THIS POST HAS MOVED TO THE NEW SITE! FIND IT HERE:
http://liberlexica.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/unfortunately-named-person-of-the-day-ivar-the-boneless/
Back in the good old days (i.e. the Middle Ages), last names had not yet been invented. Instead, people just went around being called their first name and then some piece of information that was relevant to them. For example: Louis the Fat...because he was fat (real person, I swear) or Thomas, John's Son (precursor to the modern Johnson). Of course, you didn't really get to pick your name, or else there would have been tons of Hildebrand the Awesomes or Guibert the Incredibles running around everywhere. As a result, some of history's characters have ended up being named really unfortunate things. Today's person is the 9th century Viking warrior Ivar the Boneless.
I var the Boneless was a fairly notable Viking leader an warrior- he ran successful raids/attack on England in the 860s/870s and led the Great Heathen Army (I assume they didn't name themselves either) alongside his brothers, Hubbe and Halfdene (also excellently named people).
Ah, but why is Ivar Boneless? Good question! The answer is: no one is really sure. There are, however, some main theories:
1) He was very flexible, which led the brilliant people of the middle ages to guess that he had no bones.
2) He had brittle bone disease. This was proposed by a person with brittle bone disease. It is unlikely, given the record of his battle/combat, especially accounts of him as a berserker that he could have had such a crippling condition.
3) He had some impotence issues. This is actually the most likely theory, at least for the name. It didn't necessarily have to be true to have been something his warriors called him. There is a long tradition of calling your war leader impotent: Roman soldiers returning to the city victorious after battle used to yell out bawdy things about thier leader.
4) He was carried on a shield by his men after victorious battle, which made him look like he didn't have legs. Which probably freaked people out and spawned the story. In this situation, boneless = legless, which is a pretty linguistically sound jump to make.
http://liberlexica.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/unfortunately-named-person-of-the-day-ivar-the-boneless/
Back in the good old days (i.e. the Middle Ages), last names had not yet been invented. Instead, people just went around being called their first name and then some piece of information that was relevant to them. For example: Louis the Fat...because he was fat (real person, I swear) or Thomas, John's Son (precursor to the modern Johnson). Of course, you didn't really get to pick your name, or else there would have been tons of Hildebrand the Awesomes or Guibert the Incredibles running around everywhere. As a result, some of history's characters have ended up being named really unfortunate things. Today's person is the 9th century Viking warrior Ivar the Boneless.
I var the Boneless was a fairly notable Viking leader an warrior- he ran successful raids/attack on England in the 860s/870s and led the Great Heathen Army (I assume they didn't name themselves either) alongside his brothers, Hubbe and Halfdene (also excellently named people).
Ah, but why is Ivar Boneless? Good question! The answer is: no one is really sure. There are, however, some main theories:
1) He was very flexible, which led the brilliant people of the middle ages to guess that he had no bones.
2) He had brittle bone disease. This was proposed by a person with brittle bone disease. It is unlikely, given the record of his battle/combat, especially accounts of him as a berserker that he could have had such a crippling condition.
3) He had some impotence issues. This is actually the most likely theory, at least for the name. It didn't necessarily have to be true to have been something his warriors called him. There is a long tradition of calling your war leader impotent: Roman soldiers returning to the city victorious after battle used to yell out bawdy things about thier leader.
4) He was carried on a shield by his men after victorious battle, which made him look like he didn't have legs. Which probably freaked people out and spawned the story. In this situation, boneless = legless, which is a pretty linguistically sound jump to make.
Could have made some cowardly moves in his early years that branded him for life as boneless...
ReplyDeleteAh yes, the Great Anatomical Shift...I have studied this marvel of language change thoroughly. Legs became bones, bones became gallbladders, gallbladders became sphincters of Oddi, and somewhere along the way, thumbs were lost completely! But serfs, being unable to wield their tools of serfdom (hoes, rakes, and other synonyms for harlot) and too sheep-like to notice, died in droves, followed shortly thereafter by the incompetent (and totally agriculturally ignorant) nincompoops who ran things. The only survivors--the Hermits and Hermettes of Bagdangalung--had fortunately not yet assimilated with the lowland dialect and ergo repopulated with their original anatomy intact. Thus did Western Europe go one Shift forwards and hundreds of years backwards. We now refer to this period as "The Lesser Dark Ages--Before The Real Bad Shit Went Down".
ReplyDelete