ISABEL another form of ELIZABETH, and how it came to be so.
Miss Yonge in her History of Christian Names, is no doubt right in taking Isabel to be another form of Elizabeth, with which it is historically shown to have interchanged. But the etymological process by which this has been brought about has been always somewhat of a puzzle, and it is upon this point that I have to suggest an explanation. Now the key to the puzzle is this: that the early Frankish converts in the time of Charlemagne, introduced the name, not only in its Latin form of Elizabeth, but also, and indeed more frequently, in its Hebrew form of Elischeba—it was Elischeba that was made into Isabel and not Elizabeth. Protected by its strong ending, Elizabeth has retained its form unchanged. Elischeba has been entirely lost to sight under a cloud of transformations. Slightly modified to suit Frankish pronunciation, it was introduced in the first instance as Elisaba, Elisabia, Alisabia, and Elisavia, all names of women in the Polyptique de l'Abbé Irminon and the Polyptique de Saint Remi de Reims. In the fourteenth century (if, indeed, it did not take place earlier) we find this old Frankish form El(isaba) abbreviated into Isabeau, its ending being made to conform to French ideas of spelling. Isabeau was the name of the wife of Charles VI. of France, and the name was still recognised as being the same as Elizabeth. We have got to forge the connecting link between Isabeau and Isabel, but the process is not a violent one. It would not be difficult to suppose that the French idea of the fitness of things in the case of a woman's name would lead them to change this masculine-seeming ending, beau, into what they would conceive to be its appropriate feminine, and so make Isabeau into Isabelle. We need not suppose that this took place all at once, or that because one man changed Isabeau into Isabel, everybody else forthwith proceeded to follow his example. It is more probable that the two names existed side-by-side, together, for some time before the struggle for existence terminated in the survival of (what seemed) the fitter. Throughout all these changes the identity of the name with Elizabeth had always been recognised; but when Isabel had finally succeeded in establishing its claim as the representative, the deposed Isabeau, its origin having been forgotten, might have become a man's name, and so capable of transmitting surnames, which would account for Isabeau as a family name in France at the present day.
But these are not the only changes which have come over this unfortunate name, for we find Elisavia, another of the old Frankish forms before noted, forthwith abbreviated into Lisvia, and further corrupted into Lisavir and Lisabir, all names of women in the two old Frankish chronicles before referred to. And if we can again suppose the name Lisavir (or rather Elisavir), its origin having been forgotten, to have become a man's name (towards which its masculine-looking ending, vir, might have assisted) it might well give the origin of the name Elzevir, of the famous printers at Amsterdam. Not that the name would necessarily be of Frankish origin, for the Hebrew form seems also to have been introduced into Germany, where we find the woman's name, Elisba, in the ninth century; and, it might be also into Holland, while the phonetic principles which regulate such changes are more or less of general application. Again, it seems not improbable that the Spanish woman's name, Elvira, for which no derivation at all satisfactory has been suggested, might be properly Elzvira, and so again another form derived from Elischeba. The question might naturally be asked how it is, seeing the various contractions which Elischeba has undergone, that Elizabeth has not been treated in the same way. In point of fact it seems probable that it has, for we find a solitary name Isabeth in the Liber Vitæ about the thirteenth century. This was before Elizabeth had come into use in England, and the name might probably be an importation. But abbreviate Elizabeth as you will you cannot disguise it, and this is what I meant in referring to it as "protected by its strong ending." And now, having dealt with the diversified forms that have grown up around Elisabeth, I shall have, in a succeeding note, to endeavour to show that Eliza, which might more certainly than any other form be supposed to be derived from it, is, in fact, of entirely different origin, and a name that was in use long before Elizabeth was introduced; though at the same time we cannot doubt that as soon as ever that potent name came in, Eliza would be at once appropriated by it.
ANNABELLA, ARABELLA, CLARIBEL, CRISTABEL, ROSABEL.
But in the meantime I may refer to some other names which seem cast in the same form as Isabel; as for instance, Annabella, Arabella, Claribel, Christabel, and Rosabel. With regard to these names, I am disposed to come to the conclusion, that though moulded into the same shape, they are not by any means all of a similar origin. Annabella would be a very natural corruption of Amabilla, a name in the Liber Vitæ of Durham. The same record contains, as names of women, Amabilis, Amabel, and Mabilla, of course from Latin amabilis—whence our Mabel, on this theory the same name as Annabella. Arabella, again, might be a corruption of the old Frankish Heribolda—bold, as an ending often changing into bel, as in our surnames Grimble and Wimble, from Grimbald and Winibald, and Tremble (most infelicitously), from Trumbald (A.S. trum, firm, strong). So, also, Claribel might be from an old Frankish Clarebalda, of which, however, we have only on record the masculine form, Clarebald. This appears to be from Latin clarus, illustrious, and is not the only case in which the old Franks at that period mixed up Latin and German in the same name. It is possible that Christabel might be from a similar origin; for the early Frankish converts at that period freely adopted the name of Christ, and mixed it up with German compounds, such as Cristhildis, a woman's name, from hild, war. But on the whole I am rather disposed to suggest a different origin for Christabel. Finding among the Franks at that period such names as Firmatus, Stabilis, Constabulis,[61] and the woman's name, Constabilla, in the sense, no doubt, of "established in the faith," it might not be unreasonable to suggest such a compound as Christabila, "established in Christ," as the origin of Christabel.[62] As to the last named, Rosabel, the ordinarily-received expression of "fair rose" would be a natural and graceful name for women if the French had to form names at a later period. But there is a woman's name, Rosibia, in the Pol. Irminon, which suggests a possible process like that in the case of Isabel—viz., a corruption into Rosibeau, and then a change into Rosibel. However, as in this case the connecting links are wanting, I can only put this forward as a conjecture.
MAUD properly a man's name. Its interchange with MATILDA an ancient mistake.
As Isabel interchanged in former times with Elizabeth, so did Maud with Matilda, among other instances being that of the daughter of Henry I., who was called by both names. Yet, etymologically, Maud can no more be derived from Matilda than can Giles from Ægidius, by which it used formerly to be always Latinized. And the interchange is rendered all the more curious by the fact that Maud, when traced up to its origin, seems to be properly a man's name. There has evidently been some ancient mistake or misappropriation, the origin of which I hope to be able to account for. The names Mald, Maald, Mauld (all names of women), found in the Liber Vitæ before the introduction of surnames, and the Christian name Maulde, found in the fifteenth century, show the form from which our Maud is immediately derived. Then we have the older forms, Mahald, Mahalt, and Maholt, all also apparently names of women. And in one case, about the twelfth or thirteenth century, the name stands as "Mahald vel Matilda." Now no one who has given attention to the subject can doubt that Mahald, Mahalt, and the French form, Mahault, are the same as an Old Frankish Magoald, eighth century, from Gothic magan, posse, valere, and wald power. This is distinctly a man's name; indeed, wald, as an ending, is almost exclusively confined to men's names, as the ending hild, as in Matilda, is to those of women. There is but one way that I can see out of the difficulty, and it is this. There is in the Liber Vitæ another name, Mahild, which is no doubt the same as an Old Frankish Mahilda, which Foerstemann (Altdeutsches Namenbuch) takes to be a contraction of Matilda. It would seem, then, that some mistake or confusion has in old times arisen between these two names, and that Mahild, which really represents Matilda, has been set aside in favour of Mahald, an entirely different name. The fact, however, of our having Maude as a surname would rather seem to show that this misappropriation was not universal, for surnames are not—unless it be in some very exceptional cases—taken from the names of women.
ALICE, ALICIA, ELIZA, ADELIZA, ALISON.
ALICE properly a man's name, and ELIZA its proper Feminine.
I have seen it stated, though I cannot at present recall the authority, that in one of our ancient families Alice is a name given to the sons and not to the daughters. This would at any rate be etymologically correct, for Alice is properly a man's name, and not a woman's. It is, there seems little doubt, derived from the Anglo-Saxon Adelgis, of which the female form was Adelgisa. It is clear that Alice (Aliss) represents Adelgis, and not Adelgisa, and that the proper female form would be Alisa, or, for euphony, Aliza. I venture to suggest that our Eliza, generally and very naturally assumed to be an abbreviation of Elizabeth, is in fact this missing name. Now, for the proofs of Aliza as the representative of Adelgisa, we must refer to the Liber Vitæ of Durham, in which we can trace the changes that have taken place in Adelgisa since the first noble lady of that name laid her gift upon the altar. First we find it contracted into Adeliza, and then, from about the twelfth century into Aaliza and Aliza, the latter name being henceforward rather a common one. The former of these two contracted forms, Adeliza, though not a name in common use, is one still given to the daughters of certain of our noble families; the latter form, Aliza, I take to be the origin of our Eliza. (The initial vowel is of no account, the ancient name beginning indifferently with a or e, and Alice in some families appearing as Ellice). But concurrently with the above forms in the Liber Vitæ, we have also Adaliz, Adliz, and Alis, at an early date, some of them at least being certainly names of women, so that the misappropriation is at any rate an ancient one.