The River-Names of Europe

by Robert Ferguson

We find that while there are many names of rivers which contain nothing more than the simple root from which they are derived, as the Cam, the Rhine, the Elbe, the Don, &c., there are others which contain the same root with various endings, of which the principal are a, en, er, es, et, el. Thus the Roth in Germany, contains a simple root; the Roth(a), Roth(er), and Rodd(en) in England, and the Röt(el) in Germany, contain the same with four different endings. The German Ise shows a simple root, and the Germ. Is(ar), Is(en), Eng. Is(is), Dutch Yss(el), Russ. Iss(et), shew the same with five different endings. So we have in England the Tame, the Tam(ar), and the Tham(es), &c. The question is—what is the value and meaning of these various additions?

With respect to the ending in a, found in some English rivers, there is reason to think that it is a word signifying water—the Old Norse â, Goth. ahva, Lat. aqua, &c. So that the a in Rotha may be the same as the a in the Norwegian Beina and the Swedish Tornea—as the au in the Germ. Donau (Danube)—and as the ava in the Moldava of Austrian Poland.

Others of these endings have by different writers been supposed to be also words signifying water. Thus Donaldson (Varronianus), takes the ending es to have that meaning. And Förstemann, though more cautiously, makes the same suggestion for the termination ar or er. "I allow myself here the enquiry whether possibly the river-names which contain an ar as the concluding part of the word may not be compounded with this unknown word for a river; to assume a simple suffix seems to me in this case rather niggardly." So also the ending en has been supposed by some of our own Celtic scholars, as Armstrong and O'Brien, to be the same as the Welsh aven, Gael. amhainn, water or river, an opinion which has also, though to a more limited extent, received the sanction of Pott.

There are various minor objections to the above theories which I forbear to urge, because I think that the main argument against them is to be found in the manner in which these endings run through the whole European system of river-names. And it seems to me therefore more reasonable to refer them to a general principle which pervades the Indo-European languages, than to a particular word of a particular language. The principle I refer to is that of phonetic accretion, and it is that upon which the above word aven or amhainn, is itself formed from a simple root, by one of the very endings in question, that in en. Instead then of explaining—as the followers of the above system have done—the Saone (Sagonna) by the Celt. sogh-an, "sluggish river", I prefer to point to the general principle upon which the root sogh has the power, so to speak, of making itself into soghan (e.g., in Lat. segn-is.)

Not but that the principle contended for by the above writers may obtain in some cases: the Garumna, ancient name of the Garonne, looks like one of them, though even in this case I think that the latter may be the proper form, and the former only a euphonism of the Latin poets: the geographers, as Ptolemy, call it Garunna.

Then again the question arises whether, seeing that en and es in the Celtic tongues, and el in the Germanic, have the force of diminution, this may not be the meaning in the names of rivers. Zeuss, (Die Deutschen), suggests this in the case of the Havel and the Moselle; but seeing that one of these rivers has a course of 180 and the other of 265 miles, I think they might rather be adduced to prove that these endings are not diminutive. We may cite also the Yssel and the Albula (Tiber), both large rivers, with this ending. While in Germany we have two rivers close together, the great and little Arl, (anc. Arla, or Arila)—here seems the very case for a diminutive, yet both rivers have the same ending. Not but that there are instances of a diminutive in river-names, but they seem of later formation. Thus there is no reason to doubt that the French Loiret, which is a small river falling into the large one, means "the little Loire." Etymology in this case is in perfect accord with the facts.

Upon the whole, then, I am inclined to the opinion, which seems in the main that of Förstemann, that, at least as the general rule, these endings are simply phonetic, and that they have no meaning whatever. In our own and the cognate languages, en is the principal phonetic particle—e.g., English bow, Germ. bogen—Germ. rabe, Eng. raven—Lat. virgo, Fr. vierge, Eng. virgin. But we have also traces in English of a similar phonetic er, (see Latham's Handbook of the Eng. Language, p. 199). The general reader will understand better what is here intended by comparing our words maid and maiden. Between these two words there is not the slightest shade of difference as regards meaning—the ending en is merely added for the sake of the sound, or, in other words, it is phonetic. Just the same difference then that there is between our words maid and maiden I take to be between the names of our rivers Lid and Lidden. The ending in both cases serves, if I may use the expression, to give a sort of finish to the word.

The question then arises—supposing these endings to be phonetic—were they given in the first instance, or have they accrued in after times? It is probable that both ways might obtain; indeed we have some evidence to shew that the latter has sometimes been the case. Thus the Medina in the Isle of Wight was once called the Mede, and the Shannon of Ireland stands in Ptolemy as the Senus. On the other hand cases are more frequent in which the ending has been dropped. Thus the Yare is called by Ptolemy the Garrhuenus, i.e., the Garron or Yarron. And the Teme appears in Anglo-Saxon charters as the Taméde or Teméde. Indeed the Thames itself would almost seem, by having become a monosyllable, to have taken the first step of a change which has been arrested for ever. So in Germany the Bille, Ohm, Orre, and Bordau, appear in charters of the 8th and 9th cent., as the Bilena, Amana, Oorana, and Bordine. And in France the Isara and the Oscara have in modern times become respectively the Oise and the Ousche; in both these two cases the ending er has been dropped; for Oise=is, not isar; and Ousche=osc, not oscar.

This latter principle is indeed only in accordance with the general tendency of language towards what Max Müller terms "phonetic decay"—a principle which seems less active in the rude than in the cultivated stages of society. It would appear as if civilization sought to compensate itself for the increased requirements of its expression, by the simplification of its forms, and the rejection of its superfluous sounds.

Upon the whole then I think that as the general rule these endings have been given in the first instance, and that they have but rarely accrued in after times. Such being the case, though in one point of view they may be called phonetic, as adding nothing to the sense, yet in another point of view they may be called formative, as being the particles by means of which words are constructed out of simple roots. And of the names in the following pages, a great part, in some language, or in some dialect, are still living words. And those that are not, are formed regularly upon the same principle, common to the Indo-European system.