Onomastica Uralica 8

ONOMASTICA PatrocinySettlementNames inEurope Editedby VALÉRIA TÓTH Debrecen–Helsinki 2011 Onomastica Uralica President of the editorial board István Nyirkos, Debrecen Co-president of the editorial board Ritva Liisa Pitkänen, Helsinki Editorial board Terhi Ainiala, Helsinki Sándor Maticsák, Debrecen Tatyana Dmitrieva, Yekaterinburg Irma Mullonen, Petrozavodsk Kaisa Rautio Helander, Aleksej Musanov, Syktyvkar Guovdageaidnu Peeter Päll, Tallinn István Hoffmann, Debrecen Janne Saarikivi, Helsinki Marja Kallasmaa, Tallinn Valéria Tóth, Debrecen Nina Kazaeva, Saransk D. V. Tsygankin, Saransk Lyudmila Kirillova, Izhevsk The articles were proofread by Terhi Ainiala, Helsinki Andrea Bölcskei, Budapest Christian Zschieschang, Leipzig Lector of translation Jeremy Parrott Technical editor Valéria Tóth Cover design and typography József Varga The work is supported by the TÁMOP 4.2.1./B-09/1/KONV-2010-0007 project. The project is implemented through the New Hungary Development Plan, co-financed by the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund. The studies are to be found at the Internet site http://mnytud.arts.unideb.hu/onomural/ ISSN 1586-3719 (Print), ISSN 2061-0661 (Online) ISBN 978-963-318-126-3 Debreceni Egyetemi Kiadó University of Debrecen Publisher: Márta Virágos, Director General of University and National Library, University of Debrecen. Contents Foreword ................................................................................................... 5 PIERRE -HENRI BILLY Patrociny Settlement Names in France ............................................... 7 GÉRARD TAVERDET –STÉPHANE GENDRON Patrociny Settlement Names in France ............................................... 29 JOAN TORT -DONADA Hagiotoponyms in Catalonia (Spain).................................................. 55 MOISÉS SELFA SASTRE Contributions to Spanish Hagiotoponyms ......................................... 69 CARLA MARCATO Patrociny Settlement Names in Italy ................................................. 89 KARLHEINZ HENGST Patrociny Settlement Names in Eastern Germany ............................. 105 KIRSTIN CASEMIR Patrociny Place Names in the North-Western Territories of Germany ........................................................................................ 117 SABINA BUCHNER Sankt Blasien — Sammarei — Helena Place Names with Sankt in Bavaria and Baden-Wurttemberg ........... 145 VALÉRIA TÓTH Patrociny Settlement Names in the Carpathian Basin ....................... 175 PAVEL ŠTĚPÁN Patrociny Settlement Names in the Czech Republic and Slovakia .... 207 BARBARA CZOPEK -KOPCIUCH Geographical Names Deriving from Saints’ Names (Patrocinia) in Poland ............................................................................................ 227 Authors of the Volume ............................................................................ 247 Foreword In January 2010 I contacted European onomasticians with the call to join a research programme aiming to map the European situation regarding a special settlement name type—patrociny settlement names. The call was welcomed, 15 researchers from 10 countries indicated they would like to participate in the project. The final outcome is that 11 studies are being published in the volume entitled “Patrociny Settlement Names in Europe” which you have in your hands. The aim therefore was to present the situation of patrociny settlement names in Europe, introducing their region-specific features. When requesting the authors to write about this particular name type, I considered the fact that patrociny settlement names are characteristic of only certain parts of Europe (primarily Italy, France, Spain, Germany, and the Carpathian basin). In order to view the European attributes of patrociny settlement names in a unified framework (e.g. the circumstances of their formation, factors playing a role in their alterations, etc.) I collected the aspects which should guide the authors in their studies. Accordingly, the majority of studies reveal information regarding the following: the impact of religious organisation on the origin and distribution of the name type; how and from what time collo- quial variants replace the Latin names; what kinds of chronological charac- teristics the name type has in certain language territories; onomato-geographical differences; the process and direction of the distribution of the name type. In addition, from certain studies we may get an impression about the linguistic or structural qualities of patrociny settlement names and their change processes. During the editorial work I have not interfered with the use of terms in certain studies since I consider the unification of terminology created and used in given language areas arbitrary and unjustified. Since the authors managed to precisely explain the terms they used, I believe the non-homogenous nature of the terminology does not hinder the comparison of phenomena. This collection of studies about patrociny settlement names does not aim at bringing to a close the relevant onomastic research; on the contrary, it wishes to widen it, providing a pattern for further research. A similar international research programme which would also compare a toponymic phenomenon’s features in different languages but within more specific circumstances would also be quite informative: related languages (e.g. Hungarian and Finnish), or Foreword 6 languages not related to but in physical contact with each other (e.g. Finnish and Swedish) would be presented equally. In other words, research like this may bring to the surface features originating from a genetic relationship just as much as from interference phenomena growing out of languages living together. In the fervent hope of further collaboration as efficient as this one, and as a representative of the editorial board of “Onomastica Uralica”, we would be glad to receive further studies from European onomasticians. Debrecen, May 2011 The Editor Pierre-Henri Billy (Paris, France) Patrociny Settlement Names in France The christianization of territories which, much later, constituted France, is a long story. On good authority, until the middle of the 3rd century, the territories christianized by the Gauls were Provence and the Rhone valley, as well as the Roman province of Narbonne. The first bishops had already settled in cathedrals dedicated, for the greater part, to Saint Étienne, lined with baptistries dedicated to Saint Jean-Baptiste. They presided over vast territories, the dioceses which the council of Chalcédoine in 451 called parochia, spread over the whole civitas, or civil district of the Empire. In the 5th century every civitas of Gaul was finally endowed with a cathedral- church and constituted a diocese. Meanwhile, villages (vici) and certain forti- fied cities (castella) contained either a church (ecclesia) without relics, or a basilica (basilica) dedicated to the saint whose relics were deposited and wor- shipped there. In addition there were numerous places of worship in the countryside (oratoria) built by owners of big domains (villae). In the 6 th century the works of Grégoire of Tours gave us places of worship dedicated to the holy apostles, to other scriptural saints, to martyrs of the Roman Empire, and finally to the local saints. The construction of places of worship encouraged the population in the vicinity to frequent these new places, enabling the formation of new parishes. It was not until the Carolingian period that significant development of the former parishes took place, thanks to imperial legislation which created new parishes stemming from the dismemberment of the former or from clearings on their margins. In the 11–13 th centuries, new parishes were created by this process, and also by further encroachment on forests, uninhabited areas (deserta) and the lower slopes of mountains. There were diverse motivations behind the creation of these various new districts: abbeys were used for the purpose of asset management (in the 11–12 th centuries), military orders for territorial influence (12–13 th centuries), and lay Lords for the purpose of attracting the local population (10–14 th centuries) through the construction of a church in or around the castle (castrum) and the construction of new towns (nova villa, bastida, castelnau, etc.). The construction of numerous churches outside of towns led to the movement of the population and to the creation of new parishes. 1. Latin was the official language of the Church from the time of the Roman Empire. It was also the language of royal power until the 14 th century. The th rural Lords and cities used Latin until the 13 century but abandoned it more Pierre-Henri Billy 8 quickly than other institutions in favour of Occitan (in the 11 th century) and in French and Franco-Provençal (13 th century). However, these institutions lagged behind literary use as some works were written in French from the 11 th century and some years later in Occitan. In Latin texts, the hagiotoponyms (i.e. patrociny settlement names) which appeared the earliest in vernacular languages were written in Old High German in the 8th century, in Old Breton in the 9 th century, in Old Occitan in the 10 th century and in Old French and Franco-Provençal in the 11 th century. Accord- ing to the types of source materials, hagiotoponyms were mainly written in vernaculars from the 13 th century. We must not overlook the numerous pouillés (statements of income of every diocese or ecclesiastical province) during the 18 th century: all place

Load more