[ANSTHRLD] Name Submission
tmcd at panix.com
tmcd at panix.com
Sat Jul 30 10:56:42 PDT 2005
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Mike C. Baker / Kihe Blackeagle <kihebard at hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Roxana F{a'}ilain" -- barring a documented form of Roxana used IN
> Eire and WITH a Gaelic surname -- is going to most likely be at
> least two steps from period practice ("two weirdnesses", in the
> previously-common SCA heraldic vernacular), and thereby not
> registerable *as such*.
Here's a recentish Laurel ruling (April 2003):
Roxana Farabi. Name change from Anthea Maecenas.
The submitter requested authenticity for late 1500's Persia and
allowed no major changes.
Roxana was documented as a modern rendering of the name of
Alexander the Great's wife, who was Bactrian by birth and who
died in 311 B.C. Regarding the submitted given name Roxana, the
LoI also cited the precedent:
While we do not find this a very likely name, since
the stories of Alexander the Great were so popular
during the middle ages (Alexander was one of the Nine
Worthies), and since there is documented evidence of
taking names from Arthuriana, we are giving the
submitter the benefit of the doubt. (Roxanne O'Malley,
10/96 p. 7)
The "documented evidence of taking names from Arthuriana" is for
Western European languages, specifically French and English, not
Middle Eastern languages. In the case cited above, Roxanne was
registered as an English rendering of this name used in literary
sources. Lacking evidence of a pattern of taking names from
literature in Middle Eastern languages, and that Roxana is a
Middle Eastern form of this name, Roxana is not registerable as
a Middle Eastern given name. [thus implicitly overturning the
precedent] Siren found what seems to be a non-modernized form
of this name:
[T]he lady was from the general Persian area
(Bactria). An academic website (http://
faculty.winthrop.edu/haynese/syll/notes/331/
PERSIA.html) gives what seems to be a non-modernized
version of her name as <Roshanak>.
Given this documentation, Roshanak is a feminine given name
appropriate for 4th C B.C. Persia or Bactria. The submitted
documentation does not address what forms of this name were used
in period English literature. It would be those forms that would
be registerable as English names under the literary name
allowance.
[surname mutterings]
From this information, al-Farabiyya and al-Farabiyyah would be
feminine forms of this Arabic byname appropriate for the mid-
10th C. If the submitted byname Farabi were corrected to a
period feminine form, then this name would combine a 10th C
Arabic byname with a given name documented as a modern English
rendering of a 4th C B.C. given name.
> Note that use in a play script, novel, or other work of fiction will
> not be acceptable documentation in and of itself
You can see the February 1999 LoAR Cover Letter, the section headed
"Using Names from Literary Sources", for some pointers.
In the October 2001 LoAR is one example:
Ygraine ferch Rhun. Name and device. Or, a bend engrailed vert
between two oak leaves bendwise gules.
Submitted as Ygrainne ferch Rhun, the spelling Ygrainne is not
registerable, since no documentation was presented and none could
be found that a spelling with a double "n" is plausible.
Therefore, we have changed it to the standard form Ygraine.
Precedent allows registration of Arthurian names:
Current precedent is to accept the names of significant
characters from period Arthurian literature as there is a
pattern of such names being used in England and France in
period. [Bedivere de Byron, 06/99, A-Atlantia]
As such a pattern has not been documented in Welsh, Ygraine ferch
Rhun is registerable as a mix of an English given name and a Welsh
byname.
So while it's generally true that literate ain't enough, an
_Arthurian_ in particular in _England or France_ is registerable
because we have evidence.
> -- if we can't find it in the "normal" sources,
... by which I assume you mean books devoted to names and their
origins, with indications of dates and with reliable spellings (not
normalized to standardized forms) ...
> I personally work under the assumed requirement of finding at least
> three distinct individuals from a minimum of two separate relatively
> independent sources whenever possible.
There is no fixed requirement like that, either at Laurel or at
kingdom. You may choose whatever number of sources or individuals you
like for your own comfort, but your opinions will likely not match
anyone else's.
> Variations upon "Roxana" that have been used in the past within the
> SCA context include Richende, possibly Rixende,
The Richenda family is in Withycombe, derived from Old Germanic.
> and I believe even Roxanne (and those are all from memory -- the
> last may have been accomplished using mundane name allowance?).
Say, rather, an overturned precedent for that last.
Danet de Lincoln
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com
More information about the Heralds
mailing list