), is to ‘the lady of’ and ‘the manor of’; the hill immediately south-west of the castle may really be behind the name. Watts 2007 contains an additional Artherhelme 1663 in Greatham village field names (p. 86). 61 (their) Helmes 1556 Kent History Centre NR/LB/18/2, (lez, the) helmes 1562 NR/IC/1, (the ...) Helmes 1558 × 1603 NR/LB2/6, (the) Helmes 1599 EK- U270/T236/3,4, 1604 NR/ TL/25, 1623 NR/TL/27, 1652–73 NR/TL/31, 1846–66 NR/TL/33, all from Access to Archives. 62 Mills 1998- iii, 382–83, Gatelme, 1086 DB, Ingatelma 1086 Exeter Domesday. All later spellings suggest -hill. Dr Mills suggested ‘summit of a hill’ as a possible meaning of -helm, and its replacement by -hill is in favour of this. But a farm building is not impossible given the specific ‘goat’. I am grateful to Dr Mills for this reference. Both spellings would have to be corrupt if -hill (Old English hyll ) was intended in 1086. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 70 Michael Parker Westmorland survey, only one, probably a hill-name, with medieval spellings, the next oldest recorded item is 16th century, four are only 19th.64 There are none in Cumberland, except a local name Hembles Gate, which may reflect the metathesised dialectal form of helm (see below).65 Five places are indexed in Smith’s vast survey of the West Riding, plus numerous field names, mostly but not all in the west of the county. The old items include Helm in Kirkheaton (from 1198), Helme in Meltham near Huddersfield, earliest record dated 1421 and a lost Helmholm 12, 1130–39 etc., in Long Drax, which looks genuine and cannot refer to a hill, but is once confused with elm.66 Ekwall gave two examples in Lancashire, Helmshore in Haslingden (from 1510), a lost Helme in Read, and Elmridge in Chipping, which was formerly simplex Helm. He quoted the meaning ‘shed’ but as two names are close to prominent ridges the reference of these is uncertain.67 Compound examples implying a building or agriculture include Buckholme and Chisholme, le Barlehelme in Cheshire, Spink Helm Farm in Blubberhouses, West Riding,68 probably Buckholme and possibly Gatelme (Goathill, Dorset). These are scattered widely in the areas where the word occurs. The simplex names in Berkshire and the low-lying parts of Yorkshire, where there is no sheltering hill available, must have the same meaning.69 The wordhelm survived till modern times in some northern English dialects, 63 The oldest are the Helme 1684 in Hackness YON, East Riding Archives DDHU/16/3. Patrickhelm 1365 in Askwith YOW, West Yorkshire Archives WYL639/39, where there is a Helm Close 1769, Smith 1961–63 v, 62, le Helme Close 1547 in Headingley YOW, East Riding Archives DCC/131/34, archive items from Access to Archives. 64 Smith 1967 i, 99, 147, 187, 200–01, ii, 85, 90. Items on i, 100, 113, 123 and 202 derive from nearby examples and are not independent. There are possible Hemmel-names at ii, 85 and 90 (see below on dialect). 65 Armstrong et al. 1950–52 i, 68. 66 There are more than Smith’s index (1961–63) suggests: ii, 182, 225, 283, 284; iii, 46, 140, 144, 174, 257, 260, 266, 274; iv, 8, 13, the lost Helmholm; 66, 100, 161, 203, 207, 218; v, 36, 57, 62, 72, 122, 186; vi, 11, 23, 25, 27, 93, 190, 236, 246, 257 (2x), 271. There seem to be no examples in vol. 1, though the east of the area covered is very Scandinavian. 67 Ekwall 1922, 91 (Helme 1215, 1324 (p) in Read); Elmridge, (logagia de) Helme 13, Helm’ 1332 (p), Helm 1377 (p) (p. 143), later assocated with elm. 68 Smith 1961–63 v, 122, Spinkhelm 1749. The meaning ‘finch helm’ would imply a farm building where corn was stored, but the word spink was also a surname. There is also a late field name Waggon Helm close 1841, in Acaster Selby (ibid. iv, 218). 69This is probably also true of a possible example in Suffolk represented so far only by surnames: (‘of’) Helm e. 13, m. 13, l. 13 Norfolk RO MC2234/31, 30, 42, and possibly of another in Islip NTP which is either -helm or -holm: Joshelm’ 1411–12, Josseholm’ 1417–18, Josholm’ 1412–13, 1413–14, 1415–16, Joshelmesthyng 1423–24, Ieshelm’ 1416–17, Northants RO FH434, 435, 438, 439, 442, 440, 441, all from Access to Archives. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 71 and in parts of Scotland, with meanings relating to small agricultural buildings and sheds, especially among the bewildering assemblage of terms for isolated sheds out in the fields.70 It also appears with reference to buildings within farmsteads, cart-sheds and the like, on the unbeatably empirical authority of the Survey of English Dialects responses.71 The presence of this word in place-names far outside the areas of Scandinavian domination shows that its use in northern names is of Anglian origin, even if reinforced in Yorkshire and Westmorland by Norse influence. This is clearly proved by the new reference, which antedates the arrival of the Vikings in Northumbria. The 11th-century date of the copy of Alcuin’s letter is no problem in this context for the reasons I have set out above. Hoddom and the middle syllable of Hodda Helm We can also be confident that the HELMI of Wulfhard’s letter means what it says. The word elm, which several later spellings could suggest, would not be written in this way in an eighth or ninth-century letter. I looked at place-names which might have an -h- introduced into the spelling (or pronunciation, as far as we can gauge it) of a hiatus such as in *Hodda elm, but have found no early examples. The early names collected by Cox include Lastingham (North Riding) and Oxney (Kent), and the spellings (Lastingaeu, Lastingaei, Lastingae 731 EH, Oxnaiea 724 (15) S1180) show that a similar hiatus stood as it was, and this is true of later pre-conquest records such as for Athelney, Somerset, Æþelingaeigge 878 ASC, Æthelingaeg c. 894 [e.11] Asser.72 Eventually the sequence of vowels was simplified by the loss of the first part, the unstressed -a; the process can be 70 For helm, Oxford English Dictionary vii (Hat–Intervacuum), 123, helm sb. 1, meaning 7; first citation 1501; Middle English Dictionary iv, 617–18, esp. paragraph 2 on p. 618, citations of place-names and surnames (no definition given); English Dialect Dictionary iii (H–L), 137, helm sb. 2, and 139, hemmel sb. 1; Scottish National Dictionary v, 107, helm and 108–09, hemmel. The dialectal distribution of hemmel was from the Scottish borders to Yorkshire. The word seems to have arisen as a metathesis of hellem, a disyllabic pronunciation of helm similar to the widespread ellem for elm, hallem for haulm, fillem for film and the like. For haulm, see Survey of English Dialects B., The Basic Material, Vol. 1, The Six Northern Counties and the Isle of Man i, 164 (question ii.4.4), and for disyllabic forms of elm ii, 439–40 (question iv.10.4). There are no citations forhelm in this sense, or for hemmel, from literary Scots, as collected in the Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue iii (H–L), 92 and 94. 71 For helm, Survey of English Dialects B. (as above) i, 135 (question i.11.7, a disyllable). The metaphorical and secondary senses of the Old English word helm listed in Bosworth and Toller (Anglo-Saxon Dictionary i, 527, and ii, 530) seem quite distant from the concrete dialectal use of the word. It may be of some sociological interest if an idiomatic usage relating to an object of importance to the Old English-speaking peasant class is present in Dumfriesshire’s oldest- recorded Anglian place-name, probably coined in the seventh century. 72 Cox 1976, 23, 25 (I ignore Lindisfarne (p. 24) because of its disputed etymology); Ekwall 1960, 18. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 72 Michael Parker seen in Billinghay, Lincolnshire, ‘the island of the Billingas’, where Billingeeia 1186 may be a last vestige.73 An exception in the later spellings of Lastingham is instructive: Lestingaheu c. 1130 SD is from Symeon of Durham, who was writing literary Latin in his antiquarian role and doubtless added the -h- to what is otherwise Bede’s spelling in order to make this Old English name and its difficult sequence of vowels look less out of place in his Latin text.74 On the contrary, in the spelling record of Old English, intervocalic -h- (which meant a breathing in this context) disappeared at the beginning of the historic period to reflect a phonological process which produced complex vowel and diphthong sequences which were then simplified.75 More useful is the widespread evidence for the retention of -n of the weak declension (the genitive of personal names or the dative of adjectives) in place- names where the following word began with a vowel, or, less often, with h-. Both phenomena are found, in northern Mercia and even in Northumbria, even though oblique -n was sometimes lost in recorded Mercian Old English writing and regularly in Northumbrian. The process of loss of-n in Northumbrian is in fact reflected in the earliest texts and was apparently incomplete in the names in Bede’s history. Anderson quotes degsastan, pægnalæch, tilaburg (Tilbury, Essex) and possibly tunnacæstir, as containing the genitive singular of personal names with loss of -n, and beardaneu, peartaneu (Bardney, Partney, Lincolnshire) and bosanhamm (Bosham, Sussex) for its retention before vowels and h.76 We could add Tiddanufri, (perhaps Tidover, West Riding), the form Coludanæ urbis for Coldingham, Berwickshire, and the lost Cedenan āc (Lincolnshire?) from the items collected by Cox.77 The same rules apply widely in Middle English, where place-name forms are partly inherited.78 This can be shown in Lincolnshire, in the north of the Mercian region, for example in Edenham, Leadenham, ‘Eada’s, Lēoda’s estate’ before h, and in numerous place-names from Old English ēa 73 Cameron 1998, 14. -heia comes in at the end of the 12th century by association with gehæg and the h follows the g. Similarly Fotheringhay, NTP (Ekwall 1960, 185), if it is an -inga- name. 74 Smith 1928, 60, cf. Cox 1976, 23. 75 Campbell 1959, 98–104, §234–39, 180 §461; Hogg 1992, 172–85 §5.131–154; 271–75 §7.44–50. 76 Anderson 1941, 118–19; for the places, Cox 1976, 19–20, 25, 36, 37; and 16, 30, 25. Cf. Campbell 1959, 189 §472–73, Hogg 1992, 298–99 §7.98–100. The process was apparently incomplete in Alcuin’s day, as there is a spelling Offane regis ‘of King Offa’, in Dümmler 1895, 376, letter 231, where the Latin genitive form seems to be suggested by Old English Offan. 77 Cox 1976, 28, 31–32, 19. If the identification is right the n- - of Tidover did not survive, see Smith 1961–63 v, 43. The spelling for Coldingham is relevant if from a weak declension derivative personal name *Coluda, as Cox implies. 78 Jordan and Crook 1974, 161 §170 remark 2. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 73 ‘river’ and ēg ‘island’ in which -n- has been retained till modern times.79 This is despite the strong Scandinavian influence in Lincolnshire, which would tend to reinforce the loss of -n in English. The element ēg is less common in Northumbrian place-names, but ēa occurs with -n- retained in the river-names Foulness and Mickley Dike, East Riding, in the heart of Northumbria and in the teeth of powerful Scandinavian influence on the form of place-names.80 Two Durham examples are Cocken, Cokene 1138 × 41, Cokenne ee c. 1190, Cocca’s river’, and McNeil (a corrupt modern form), Matnel 1296, Macknale 1647, ‘Macca’s river-island’, from the Old English *ēl, *ēgel.81 Conclusions on Hoddom Because of this I believe that the second syllable of Hoddom cannot originally have been the word elm. Our lost eighth or ninth-century source would have written HODDAN ELMI, but there is no evidence that he did. TheH is clearly an H, and I have noticed no evidence for confusion of h and n in the letter forms used in the headings of the Wulfstan letter collections.82 As the copyists had before them another initial H at the start of HODDA, it seems especially unlikely that the reading is an error. In addition the 11th-century scribe clearly thought that there was a word division before the word HELMI of the head note, and he was probably copying what went before in putting the H at the start of a separate word. In contrast, the reduction of the name to Hodelme, in an area where Anglian place-names were later shared with speakers of Norse, Cumbric and Gaelic, is plausible. The name will also have been known to Gaelic speakers at the bishop’s establishment in Glasgow before 1124, and the 1124 spelling may reflect their form of it. It might just be possible to claim that Hoddom is from an unknown Hod(d)an elm, that the middle syllable was later lost, as in the one uncertain example, Tidover from Tiddanufri (if the identification is right), and that Hodda Helm was a different place, even though this leaves us with a major Northumbrian monastic site with no name, and a very similar 79 Freshney, Friskney Fulney and Ludney from ēa with the dative singular of an adjective as specific; Bardney, Blankney, Cadney, Gedney, Partney, Tetney from a personal name and ēg. Cameron 2002, 46–48, 82–83; 9, 15, 26, 50, 97, 124. 80 Smith 1937, 4, 9. Foulness even has an Old English spelling Fulanea 959 [c. 1200], Sawyer no. 681 from a document in West Saxon spelling but confirmed by the later development. Scandinavian influence, xxii–xxiii. Rare northern examples before h- are Beadnell, NHB, Ekwall 1960, 32, Bēda’s halh’, Ricknall DUR, Watts 2002, 103–34, first word uncertain. 81 Watts 2002, 27, 75; this interpretation supercedes Mawer, 1920, xxvii, 13, 49. 82 Niglacum for Hig- in Gale, Levison 1947, 297 n. 5 is the nearest I have seen to an example. There is also Aeðelnardum, n erased, in Dümmler’s MS C, Corpus Christi Cambridge 190, in letter 17, noted twice in Dümmler 1895, 614 addenda; 17 is one of three letters (two of them incomplete, all also in T and V) used in this MS. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 74 Michael Parker name for an unknown, probably Northumbrian monastery with connections in the highest ecclesiastical and political circles in Europe. This seems to me to be simply stepping around the evidence, which all tends to confirm that Alcuin’s reference is to Hoddom, that the elements of Hodda Helm are compatible with the later form of Hoddom, and that they were available in seventh and eighth-century Northumbria for the formation of place-names. As a final, none too serious, remark, I suppose I can say that if Hoddom, Ruthwell and, perhaps, the site at Ecclefechan,83 were parts of another of those constellations of monastic places which we find in the Anglo-Saxon church, then in the name of Wulfhard we might have a record of a man who knew whoever commissioned the sculpture at Hoddom and Ruthwell, and who even may have known whoever it was who inscribed the early version of the Dream of the Rood on the Ruthwell cross. Whether we have the name of the commissioner, or of the author, is beyond the limits of inference, but we are closer to them through Abbot Wulfhard and his letter from Alcuin, than we are ever likely to get by other means. Acknowledgements My thanks to the British Library, Cambridge University Library and Trinity College (Wren Library), Cambridge, for assistance with the manuscripts listed below; to Professor Richard Cox for help with access and technical matters and to Drs Paul Cavill and David Mills for answers to questions about helm. Manuscript Sources British Library Cotton MS Vespasian A XIV (11th century; includes letter collection, many of Alcuin); microfilm consulted; cited as V. British Library Cotton MS Tiberius A XV (11th century, includes letter collection, many of Alcuin); microfilm consulted; cited as T. Trinity College Cambridge (Wren Library) O.10.16 (1468), pp. 1–220; copy by the 83See Innes 1843 i, 43, Lawrie 1905, 46, Cowan 1967, 58 (Ecclefechan), 82 (Hoddom), 176 (Ruthwell). ‘little church’, Watson 1926, 168, Nicolaisen, 1976, 17, Nicolaisen 2001, 221, Brooke in Lowe 2006, 199. Jackson’s remarks about Abermilk (Castlemilk) church look relevant here (1958, 320). Spellings in Johnson-Ferguson 1935, 55. The 12th-century property list of the see of Glasgow included nearby Abermilk/Castlemilk (pp. 5, 29) and apparently Edingham, Kirkcudbrightshire, which was connected to the later parishes of Colmonell and Urr (pp. 34, 205–06). For discussion of the Glasgow grant, see Lowe 2006, 197, with list. I prefer the identification of the place Edyngaheym in this document with Edingham for the reasons set out by Brooke 1987, 52–53, to an old identification with a lost Ednemland near Dumfries (Lawrie 1905, 303, Nicolaisen 1976, 73, and 2001, 95, the latter unaltered from the old edition which antedates the paper by Brooke). Whether these other places were Northumbrian monastic properties is possible but at the limits of documentary inference; only archaeology could say for sure. I hope to publish a different identification for the place mentioned by John of Hexham (Brooke 1987, 53 and n.13). The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 75 antiquarian Thomas Gale of British Library Cotton MS Tiberius A XV (as above), letters of Alcuin and others, slightly edited with reference to other sources and with some miscellanea at the end; dated end of the 17th century. Original consulted: cited as Gale. British Library Harleian MS 633, fos 4–71, text of Liber Pontificalis, in William of Malmesbury’s version from the year 757, but from another source before that. Original consulted. Cambridge University Library Kk.IV.6 (2021) fos 224–80, text of William of Malmesbury’s version of the Liber Pontificalis. Microfilm consulted. Bibliography Abbreviations: CUP: Cambridge University Press, EPNS: English Place-Name Society, OUP: Oxford University Press. Allott, S., 1974, Alcuin of York, his Life and Letters (York: Ebor Press and Sessions Book Trust). Anderson (Arngart), O.S., 1941, Old English Material in the Leningrad Manuscript of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History (Lund: Gleerup). Armstrong, A.M., Mawer, A., Stenton F.M. and B. Dickens, 1950–52, The Place- Names of Cumberland, 3 Parts, EPNS vols XX-XXII, (Cambridge: CUP). Bailey, R.N. and R. Cramp, 1988, Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture Vol. 2, Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire North of the Sands (Oxford: OUP). Birch, W. de G., 1885-93, Cartularium Saxonicum, a Collection of Charters relating to Anglo-Saxon History, 3 vols (London: Whiting). Bosworth, J., and T.N. Toller, 1898–1927, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, 2 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Brett, C., 1991, ‘A Breton pilgrim in England in the reign of King Athelstan’, G. Jondorf and D.N. Dumville, eds, in France and the British Isles in the Middle Ages and Renaissance: Essays by Members of Girton College, Cambridge, in Memory of Ruth Morgan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press), 43–70. Briggs, K., 2008, Anglo-Saxon Charters with OE Bounds, online at The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 76 Michael Parker Fleckenstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke), 73–92. Bullough, D.A., 1993, ‘What has Ingeld to do with Lindisfarne?’, Anglo-Saxon England 22, 93–125. Bullough, D.A., 1999, ‘The place-name Hexham and its interpretation’, Notes and Queries 244 (new series 46), part 4 (December 1999), 422–27. Bullough, D.A., 2004, Alcuin, Achievement and Reputation, being part of the Ford Lectures delivered in Oxford in Hilary Term 1980 (Leiden and Boston: Brill). Cameron, K., 1998, A Dictionary of Lincolnshire Place-Names, EPNS Popular Series vol. 1 (Nottingham: EPNS). Campbell, A., 1959, Old English Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Carley, J.A. and P. Petitmengin, 2004, ‘Pre-Conquest manuscripts from Malmesbury Abbey and John Leland’s letter to Beatus Rhenanus concerning a lost copy of Tertullian’s works’, Anglo-Saxon England 33, 195–223. Chase, C., 1975, Two Alcuin Letter-Books, from the British Museum MS Cotton Vespasian A XIV (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies). Coplestone-Crow, B., 1989, Herefordshire Place-Names, British Archaeological Reports British Series 214 (Oxford: BAR). Cowan, I.B., 1967, The Parishes of Medieval Scotland, SRS vol. 93 (Edinburgh: SRS). Cox, B., 1976, ‘The place-names of the earliest English records’,Journal of the English Place-Names Society 8, 12–66. Crowe, C., 1982, ‘Archaeology without a spade – looking for a monastery at Hoddom’, Popular Archaeology 4, no. 6 (December 1982), 34–36. Dodgson, J. McN., 1970–97, The Place-Names of Cheshire, EPNS vols XLIV-XLVIII LIV, LXXIV (completed by A.R. Rumble; Cambridge, CUP and Nottingham, EPNS). A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue, from the Twelfth Century to the Seventeenth, ed. W.A. Craigie, A.J. Aitken, M. Dareau et al., 12 vols, 1937–2002 (Edinburgh: University of Chicago Press, OUP). Duckett, E.S., 1961, Alcuin, Friend of Charlemagne, his World and his Work (New York: MacMillan). Dümmler, E. ed., 1895, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolarum Tomus iv, Epistolae Carolini Aevi ii. (Berlin: Weidmann), available on line at The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 77 (London: Henry Frowde). Fellows-Jensen, G., 1985, Scandinavian Settlement Names in the North-West, Navnestudier udgivet af Institut for Navneforskning nr 25 (Copenhagen: Reitzels). Forbes, A.P., ed, 1874, Lives of S. Ninian and S. Kentigern, Compiled in the Twelfth Century, the Former by St Ailred, the Latter by Jocelinus, Historians of Scotland vol. 5 (Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas). Gamillscheg, E., 1928, Eytmologisches Wörterbuch der Französischen Sprache, Sammlung Romanischer Elementar- und Handbücher, iii Reihe, Wörterbücher, no. 5 (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). Ganz, D., 1993, ‘An Anglo-Saxon fragment of Alcuin’s letters in the Newberry Library, Chicago’, Anglo-Saxon England 22, 167–77. Gelling, M., 1973–76, The Place-Names of Berkshire, 3 parts, EPNS vols 49–51 (Cambridge: CUP). Gneuss, H., 2001, Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: a List of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100, Medieval and Rennaisance Texts and Studies vol. 241 (Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies). Godman, P., ed., 1982, Alcuin: The Bishops, Kings and Saints of York, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Gough-Cooper, H., 2003, ‘Kentigern and Gonothigernus, a Scottish saint and Gaulish bishop identified’,The Heroic Age6 (Spring 2003), 15 pp. plus appendixes, online journal at The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 78 Michael Parker Religionem, 2 vols (Edinburgh: Bannatyne and Maitland Clubs). Jackson, K.H., 1958, ‘The sources for the life of St Kentigern’, in N.K. Chadwick et al., Studies in the Early British Church (Cambridge: CUP), 273–357. Johnson-Ferguson, E., 1935, The Place-Names of Dumfriesshire (Dumfries: Courier Press); reprinted as Castlepoint Press Reprint Series no. 1, Colvend (Dalbeattie) 2001. Jordan, R., and E. J. Crook, 1974, Handbook of Middle English Grammar: Phonology, Janua Linguarum Series Practica 218 (The Hague: Mouton). Karkov, C.E., and F. Orton, eds, 2003, Theorising Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture (Morgantown, West Virginia: West Virginia University Press). Ker, N., 1971, ‘The handwriting of Archbishop Wulfstan’, in P. Clemoes and K. Hughes, England before the Conquest, Studies in Primary Sources Presented to Dorothy Whitelock (Cambridge: CUP), 315–31. Lapidge, M., 1996, Anglo-Latin Literature, 600-899 (London and Rio Grande: Hambledon Press). Lawrie, A.C., 1905, Early Scottish Charters, Prior to 1153 (Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons). Leland, J., Collectanea, see Hearne. Levison, W., 1947, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century, the Ford Lectures, 1943 (Oxford, OUP). Lowe, C.E., 1991, ‘New light on the Anglian “Minster” at Hoddom’, Transactions of the Dumfries and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, 3rd series, Vol. LXVI, 11–35. Lowe, C.E., et al., 2006, Excavations at Hoddom, Dumfriesshire, an Early Ecclesiastical Site in South-West Scotland, with Specialist Contributions (Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland). Malmesbury, William of, see Mynors; Winterbottom. Mann, G., 2004, ‘The development of Wulfstan’s Alcuin Manuscript’, in M. Townend, ed., Wulfstan, Archbishop of York: the Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference, University of York Studies in the Early Middle Ages, vol. 10 (Turnhout: Brepols), 234–78. Mawer, A., 1920, The Place-Names of Northumberland and Durham, Cambridge Archaeological and Ethnological Series (Cambridge: CUP). Mawer, A. and F. M. Stenton, 1925, The Place-Names of Buckinghamshire, EPNS vol. II (Cambridge: CUP). Mawer, A. and F. M. Stenton, 1927, The Place-Names of Worcestershire, EPNS vol. IV (Cambridge: CUP). Meyvaert, P., 1992, ‘Ecclesia and Vita Monastica’, in B. Cassidy, ed., The Ruthwell Cross, Index of Christian Art Occasional Papers 1 (Princeton: Princeton University). Middle English Dictionary, eds H. Kurath, S.M. Kuhn, J. Reidy, R.E. Lewis et al., 14 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 An Eighth-century Reference to the Monastery at Hoddom 79 vols, 1952–2001 (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press). Mills, D., 1998-, The Place-names of Dorset, EPNS vols LII–LIII, LIX–LX, LXXXVI– VII, ongoing (Nottingham, EPNS). Mynors, R.A.B., R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom, eds, 1998–99,William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum Anglorum, the History of the English Kings, 2 vols, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Nicolaisen, W.F.H., 1976, Scottish Place-Names, their Study and Significance (London: Batsford); second expanded edn, 2001 (Edinburgh: John Donald). Orton, F., 2003, ‘Rethinking the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Monuments’, in Karkov and Orton (2003), 65-92. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed, eds J.A.Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner, 20 vols, 1989 (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Parker, M., 1985, ‘An Anglo-Saxon monastery in the lower Don valley’, Northern History XXI, 19–32. Radford, C.A.R., 1952–23, ‘Hoddom’, Transactions of the Dumfries and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society 31, 174–97. Rawnsley, H.D., 1888, Five addresses on the lives and work of St Kentigern and St Herbert, delivered in St Kentigern’s Church, Crosthwaite (Carlisle: Thurnam & Sons). Redin, M., 1919, Studies in Uncompounded Personal Names in Old English, Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1919, Filosofi, Språkvetenskap och Historiske Vetenskaper 2 (Uppsala: A-B. Akadamiska Bokhandeln). Sawyer, P.H., 1968, Anglo-Saxon Charters, an Annotated List and Bibliography (London: Royal Historical Society). Also on-line Electronic Sawyer at The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 80 Michael Parker Survey of English Dialects B., The Basic Material, Vol. 1, The Six Northern Counties and the Isle of Man, eds H. Orton and W.J. Halliday, University of Leeds, 3 vols, 1962–63 (Leeds: E.J. Arnold). Sweet, H., ed., 1885, The Oldest English Texts, Edited with Introduction and Glossary, Early English Text Society, Original Series no. 83 (London: OUP). Tengvik, G., 1938, Old English Bynames: Nomina Germanica, Arkiv för Germansk Namnforskning Utgivet av Jöran Sahlgren 4, University of Uppsala (Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells). Thomson, R.M., 2003, William of Malmesbury (revised edn, Woodbridge: Boydell Press; 1st edn, 1987, same). Wallach, L., 1959, Alcuin and Charlemagne: Studies in Carolingian History and Literature, Cornell Studies in Classical Philology vol. XXXII (New York: Cornell University Press). Watson, W.J., 1926, The History of the Celtic Place-Names of Scotland (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood; repr. 2004, Edinburgh: Birlinn). Watts, V., 2002, A Dictionary of County Durham Place-Names, EPNS Popular Series vol. 3 (Nottingham: EPNS). Watts, V., 2007, The Place-names of County Durham part 1, Stockton Ward, ed. Paul Cavill, EPNS vol. LXXX111 (Nottingham, EPNS). Whidden Green, C., 1998, ‘Saint Kentigern, Apostle to Strathclyde: a critical analysis of a northern saint’, MA thesis (Faculty of the Department of English, University of Houston, Texas), published on-line via The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 51–80 Reviews Stephen T. Driscoll, Jane Geddes and Mark A. Hall, eds, Pictish Progress: New Studies on Northern Britain in the Early Middle Ages. Brill: Leiden and Boston, 2011. xvi + 384 pp. €130 hardback. ISBN 978-90-04-18759-7. The publication ofThe Problem of the Picts in 1955, edited by F.T. Wainwright, brought together the skills of art historians, archaeologists and linguists, and was a turning-point in the scholarly study of the Pictish people. But the title said a great deal about the approach to the topic: it stressed the problematic, the puzzling, the difficult. In particular it stressed the question of the origin of the Picts: ‘Who were the Picts? And where did they come from? These questions lie at the heart of the Pictish problem ...’, as Wainwright observed in his Preface to the 1955 volume (p. v). While the ‘problem’ so stated did not prevent the authors of that volume from exploring a far wider range of topics, or using the evidence to shed light on other questions, this ‘problem’ did rather haunt the book and has haunted scholarship to some extent for decades. But the landscape of Pictish studies has been greatly transformed since 1955, through the emergence of new archaeological and art-historical evidence and through new theoretical ways of reading that evidence. The historical sources have also been re-examined in ways which have radically changed our perception: the entire kingdom of Fortriu has been transplanted from Strathearn in the south to Moray in the north by Alex Woolf,1 while the traditional historiography of the ‘union of Picts and Scots’ in which Gaelic Dál Riata simply got up in the 840s and conquered the Picts has been fatally undermined by scholars, notably Dauvit Broun.2 Surprisingly, given their implications for the field, neither of these two fairly recent transformations of Pictish historiography is mentioned except in passing in this volume. The professions of the three editors of the volume (two archaeologists and an art historian) might raise the expectation that there would be a stress on material culture in the essays it contains, and that expectation is fully met. All but three of the 14 chapters are contributions from these disciplines, broadly speaking. In ‘The Problems of Pictish Art’, Jane Geddes reviews developments in scholarly approaches to Pictish art since Wainwright’s book. The inherited 1 Alex Woolf, ‘Dún Nechtain, Fortriu and the Geography of the Picts’, Scottish Historical Review 85 (2006), 182–201. 2 See, for example, ‘Alba: Pictish homeland or Irish offshoot’, inExile and Homecoming: Papers from the Fifth Australian Conference of Celtic Studies, ed. Pamela O’Neill (Sydney 2005), 234– 75. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 81–87 82 Gilbert Márkus notion of this tradition as shrouded in obscurity as to its meaning (as well as artistically deficient) has been subjected to vigorous critique. It must be understood in the context of other early Christian cultural expressions; its meanings must be framed in the context of what we know about liturgy, theology and literature (something that Kellie Meyer addresses later in the volume); the Pictish stones must be understood in the context of their siting in a medieval landscape, rather than simply as isolated objects (a point explored in depth by other contributors). Mark A. Hall explores the landscape around Forteviot and the sculpture located there, deploying the insights of the ‘cultural biography’ approach to monuments. In this approach a monument is understood not solely in terms of the intention of the designer or maker (the ‘death of the author’ as Barthes might have approvingly remarked), nor of its patronage, nor of its original location in a landscape. It is conceived of as an object with a lifetime of centuries during which it may be relocated or re-contextualised by changes in the surrounding landscape; it will be re-interpreted by new generations of owners, users and witnesses, acquiring a constantly shifting set of social meanings, a ‘biography’, which may shed light on all the periods of its existence. This is an enriching approach to the monuments and their landscape and points towards a new set of questions which might be asked of this landscape (pp. 163–64). It is worth correcting here, however, the oft-repeated view, which Hall seems to share (p. 138), that the record of David de Bernham’s marathon of church dedications in the 1240s tells us which saints the churches were dedicated to. It does not. Bishop David’s Pontificale, the manuscript known as Paris BN Latin 1218, contains a list of the churches he dedicated as well as the days on which the dedications were carried out, but not the patron saints of those churches. Neither does version B of the St Andrews Foundation Legend state that Forteviot kirk was dedicated to St Andrew – though it may very well have been. There is little in the volume which focusses on Pictish Christianity or the Pictish church – though there is plenty of evidence which might help to draw a picture, both archaeological and literary (Adomnán’s Vita Columbae, Cáin Adomnáin, Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica and the Annals, to name but a few). Kellie Meyer makes a brave attempt to interrogate the monuments of the Pictish monastic landscape around Portmahomack for evidence of Pictish liturgical practice. The interrogation is, in principle, well conceived: close study of ecclesiastical imagery in a piece of Pictish art might reveal something of the liturgical practice (and thus of the belief) of those who made and used that artwork. In ‘Saints, Scrolls and Serpents’, however, her interrogation is flawed in various ways. Her initial question begins with the observation that The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 81–87 Reviews 83 ‘which sect of Christianity [the Pictish church] followed at particular periods is somewhat unclear’ (p. 169). The ‘sects’ she has in mind are the ‘Irish’ and ‘Roman’ forms of Christianity. She wants to know which of these the Picts followed. But to couch the question in this way is to assume that the Picts had to choose between any two such ‘sects’, and Meyer paints a picture of an artificially polarised church in which a Columban monastery has to share its space in Ross with Curetán, a ‘Roman-style bishop’ (whatever that is and however it might differ from a Columban bishop – which he may very well have been). This polarised and rather outdated view of the church provides the underlying conceptual structure for Meyer’s attempt to use the sculpture of the Pictish monastic community on the Tarbat peninsula to discover what kind of liturgy they celebrated. But on the Nigg cross-slab the fragment broken from the loaf of bread which is being delivered to Paul and Anthony by a raven is over-interpreted. Even if it is not accidental damage (which it may well be) and even if it was intended to evoke the breaking off of part of the host during the Eucharist, this cannot be used to point towards a Céli Dé liturgical rite (p. 181) or a ‘reaffirmation of loyalty to the Columban familia’ as Meyer suggests. This is simply because both the Céli Dé and the Roman liturgies have a ritual in which a fragment of the host is broken off and separated from the whole, as the Ordo Romanus Primus indicates: the bishop rumpit oblatam ex latere dextro et particulam quam ruperit super altare relinquit.3 Meyer has further speculations about the role of serpents in the Tarbat sculptures and of other animal and human figures. She offers some interesting ideas about liturgy, church architecture and its cosmic symbolism, all of which may enlarge our understanding of some of the Tarbat stones and their meanings in some way. The difficulty – or perhaps the promise – of such exercises lies in the fact that no sign has only one meaning. The sheer excess of possible interpretations of any given symbol makes it hard to know how much of our ‘interpretation’ is exegesis and how much is eisegesis – reading our own meanings into the sign. Archaeologists shed light on Pictish culture and society. Stevick offers a study of two crosses on Pictish cross-slabs which are revealed to be ‘exercises in constructional geometry within a culture whose artists understood profoundly the thorough geometrical bonding of line and area’ (p. 216). Heald’s study of non-ferrous metalworking (a high-status skill) at low-status sites challenges received opinion and raises interesting questions about the mobility of skilled workers, the sometimes privileged place of the smith in early medieval society, the relationship between patron and craftsman, and the importance of place as an expression of power in such a relationship. 3 ‘breaks the host on the right side and leaves on the altar the fragment which he has broken.’ The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 81–87 84 Gilbert Márkus Four chapters form a section entitled ‘Landscape for the Living and the Dead’. Stephen Driscoll’s wide-ranging survey of ‘Pictish Archaeology’ raises many of the central questions and sets the tone, stressing the importance of viewing and interrogating whole landscapes rather than merely individual objects within those landscapes. This insight underlies the current work of the SERF project, of which Driscoll is a director. SERF is undertaking an integrated landscape study of Forteviot and the surrounding area and is beginning to shed new light on Pictish politics, economy, settlement patterns and the exploitation by Picts of pre-historic monuments in their landscape. In a more localised study, Gondek and Noble explore the landscape and symbol stones at Rhynie. Among other things they explore the possible meaning of Class I symbol stones as ‘a reassertion of existing ideological and social identities in the face of new Christian ideology in Pictland’ (p. 290), drawing on the recent work of David Clarke. Fraser and Halliday, in their chapter on the early medieval landscape of Donside, also invite us to understand symbol stones as the reaction to a social crisis or upheaval brought about by the encounter with Christianity (pp. 327–30). But it seems to me that there are good reasons to question this kind of interpretation of symbol stones. Firstly the symbols themselves cannot be intrinsically reactionary, the expression of an old system defending itself against a new Christian ideology, since they are soon incorporated into explicitly Christian monuments. Secondly, there is no reason to assume that Christianity posed a threat to the traditional exercise of power in Pictland: it is equally likely that Pictish élites who accepted Christianity did so because they thought it might enhance their power and prestige and that it (and the romanitas which was its political-cultural matrix) might provide ideological and technological resources which they could use. Among these resources may have been a tradition of the use of stone-carved monuments to articulate power-relationships in a landscape. A more promising line of enquiry is suggested by Fraser and Halliday’s ‘working hypothesis’ that ‘the stones are set up not so much to mark the boundaries of territories as to mark particular locations at the edges of territories ... cemeteries, cult centres, routeways, or possibly even hosting grounds’ (p. 322). Sarah Winlow’s ‘Review of Pictish Burial Practices in Tayside and Fife’ is more agnostic than the previous two chapters about what archaeology can tell us at present about the impact of Christianity on pre-Christian ideologies and structures in Pictland. In a thorough, clear and nuanced interrogation of the burial sites in her chosen area, examining the locations, sizes, arrangements and types of burials, and the changes over time in burial practices, she concludes that ‘Christianity is not the impetus for the change in the burial tradition observed’ (p. 356) and urges us to look for explanations of variation and change The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 81–87 Reviews 85 in matters of settlement, use and control of land, kinship, status, gender – though the adoption of Christianity may still play a role. Three chapters in the collection are more properly described as historical. James Fraser deals with Wainwright’s ‘Problem’ (Who were the Picts? Where did they come from?) by arguing that there is no problem, because it is a non- question. Indeed his language about some of those who have in the past sought to answer this non-question is sometimes rather dismissive: their quest has ‘passed into absurdity’ and they were ‘obsessed’. Instead Fraser asks of those who thought of themselves as Picti: when and why did they do so and what did their ethnic identity mean to them? The conclusion entails the delightful irony that the Picti defined themselves in their own origin legend as barbarians, as people who traced their origins to a non-Romanised Scythian past; but they were only able to do so because they had drunk deeply from the wells of Latin literature, including Vergil’s Aeneid (perhaps via Servius), which referred to the picti Agathyrsi (‘painted Agathyrsi’) as Scythians, and possibly Isidore’s Etymologiae which associated the terms Scythiae, Albani and picta (albeit with no intended connection to Scots, Alba or Picts). Nicholas Evans outlines the approaches of earlier scholars to the medieval texts which have provided the foundation for our understanding of Pictish origins and history to date, in particular the Pictish king-lists, but placing these in the context of other medieval sources. Evans considers the character of the king-lists, their multiple versions (and editions of them) and the ideological interests that lay behind the creation of variant versions. Origin legends have been heavily quarried by scholars – among other things to argue for and against the supposed matriliny of the Picts – and Evans points out useful avenues for future research in this field. He concludes with interesting reflections on the extent of Pictish literacy, offering a picture of something more sophisticated, deeply rooted and widespread than has been commonly recognised (especially since Kathleen Hughes’ important contributions to the discussion), but the survival of whose texts depended in many ways on their continued usefulness to post-Pictish societies. For readers of this journal it may be Simon Taylor’s chapter which will arouse most interest: ‘Pictish Place-Names Revisited’ is the longest piece in the book by a good margin. It is good to see the editors including such a substantial work on place-names in a volume of this kind. Taylor’s contribution undertakes to define what a Pictish place-name is and to investigate the distribution of place- names containing some P-Celtic (i.e. Pictish or British) elements in northern Britain. At the outset Taylor makes important distinctions between (a) wholly Pictish names and (b) those which contain words borrowed from Pictish into Gaelic but which do not appear as common nouns, and (c) those elements The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 81–87 86 Gilbert Márkus borrowed from Pictish into Gaelic which are also attested as common nouns in the latter language. Finally (d) there are place-names containing Gaelic words which have Pictish cognates which may have influenced the ways in which the Gaelic words were used in place-names. This set of rigorous distinctions underlies the following treatment of the toponymic record. One of the important insights arising from the distribution of place-names containing Pictish elements is that ‘of all the elements considered thoroughly Pictish ... the bulk of them ignore the Firth of Forth as the great frontier’, the body of water which is supposed to divide Pictish from British polities and speech (p. 76). Almost all Taylor’s maps (pp. 86, 90, 94, 98 and 104) show distributions with healthy presences on both sides of ‘the great frontier’. This is surely a major contribution to the vexed question (though rather less vexed in recent years) of the relationship between Pictish and Northern British and unpacking these and similar maps will shed useful light on the question. A useful excursus on pett-names places them in their proper place as Gaelic artefacts, using a term borrowed from Pictish (pp. 77–79). This is an important antidote to the still oft-repeated use of pett-names to indicate Pictish settlement and Taylor rightly associates it with Gaelic settlement. His argument lends itself to misunderstanding at one point, however: the statement that the distribution of pett-names depicts ‘not the settlement area of the Pictish people ... but rather the extent of Gaelic-speakers in the tenth century’, and the expansion of Alba, (p. 79) might suggest that Gaelic speakers were restricted to the areas of pett- names, which certainly was not the case. The distribution of pett-names does not extend to swathes of Gaelic-speaking territories on the west coast or in south-west Scotland. But given that pett-names are an essentially Gaelic phenomenon, it is remarkable that there is a fairly close correspondence between the distribution of pett-names and the territory that we regard as having been Pictland (a handful of petts on the west coast notwithstanding). This does not make the names Pictish, but the correspondence does ask us to imagine why Gaelic- speakers adopted this word and used it to name farms in just those areas where Pictish had once been spoken and hardly at all elsewhere. The answer may lie simply in the inertia of estate-administration. Pett-names were part of the vocabulary of the management of land, and presumably the raising of tribute or render from tenants or subjects, and it is likely that pett served to label certain farms or settlements in Pictish times. The continued use of pett in the Gaelic- speaking period to give names to settlements is likely to reflect a continuation of some aspects of land-management from Pictish into Gaelic times: farms which retained their identities, renders which remained the same or demands by Pictish lords which were later made by Gaels. Indeed it may have been the The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 81–87 Reviews 87 continuity of estate administration from the Pictish into the Gaelic period in these territories that encouraged (or even required) the borrowing of pett from Pictish into Gaelic. Taylor criticises and corrects various earlier distribution maps of P-Celtic elements, adds some new names and removes others, refining our picture of the character of the elements concerned and of their spread. All this provides useful data but also vital guiding principles for future discussion of Pictish toponymy. This new collection of papers is of great importance in advancing our understanding of Pictish history and it should have had a wide readership. It is a pity therefore that the editors chose Brill as their publisher, whose €130 price tag for the book makes it unlikely in the extreme that most of this wide potential readership will ever lay hands on the book. Other publishers who know the Scottish medieval history market well are capable of selling a book of this size and production quality for £40 or £50 (and making a paperback for less than half that). I can see no good reason why they would not have published this book at that kind of price, and it is a pity that they didn’t. Gilbert Márkus, University of Glasgow John MacQueen, Place-Names in the Rhinns of Galloway and Luce Valley. Stranraer and District Local History Trust: Stranraer, 2002. 110 pp. £9.50. ISBN 0-9535776-8-6; Place-Names of the Wigtownshire Moors and Machars. Stranraer and District Local History Trust: Stranraer, 2008. 192pp. £12.00. ISBN 978-0-9542966-9-8. Professor John MacQueen has long made one of the most important scholarly contributions to our understanding of south-western Scotland and the region of Galloway in particular. His researches of the 1950s and 1960s saw pioneering publications on Galloway’s place-names and the watershed study of Scotland’s earliest known saint, St Nynia, first published in 1961. The latter has been incrementally augmented over successive republications in 1990 and 2005; his published work on place-names has continued intermittently over the decades, including recent comment in the revised versions of St Nynia. The two volumes under review are welcome as representing a partial summation of his work on the place-names of the area over more than 60 years; recent presentations suggest that there may be more to come, in work on the place-names of Carrick.1 1 See Michael Ansell’s summary of his talk at the 2009 Scottish Place-Name Society conference in New Galloway: The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 87–96 88 Thomas Owen Clancy Whilst making a contribution towards a full survey of the place-names of Wigtownshire, these two modestly priced paperback volumes do not aim to be that survey, in either format or style. Instead, they belong to a genre of local place-name studies familiar to the readers of this journal; yet they are distinct in two respects. On the one hand, the author brings a linguistic and scholarly authority to bear on his many years of collecting and considering the names he discusses. On the other hand, he eschews an alphabetical approach, embarking instead on two rather different tours of the linguistic landscape, reminiscent in many ways of the great W. J. Watson’s chapter surveys in his History of the Celtic Place-Names of Scotland, such as that of ‘Dumfries and Galloway’. The two volumes approach this tour from opposite trajectories, the earlier volume on the Rhinns beginning very locally with the town of Stranraer and its environs and more or less examining the linguistic contribution to the toponymicon sequentially back in time (Scots and English; Gaelic; Norse and British), whilst the 2008 volume on the Moors and Machars proceeds forward from the earliest names to the most modern, again with some diversions en route. The 2008 volume shows some marked improvements on the earlier one. The Rhinns volume began with no explanation of what it was or whatit intended to do, a problem exacerbated somewhat by a meandering format and sometimes inexplicable structure. In it, early forms were given very fitfully, as also references to sources for names (an interesting but confusing section discussing names in late medieval and early modern charters is to be found from p. 60 on in the 2002 volume, but it is badly signposted and interspersed with other material). More frustrating still was the absence of grid references, which, given the volume is not laid out geographically in any other way, makes it often difficult to find a given name if you don’t already know where it is (though parishes are often given after newly mentioned names). MacQueen’s preface to the 2008 volume shows some reconsideration of approach or perhaps response to feedback: on the whole he provides grid references; there are many more early forms and cited sources; the approach is better explained and the tour of languages and names better controlled. The print is also bigger (perhaps in response to feedback from some of the intended readership) and the colour pictures provided in the 2008 volume are not only of good quality and well reproduced, but often nicely illustrative . One could still wish for better provision of sources and early forms and MacQueen’s reasoning concerning this in his 2008 preface is a scandal to all place-name scholars: ‘Early forms are sometimes helpful, but in Scotland, for the most part, they depend on scribes who did not know the language of the place-name, or were not literate in it; the earlier form is often no more helpful than the modern. Local pronunciation is often the best clue.’ (p. 3). Though The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 87–96 Reviews 89 there are plenty of forgivable reasons (e.g. genre of publication, lack of time) to explain the paucity of early forms, this excuse simply will not do. Early forms so frequently reveal a different story from modern forms and also often correlate in useful ways with pronunciation. As a local example, one might cite the case of Kirkcolm (NX031684). MacQueen gives this as ‘almost certainly “Columba’s (Colum’s or Calum’s) church”’ (2002, 50), but Daphne Brooke showed some years ago that early forms (going back to the 13th century, e.g. Kirkcum 1275) and local pronunciation suggest this as more probably ‘the church of St Cumméne’, something seemingly confirmed by papal correspondence in 1395.2 And what to make of the tension between early forms (which support MacQueen’s analysis) and the second element stress in the local pronunciation (which does not) in the case of Monreith (2008, 12–13)? In any case, local pronunciations are only helpful if they are given, which they rarely are in either of these volumes. What makes Galloway’s place-names so interesting is the sheer number of languages to which they give evidence. The phasing and stratification of the linguistic history of Galloway, and the south-west in general, remains in some particulars uncertain. The presence of a substratum of British (and perhaps earlier) names is not in doubt, something MacQueen tackles more clearly in the 2008 volume (interestingly the Moors and Machars have better evidence of British names in any case). The duration of British in the area is less certain and more attention could perhaps have been given to this issue, though key evidence, present in, for example, the cluster of trev names in nearby Carrick, is lacking from Wigtownshire (though he has a speculative discussion of the nature of the trev whilst discussing names such as Threave (High, Middle, Low, Threave Hill), Ochiltree, and Monreith (2008, 12–16)). He nonetheless ends up overstating British presence by mistakenly assigning some names to British. A number of clearly Gaelic names employing G. eaglais ‘church’ are assigned to British (as if they contain Br. *eglēs) on highly dubious grounds: examples include a lost Kerneheglis, also lost Slewnagles (in Leswalt parish) and Bareagle (2002, 96, cf. p. 69), the last of which may not even contain eaglais (see 2008, 22, for discussion of Dalreagle for better derivation). The motivation behind this – also to be found in recent republications of St Nynia – is to demonstrate 2 D. Brooke, ‘Kirk- compound place-names in Galloway and Carrick’, TDGNAHS 3rd Series 58 (1983), 56–71: 61 and 70; see also eadem, Wild Men and Holy Places (Edinburgh, 1994), 75–76. It seems inexplicable that MacQueen apparently fails to cite Brooke’s work at all in the 2008 volume, although she is mentioned in the 2002 one (her name misspelled as ‘Brook’ in the Bibliography, p. 105). It is odd to me that the main other recent commentator on Galloway names, one whose contribution on, for instance, the English stratum was so distinctive, should get so little mention. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 87–96 90 Thomas Owen Clancy that there were *eglēs names in Galloway proper (he even invokes annaid to try to make good their lack: 2008, 74) in order to shore up his view of Nynia and the early church.3 The evidence does not support this, however: these are Gaelic names with eaglais as specific, very distinct from the names on which discussion of Br. *eglēs has been founded. We should also dispense with a lurking Br. coed ‘wood’ in Knockcoid (2002, 93): the name is Gaelic, and the second element probably coimhead, the meaning probably ‘watch-hill’. The intriguing set of names based on Torhouse (2008, 19) also do not belong here: whilst the first element, here the specific, may well be Br.tor ‘flank, hill’ (though one shouldn’t exclude OE torr), the generic is on MacQueen’s analysis Eng. or ON, and so the name is also. More controversial over the years has been the contribution of Old English, Old Norse and Gaelic to Galloway’s toponymy. On the whole MacQueen’s handling of the potential Old English evidence is solid and sensitive, with a good sense of the difficulties of conclusively distinguishing names deriving from Old English from those coined in the period after 1100, which we might more readily assign to ‘Older Scots’. This is true also of his discussion of Old Norse names; the only real controversies in regard to them have been the fact that ON is so fitfully evidenced in Galloway and the persistence in mis-assigning certain types of name to ON influence. So, for instance, scholars have been tempted in recent years to treat names in G. àirigh (OG áirge) ‘shieling’ as pertaining in some way to ON influence, on the rather syllogistic grounds that that word was borrowed into ON as erg and used to coin place-names in ON. MacQueen ignores this tendency, sensibly, though notes a name which may come from ON erg, Arrow (High and Low) (2008, 68). On the other hand, he comes to an unnecessary conclusion that since áirge was adopted by ON speakers, and since this must have been happening after c. 850, therefore the use of àirigh in Gaelic place-names in Scotland must predate 850. This is, to say the least, questionable and there is to date no clear evidence that it was; on 3 He does this by reference to the 2005 version of St Nynia, p. 154. The fuller discussion of putative ‘new *eglēs names’ in Galloway in that book is on pp. 134–35, where in addition to those mentioned here he discusses the lost name Ecclislands. As noted above, I think his description of Slewnagles and Kerneheglis as ‘hav[ing] taken Gaelic form and been compounded with a Gaelic first element’ is tendentious and wrong: these are simply Gaelic names with a very common Gaelic word (eaglais ‘church’) as a specific. Ecclislands must also be rejected. Eccles is attested as a surname in the vicinity in the late middle ages (see Reid, Wig. Chrs, pp. 176, 216, 248) and this would be a more plausible origin for a place-name in -land (these are often compounded with surnames in the late medieval and early modern period), only appearing in the early modern period once. The consequent remaining absence of *eglés names from Galloway does not justify the strained argument MacQueen builds on these names in the 2005 St Nynia, pp. 135–44. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 87–96 Reviews 91 the other hand, MacQueen himself provides good grounds for treating some of the Wigtownshire àirigh names as later. None of this justifies grouping names in àirigh under ‘Early Names’ (2002, 38–40). MacQueen is also cautious on whether to consider names in Kirk- as signs of ON influence, but largely excludes them from treatment in this context. He notes (2008, 145) that the ON names in the Moors and Machars differ in a number of ways from those in the Rhinns, a topic which would be worth following up. The main distinction is apparent in the appearance in the former area of a series of names from ON bý ‘settlement’; these extend also into Kirkcudbrightshire and further east, but are absent from the Rhinns. Where MacQueen’s treatment of ON names is somewhat problematic is in conflating ON loanwords into Scots (e.g. ONmúli and sker, found in, for example, Mull of Galloway, The Scares) with names more certainly coined in ON. Since the bulk of the place-names in Wigtownshire were created in Gaelic, the bulk of the discussion of both books is reserved for Gaelic names. This is, of course, the area where MacQueen has in the past made his most noted toponymic contribution, in particular advancing his theory, built on by Nicolaisen, that names in sliabh in Galloway, and in the Rhinns in particular, suggest a very early settlement by Gaels in this area. This idea has come under what is to my mind fatal attack recently, by Simon Taylor in the first volume of this journal.4 MacQueen’s treatment of this challenge is not convincing. He fails to engage with Taylor’s core argument, dismissing his views because Taylor does not ‘make any distinction between sliabh as a defining and as a qualifying element’ (2008, 69). This is his sole criticism and, whilst it is true that Taylor’s distribution map does not distinguish between these, MacQueen does not take account of the many additional names employing sliabh as a generic that Taylor has amassed, the smaller proportion of the additional names Taylor has found where sliabh is the specific, or his nuanced treatment of these names (where often the presence of the element in the specific implies a lost sliabh name in the vicinity). The fact is that the names in sliabh in the Rhinns are likely to be late and some must be later than the proposed early settlement period (e.g. names containing the definite article which have the later formation of noun + article + noun, e.g. Slewnagles (2002, 96), Sloehabbert (2008, 70). MacQueen also persists in his earlier view that names employing G. carraig are early. Again, his own examples show this cannot be true of some of these names (e.g. Carrickclunachon, which seems to contain a late medieval surname: 2002, 36), and we must ask, if some names are demonstrably late (as late as the later middle ages), why need any be early? Arguments from restricted 4 S. Taylor, ‘Sliabh in Scottish Place-names: its meaning and chronology’, The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 1 (2007), 99–136. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 87–96 92 Thomas Owen Clancy distribution are insufficient to demonstrate the chronology of names. I should note that I had not noticed before reading these volumes the lateness of some of the comparable Islay names which supposedly provide the justification for the Galloway ones being very early, e.g. Carraig na h-Acarsaid (discussed 2002, 34, where the specific is a G. loanword from ON). It is worth noting that there are unconvincing discussions of a number of other major generic elements. Treatment of achadh is problematic (2008, 49– 52) – he regards this as early because attested early in Ireland (though surely he must know that the Irish annals are not contemporary before the late 6th century at the earliest? So why cite AU entries at AD 130 and 487 to support the earliness of the element?). But it is not clear that it was in use so early in place-names in Scotland. He takes preposed adjectival forms as evidence of early date (2008, 50), yet some of these adjectives regularly preceded nouns in place- name compounds, e.g. garbh, and names containing these can be of any date. He tries to create an idealised explanation for baile vs achadh, as a distinction between free and unfree farms (2002, 75) – but his discussion is very much out of date and relies on these two terms being contemporary in usage, which seems unlikely now. He oddly treats peighinn ‘pennyland’ as an ‘early’ Gaelic element (2008, 52). His analysis of cill (2008, 75) is based on Nicolaisen and has not been updated to take the work of, for example, Simon Taylor into account. His description of this element as missing entirely from ‘Lewis, Harris … and much of the east coast’ is erroneous. In 2002 he employs Macdonald for his explanation of annaid, as an abandoned church site; by 2008 (74–75) he had clearly come across my 1995 article on the term, which he cites approvingly alongside Macdonald: but my analysis disagreed with Macdonald’s and I do not think they are compatible. All this said, his maintenance of his view that there may have been early Gaelic settlement in Wigtownshire (which, of course, on the basis of simple geography is entirely plausible, however lacking in evidence it may be) seems not to unduly affect his general view of Gaelic, which healthily treats it as a phenomenon largely of the period after 900 in Galloway; MacQueen is also aware, though less interested than he might be, of its reasonably long persistence. He calls our attention to, but does not sufficiently highlight, a number of names which show Gaelic incorporating words from Scots, e.g. Balyett (2002, 11, 74), Balsmith (2008, 64);5 there are others where he seems to miss the 5 He suggests Sc. yett ‘gate’ for Balyett, though does not further elaborate. It may be that we are dealing here either with yett in the sense of ‘passage between two hills’ (or here, perhaps, between Loch Ryan and the Black and White Lochs), as seen in the Yetts o’ Muckart; or perhaps in the sense of the gate of a town or burgh, noting the proximity of Balyett to the outskirts of the lost town of Innermessan. Balsmith he derives from a surname, but Balyett encourages the view that it may be the common noun. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 87–96 Reviews 93 significance of his own interpretation, e.g. Culgrange (2002, 62–63), and one might add Dargodjel (2008, 25), which one might suspect incorporates Sc. cudgel in something like daire na gcudgel ‘oakwood of the cudgels’. There is, however, a persistent problem with the mode of explanation in both volumes. On the whole, MacQueen resorts to assertion, rather than explanation, that is, he doesn’t show his work. This is, of course, in keeping with the genre: lack of footnotes or apparatus make it difficult for those working in this mode to show the details of early forms, pronunciations and linguistic data on which an etymology might be based. But it means that the uninformed reader will need to take these explanations on faith (or not – this mode encourages a rather relativist attitude towards explanation, since anyone can assert anything!); the place-name scholar will simply have to try to uncover the thought process behind the proposed etymologies, on many occasions. There are exceptions to this: interesting discussions of terms such as fey (2002, 4) and several (2002, 25–26).6 But the assertive mode becomes particularly problematic in the Gaelic sections. Here, often, MacQueen’s proposals do not work, sometimes in minor, sometimes in major ways, but he has not explained his reasoning. Since he is an authority, and a scholar of what he writes about, this is a particular problem. An example might be the place-name Auchrocchyr, surviving in Auchrochar Bank (2002, 6). Despite providing early forms as above (from Blaeu 1654, which MacQueen persists in calling ‘Pont’s map’) and also Auchrothry from a 1531 charter, MacQueen gives this as ‘ “(in)field of the hangman” achadh( a’ chrochadair )’. On the basis of the forms given this is unlikely, if not impossible – we need an explanation for the fact that no forms give any evidence for the medial voiced dental towards the end of crochadair. This is not a sound likely to have been elided. In fact, the translation of the name may be sound, but MacQueen has given the wrong G. word; instead of ScG crochadair, he should have had recourse to the earlier form crochaire, which means the same thing (it is given by Dwelly also, but as an obsolete term). This discussion is in MacQueen’s chapter on Stranraer and environs. His derivation for Stranraer (2002, 10) goes against the general consensus, and also against the evidence of early forms, such as they are. These suggest that the name is G. sròn reamhar ‘large nose / headland’. MacQueen tacitly rejects this, asserting ‘The first element represents one of two related Gaelic words, sruthán “streamlet, burn”, or srùthán “current-place” “stream-place”’, a view derived from a somewhat 6 On several, however, MacQueen is wrong to state this element is unique to Scottish place- names: several severals are discussed in John Field, English Field-Names: A Dictionary (David Charles: Newton Abbot, 1972), 198; idem, A History of English Field-Names (Longman: London, 1993), 19. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 87–96 94 Thomas Owen Clancy confused passage in Watson (1926, p. 350). Leaving aside the problem of what he / Watson is thinking of with this second word, and the fact that the ScG form of both these (if they really are two words) should be sruthan, it is characteristic that he does not mention sròn at all, although phonologically it is the obvious etymon here and had previously been proposed by Maxwell.7 There are other etymologies where the mismatch between current and /or historical form and proposed etymology would warrant explanation; without it, it seems no better than not suggesting a derivation at all. An example is Balgreggan, derived here (2002, 19) from baile a’ ghragain ‘fermtoun of the manor’, which is possible, but ScG gragan, OG grágán is a rare word, and has -a- not -e-, which demands some explanation; baile na gcreagan, with the eclipsis frequently shown in Galloway after gen. pl. articles, and with loss of the article in anglicisation (again, pretty frequent), might explain the modern form better. Some of the proposed etymologies are exotic, unnecessary or just wrong, e.g. Derskelpin (2002, 68, citing Blaeu Dirskulbeyne), for which MacQueen proposes doire [nan] spailpean ‘oak-grove of the migratory workers’, but never explains why the name would have -skelp-, if the derivation were from a word in spailp-. Better surely to invoke OG scolb, scelb ‘splinter, wattle, piece of wood used in thatching’ (see DIL); ScG sgolb, scealb perhaps here in a diminutive form, e.g. sguilbín or sgealban? For Kilstay (2002, 82) the discussion is nonsensical, grasping at an impossible derivation from a-staigh ‘inside’ (given as staigh and anns an taigh, neither quite accurate) and leading to the odd conclusion based on the topography of the site, ‘The phrase “church within” thus defines the actual position. If this is so the name is not likely to be early.’ Almost all names in cill in Scotland contain saints – one might wish to hunt for one of these instead of an impossible adverbial phrase, but in any case we may be more likely to be dealing with coille than cill here. Perhaps more plausible (though still needing a bit of work) would be a derivation from OG / ScG stagh ‘stay’ (as in the rigging of a ship), itself an ON loanword. Portavaddie (2002, 52) is given as port a’ bhàta ‘harbour of the boat’, despite the many cognates throughout Scotland where this name or ones like it are port a’ mhadaidh ‘harbour of the (wild) dog’ (e.g. Port a’ Mhadaidh in Cowal), and the fact that this better explains the form of the name. For Muntloch (2002, 84), he proposes derivation from maol-chnuachd, even though early forms (e.g. Mulknok, Blaeu) more or less demonstrate that it is maol-chnoc (which at least here MacQueen gives as an alternative). Sometimes, whilst giving a sensible etymology, he gets distracted by fanciful and irrelevant ones, cf. his discussion of Baltersan (2008, 58–59), which he rightly gives as ‘fermtoun of the crossing’, 7 There is, of course, a topographical issue – what headland is being referred to? The problem is discussed by Maxwell, Place-Names of Galloway, p. 254. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 87–96 Reviews 95 but then goes on into an involved discussion of Manx and Irish names that look a bit like this, and where other proposals exist for the specific – none of them plausible here. He concludes bizarrely with a glance at Ballytrustan, Co. Down, where a derivation from ON Thorsteinn has been proposed, and concludes, ‘If this applies to Baltersan also, it probably indicates the presence of the Gall- Gaidhil.’ It is hard to know what to make of this, except hankering for the exotic despite the pedestrian being correct. There are other, deeper signs of insecurity with handling the Gaelic evidence. There is a tendency to propose gen. pl. derivations for specifics where the evidence might suggest gen. sg. (e.g. Gabarunning, 2002, 21; Culmick, 2002, 63), and, more frequently and with less reason, gen. sg. derivations for specifics where the evidence suggests gen. pl. In many of these cases gen. pl. is virtually guaranteed not only by lack of palatalisation of final consonants, but by the ‘Irish eclipsis’ following the gen. pl. article which is a feature of Galloway names. Examples include Marklach (2002, 22 < marg clach, not marg na cloiche); Ballinclach / Ballingclach (2002, 66 < baile na gclach, not baile na cloiche); a lost name Barnavanak (2002, 79–80, < barr na bhfeannag ‘hillock of the crows’, not barr in mhanaich ’hill of the monk’). The interesting feature of ‘Irish eclipsis’ is not well treated the one place it is cited (2002, 69), despite Maxwell’s hyper-awareness of it and the excellent recent treatment by Roibeard Ó Maolalaigh.8 There is also a tendency to supply unnecessary definite articles in the derivations – this is confusing, as noun + article + noun forms in Gaelic tend to be later, and the impression thus given is of a later landscape than is often necessary. It may, however, be that MacQueen is here simply trying to give the name as it would be were it coined in modern ScG, where an article would be the norm. He is inconsistent in this, however, often supplying Irish spellings, Old Irish spellings, nonce spellings (e.g. mon for monadh) and occasionally what one might call ‘Watsonisms’ – detectable by an inappropriate diacritical mark, e.g. in discussion the Lairey Burn (2002, 6) where the form labharág shows his form to be an uncorrected Watson derivative (see Watson 1926, 433). In a similar vein, the foundations of the research here seem a mixture of the dated and the quite recent. He relies on Kneen for his Manx names (ignoring Broderick), yet his Northern Irish material employs volumes of the NI Place- Name Survey. Joyce’s Irish Place-Names is much in evidence, as is Hogan, but none of the volumes of the recent Hogan-update from the Locus project in 8 ‘Place-Names as a Resource for the Historical Linguist’, in S. Taylor, ed., The Uses of Place- Names (Edinburgh, 1998), 12–53, esp. 23–30; MacQueen nowhere cites this book, though the articles by both Ó Maolalaigh and Barrow contain much he should be expected to be aware of in regard to the place-names of Wigtownshire. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 87–96 96 Thomas Owen Clancy Cork. For English place-names, Ekwall and other dictionaries of English place- names are in use, but oddly neither Smith’s English Place-Name Elements nor VEPN. I suppose this speaks of books written from a personal library, but it nonetheless marks the work in various ways. I am conscious of having emphasized the negative in a review of books which, for the present, will still be essential reading for anyone interested in the place-names, or indeed the cultural history, of south-west Scotland. Essential as it will be for people to read these volumes, however, it will be just as essential for them to be aware of their weak points, especially, as noted above, because of the authority with which MacQueen writes, and which his long contribution to scholarship in Scottish Studies reinforces. Despite these deficiencies, Prof. MacQueen’s works highlight the richness of the place-name material in Wigtownshire and provide important steps on the way towards surveying and understanding that county. Thomas Owen Clancy, University of Glasgow The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 87–96 Bibliography of Scottish Name Studies for 2011 Simon Taylor University of Glasgow This is the third such bibliography in The Journal of Scottish Name Studies (JSNS), the first appearing in JSNS 4 (2010) covering the years 2006–2009, the second in JSNS 5 (2011) covering the year 2010. It aims to present, in a continuous list arranged alphabetically by author, all relevant articles, chapters in edited books, monographs, CDs, e-books and PhDs (some of which are now available on-line) which appeared in 2011. It draws heavily on the bibliographies which I compile for Scottish Place-Name News, the twice-yearly Newsletter of the Scottish Place-Name Society. It is therefore somewhat biased towards place-names rather than personal names. However, the much higher proportion of place-name related material is also a reflection of the relative state of each of these disciplines in Scotland. For more extensive bibliographies of name studies in Britain and Ireland, and, less comprehensively, other parts of northern Europe, see the bibliographic sections in the relevant issues of Nomina, the journal of the Society for Name Studies in Britain and Ireland, compiled by Carole Hough. The latest available is her ‘Bibliography for 2009’ (Nomina 33 (2010), 193–208). The material in these Nomina bibliographies is set out thematically and includes relevant reviews which have appeared in the given year. Also included in this bibliography are articles from the latest Nomina 33 (2010), not published until 2012. An extensive, though by no means exhaustive, bibliography of Scottish toponymics, set out thematically, and regionally, can be found on-line at Bölcskei, Andrea, 2010, ‘Distinctive Additions in English Settlement Names: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach’, Nomina 33 (2010), 101–20 [published 2012] [relevant also to Scotland]. Breeze, Andrew, 2011, ‘Durham, Caithness, and Armes Prydein’, Northern The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 97–99 98 Simon Taylor History XLVIII: 1, 147–52. Breeze, Andrew, 2011, ‘Strone “rivulet” in OED’, Notes and Queries vol. 256 [New Series vol. 58], no. 1 (March), 56 [on Hiberno-English strone ‘rivulet’]. Briggs, Keith, 2010, ‘Maidenburgh, Geoffrey of Wells and Rabanus Maurus’, Nomina 33 (2010), 121–38 [published 2012]. Coates, Richard, 2010, ‘Hidden Gates’, Nomina 33 (2010), 139–68 [published 2012]. Cox, Richard, 2010, ‘Issues in developing a chronology for Norse and Gaelic place-names in the Hebrides’, Nomina 33 (2010), 129–38 [published 2012]. Curtis, Liz, 2011, ‘Tarbat or Not Tarbat? Was there a Portage on the Tarbat Peninsula?’, The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 5, 1–34. Dixon, Norman, 1947, ‘Place-Names of Midlothian’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh. Published 2009 in digital form with introductory notes by S. Taylor The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 97–99 Bibliography of Scottish Name Studies for 2011 99 Society (Third Series) 85, 85–92. McNiven, Peter E., 2011, ‘Gaelic Place-names and the Social History of Gaelic Speakers in Medieval Menteith’, unpublished PhD, University of Glasgow [ The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 97–99 Notes on Contributors Alice Crook is currently working towards a PhD at the University of Glasgow. Her recently-completed MPhil was a comparative study of the personal naming patterns in four Scottish parishes in the 18th century; in her PhD, she analyses the personal names used in Early Modern Scotland and examines social influences on naming practices. Her other interests include digital onomastic resources and she is co-founder of the website Thomas Owen Clancy is Professor of Celtic at the University of Glasgow. Matthew H. Hammond is a Research Associate at the University of Glasgow and was formerly Lecturer in Scottish History at the University of Edinburgh. He is a co-creator of the ‘People of Medieval Scotland 1093–1314’ database ( Gilbert Márkus is a researcher in the Department of Celtic and Gaelic in the University of Glasgow. He has researched and published in the area of medieval Scottish history, with a focus on onomastics, literature, and religious belief and practice. Having recently published The Place-Names of Bute (Donington 2012), he is currently engaged on a a three-year research project funded by the Leverhulme Trust: Commemorations of Saints in Scottish Place-Names. Michael Parker graduated in history and archaeology but his interest in place-names began in his childhood in Yorkshire. He lived in Scotland for two years in the 1980s and for 13 till 2010, when he moved to Suffolk. He has published several articles on early medieval topics. His main study areas are Yorkshire and the Scottish border counties, but this is his first Scottish study to be published. He has work in progress on the place-names in the eighth-century chronicle preserved in Symeon of Durham’s Historia Regum. He is a member of the English and Scottish Place-Name Societies and the Society for Name Studies in Britain and Ireland. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 100–01 Notes on Contributors Dr Simon Taylor has been working in various aspects of Scottish place-name studies since the early 1990s. He is at present employed at the University of Glasgow on two half-time contracts: one is as a researcher on the AHRC- funded ‘Scottish Toponymy in Transition: Progressing County-Surveys of the Place-Names of Scotland’, the chief output of which are place-name volumes on (pre-1975) Clackmannanshire, Kinross-shire and Menteith; the other is as a research and teaching associate in Scottish onomastics in the School of Humanities (Celtic and Gaelic) and the School of Critical Studies (English Language). Editor of JSNS since its inception in 2007, he is now co-editor with Richard Cox. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 100–01 The Journal of Scottish Name Studies County abbreviations for Scotland, England and Wales (pre-1975) ABD Aberdeenshire KNT Kent AGL Anglesey LAN Lanarkshire ANG Angus LEI Leicestershire ARG Argyllshire LIN Lincolnshire AYR Ayrshire LNC Lancashire BDF Bedfordshire MDX Middlesex BNF Banffshire MER Merionethshire BRE Brecknockshire MLO Midlothian BRK Berkshire MON Monmouthshire BTE Bute MOR Morayshire BUC Buckinghamshire MTG Montgomeryshire BWK Berwickshire NAI Nairnshire CAI Caithness NFK Norfolk CAM Cambridgeshire NTB Northumberland CHE Cheshire NTP Northamptonshire CLA Clackmannanshire NTT Nottinghamshire CMB Cumberland ORK Orkney CNW Cornwall OXF Oxfordshire CRD Cardiganshire PEB Peeblesshire CRM Carmarthenshire PEM Pembrokeshire CRN Caernarvonshire PER Perthshire DEN Denbighshire RAD Radnorshire DEV Devon RNF Renfrewshire DMF Dumfriesshire ROS Ross and Cromarty DNB Dunbartonshire ROX Roxburghshire DOR Dosetshire RUT Rutland DRB Derbyshire SFK Suffolk DRH Durham SHE Shetland ELO East Lothian SHR Shropshire ESX Essex SLK Selkirkshire FIF Fife SOM Somerset FLI Flintshire SSX Sussex GLA Glamorgan STF Staffordshire GLO Gloucestershire STL Stirlingshire GTL Greater London SUR Surrey HMP Hampshire SUT Sutherland HNT Huntingdonshire WAR Warwickshire HRE Herefordshire WIG Wigtownshire HRT Hertfordshire WLO West Lothian INV Inverness-shire WLT Wiltshire IOM Isle of Man WML Westmoreland IOW Isle of Wight WOR Worcestershire KCB Kirkcudbrightshire YOE Yorkshire (East Riding) KCD Kincardineshire YON Yorkshire (North Riding) KNR Kinross-shire YOW Yorkshire (West Riding) The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 6, 2012, 102