First Names

I just noticed another area in which Safehold and the Church of God Awaiting differs from their analogues of Medieval Europe and the Western Catholic Church.

If it were more strongly analogous, we could expect to see a lot of people named after archangels just as using saint's names was common in Medieval Europe (and still is, just not consciously using those names because of association with saints.)

Now, I grant that having every tenth or twentieth male character be named Langhorne would likely confuse readers, so even if this analogy wasn't consciously considered by Himself, there is a good authorial reason to avoid that particular similarity. However, has Himself ever stated an in-universe reason for that lack?

Ummm... no.

For all we know, every second person we meet is named for a saint, but the archangels _are_not_ saints. They are far more holy, with names not to be taken in vain.

The use of the name Jesus was uncommon in Medieval Europe - in fact, I can't think of a single example - and remains so, with the possible exception of Iberia [I can't think of anyone with that given name who isn't, in fact, from Latin America, but I can hardly claim to have met every Spaniard alive], for much the same reason. I suspect that a major reason Mary and it's variants are so common is that the usage was already established before the rise of the cult of Mary in the 10th & 11th centuries, although it is true that she is only the "Mother of God", not God Himself.

Salisria wrote:I just noticed another area in which Safehold and the Church of God Awaiting differs from their analogues of Medieval Europe and the Western Catholic Church.

If it were more strongly analogous, we could expect to see a lot of people named after archangels just as using saint's names was common in Medieval Europe (and still is, just not consciously using those names because of association with saints.)

Now, I grant that having every tenth or twentieth male character be named Langhorne would likely confuse readers, so even if this analogy wasn't consciously considered by Himself, there is a good authorial reason to avoid that particular similarity. However, has Himself ever stated an in-universe reason for that lack?

And archangels aren't gods.
There are/were plenty of Michaels, Gabriels, Raphaels, etc. So I don't see your point being persuasive enough to be self-evident absent it being made a point of doctrine, which I don't recall being mentioned in the books.

Note, I'm not saying it couldn't be a doctrinal point of the COGA, just that I don't recall it being mentioned in the books and I was wondering if Himself had mentioned it being so outside of the books.

I thought you'd go that way: sorry, but _our_ archangels aren't gods - and the people of Safehold know nothing about them, so what they are or aren't is irrelevant here.

Langhorne, OTOH, identified himself as an archangel _and_ as God's Viceregent. Placing himself, and by implication the rest of the angelic mob, on a much higher plane than that assigned to archangels, who were, BTW, actually classed as saints by the Church, in our medieval period. IOW, you are arguing from a false premise: that there is some kind of correspondence between COGA and the historical churches of Europe, and therefore some expectation that titles and offices would be treated in the same way. In fact, the closest they come is that Langhorne pinched some terminology and some passages of scripture. Probably out of simple familiarity with the descendants of those Medieval churches. It certainly wasn't because he was a believer in anything other than the Righteousness of Langhorne.

Salisria wrote:And archangels aren't gods.
There are/were plenty of Michaels, Gabriels, Raphaels, etc. So I don't see your point being persuasive enough to be self-evident absent it being made a point of doctrine, which I don't recall being mentioned in the books.

Note, I'm not saying it couldn't be a doctrinal point of the COGA, just that I don't recall it being mentioned in the books and I was wondering if Himself had mentioned it being so outside of the books.

I didn't think I needed to point out that of course Langhorne etc. aren't actually archangels, but that within the theology of the COGA, they hold a position similar to that of the patriarchs, apostles, and archangels of Christian theology, all of whom provided a rich source of personal names.

Moreover, I think you misunderstood my initial query. I'm not denying that reverence for the archangels could have led to Safeholdian parents avoiding giving children such names. I was inquiring if the lack of analogous treatment concerning names was definitely due to an explicit, albeit unmentioned in the books, restriction that had mentioned by Himself elsewhere. From an authorial POV, it makes sense to give characters distinctive names unless there is a reason to give them similar names, such as in the case of Midshipman Hektor. But that lack doesn't establish there was a prohibition in the Holy Writ or elsewhere against naming kids after Safeholdian archangels.