Epithet and Eponym

Abstract

TIE LATE ROBERT L. RAMSAY in a recent paper contends that King Scyld of Danes ,surely an eponym if there ever was one. More precisely, he believes that king's name was made, by back formation, from dynastic name ScyldingasJ and that dynasty got its name from shields with which its members were armed. As he puts matter in an earlier study, the Saxons got their ancestral name from their favorite weapon, seax or knife, Scyldings from their shields, ... 2 From this statement, be it added, one might readily infer that Ramsay looked upon Scyldingas as a tribal rather than as a dynastic name, supporting himself, presumably, upon tribal sense 'Danes' that Scyldingas often if not usually has in English poem Beowulf. But in his later paper he accepts as correct view that the Danes are repeatedly called Scyldings in poem by extension of name as applied to royal family (p. 274), and his discussion makes it clear that distinction between dynastic and tribal was of no moment to him. He evidently (and rightly) thought it to have no bearing on etymological problem with which he ,vas concerned. This problem may be summed up as follows. Was proper name Scy ld made, by back formation, from dynastic or tribal name Scyldingas? If so, then King Scyld is an eponym. Or is Scyldingas a patronymic in origin, derived from proper name Scyld? If so, then King Scyld is not an eponym. If king is an eponym we have an explanation of his name but need to explain name Scyldingas. If he is not an eponym we have an explanation of Scyldingas but need to explain use of common noun scyld 'shield' as a royal name. In my paper of 1953 (to which Ramsay took exception), I chose second alternative and tried to explain how a king might come to have such a name as Scyld. Ramsay huwever chose first alternative and accordingly tried to explain how a dynasty or tribe might come to have such a name as Scyldingas.