Chapter I · PATRONYMIC SURNAMES. (continued 2)

The preceding pages will be sufficient proof that our metronymics are a considerable class. Many have not hesitated to affirm them to be wholly of illegitimate descent. We cannot doubt that in some instances this is the case. Nevertheless, we must not be led astray. ‘Polson’ is Paul’s son, ‘Nelson’ is Neil’s son, Neil or Nigel being at one time a familiar name with us. And even when the name is unquestionably feminine, as in Mollison, Margerison, Marriot, Emmett, or Annotson, illegitimacy is anything but established as a matter of fact. Adoption of children by women, posthumous birth, and other peculiar circumstances would often cause a boy or girl to be known in the community by a metronymic. Especially, too, would a child be thus styled in a family where the mother was notoriously, and in an emphatic sense, the better half, in a family where the husband was content to sit in the chimney nook, and let the bustling Margery, or Siss, or Emmot take, whether in or out of doors, the lead in all that concerned the domestic relationship. Thus, I doubt not, a large mass of them have arisen.

VII.—Names Derived from Holy Scripture.

We have incidentally referred to several Bible names, such as John, Mary, or Elizabeth. We shall find a certain characteristic appertaining to these. It 81is only those personages who prominently figured in the Scripture narrative who made any mark upon our nomenclature. The others, I doubt not, were unknown. It is even uncertain whether the clergy themselves had any but the faintest knowledge of the Bible. Indeed, such names even as were in use bear no testimony to the fact that they were given as the direct result of familiarity with the sacred pages. If from the New Testament, they were names that figured in the calendar as saints and martyrs, names to whom shrines and chapels had been dedicated. If from the Old, they were just those like ‘Adam,’ or ‘Isaac,’ or ‘Joseph,’ or ‘Samson,’ or ‘Daniel,’ or ‘Absolom,’ whose stories, told in the monkish performances or miracle-plays, were thus forced into the acquaintance of the popular mind. In a word, there is not a trace of anything beyond a mere superficial knowledge of the very outlines of the sacred narrative. Thus was it with ‘Adam,’ already mentioned. That he and Eve should be remembered at the font was inevitable. The Hundred Rolls give us an ‘Adam fil. Eve.’ Mr. Lower has been tempted to refer our ‘Atkins’ and ‘Atkinsons’ to Arthur, but there can be little doubt, I imagine, that these are but sharper forms of ‘Adkins’ and ‘Adkinson.’ The record alluded to above registers the same person twice as ‘Adam le Fullere’ and ‘Adekin le Fuller.’ With them therefore we must ally our ‘Addisons,’ ‘Adcocks,’^[73] and ‘Adamsons.’ Eve left us ‘Eveson’ as a metronymic, and ‘Evetts’ and ‘Evitts,’ as the diminutives, are firmly set amongst us.^[74] ‘Abel’ 82was equally popular. The Norman desinence is found in such entries as ‘Abalotta de la Forde,’ or Richard Abelot, whose descendants now figure as ‘Ablett’ and ‘Ablott.’ As will be seen, these may be feminine in origin. The reverence of the despised Jew for Abraham prevented this from becoming acceptable to Christians, but Isaac’s sacrifice was too popular a story not to leave an impression. It would be frequently represented by the monks. I have already quoted Langland where he speaks of

Hikke the hackney-man

And Hugh the nedlere—

an abbreviation now more generally known and spelt as ‘Ike.’ Gower also has it—

Watte vocat, cui Thoma venit, neque Symme retardat,

Bat-que Gibbe simul, Hykke venire jubent.

From him then have arisen our ‘Isaacs’ and ‘Isaacsons,’ our ‘Hicks’ and ‘Hicksons,’ our ‘Higgs’ and ‘Higsons,’ and with the Norman-French diminutives appended, our ‘Higgins,’ ‘Higginsons,’ ‘Higgotts,’^[75] and ‘Higgetts.’ ‘Sarah,’ in the dress of ‘Sarra,’ had a fair number of admirers. ‘Sarra le Commongere,’ ‘William fil. Sarra,’ ‘Nicholas fil. Sarre,’ is the usual entry. The origin of our ‘Sarsons’ would thus be certain, were it 83not that this name, as will be shown elsewhere, has got confused with ‘Saracen.’ Moses also failed to be accepted among Christians, nor was Aaron much more fortunate, such registration as ‘Aaron le Blund’ or ‘Aron Judde’ being rare. ‘Samson’ or ‘Sampson,’ as it is more generally recorded, was of course popular enough, and many of our ‘Sampsons’ are rather the simple ‘Samson’ than the patronymic of ‘Samuel.’ ‘Samms,’ ‘Samuels’ and ‘Samuelson’ are generally of Jewish descent. ‘David,’ with its ‘Davies,’ its ‘Davidsons,’ its ‘Dawes’ and ‘Dawsons,’ its ‘Dawkes’ and ‘Dawkins,’ or ‘Dawkinsons,’ its ‘Dayes,’ ‘Daysons,’ and ‘Dakins’ (when not ‘Deakin’), would be equally sure of remembrance; though doubtless, as the patron saint of the Principality, and as a favourite among Scottish kings, it owes much to these outer chances. Here, too, we are reminded of Piers Plowman, with his—

Dawe the dykere

And a dozen othere.

This nickname seems to have had a long reign in the popular mouth, for we find, towards the close of the sixteenth century, Haywood writing the following epigram:—

To a justice a juggler did complaine,

Of one that dispraised his legerdemain.

What’s thy name? sayd the Justice: Dawson, sayd hee:

Is thy father alive? Nay, dead, sir, pardee:

Then thou shalt no more be Dau’s son, a clere case,

Thou art Daw thyself now in thy father’s place.^[76]

Passing by ‘Absolom,’ ‘Solomon,’ or ‘Salamon,’ ‘Job’ and ‘Jobson,’ the story of Daniel would of course be common. This has bequeathed us itself in propria persona, 84and ‘Dancock,’ ‘Dankin,’ ‘Danett,’ and ‘Dannett.’ With regard to ‘Dans,’ ‘Dance,’ ‘Danse,’ and ‘Danson,’ there is a little difficulty. We have to remember that ‘Dan,’ like ‘Dame,’^[77] figured prominently in early days as a simple title of respect. They were but the ‘Don’ and ‘Donna’ which, in one form or another, still exist in Italy, France, and Spain. ‘Dame,’ from domina, meant ‘mistress.’ ‘Don,’ from dominus, meant ‘master.’ To rank and age the two terms were equally applied. A ‘dame’s school’ still preserves this connexion of ideas. ‘As with the mistress so with the maid,’ is in early Bibles ‘As with the dame so with the maid.’ Thus there seems to be little doubt that our ‘Dames’ and ‘Damsons’ are so sprung. Why then should not ‘Dans’ and ‘Danse’ and ‘Danson’ be the masculine form? Chaucer, in his Canterbury Tales, represents the host as asking the Monk—

But, by my trothe, I cannot tell your name:

Whether shall I call you my lord Dan John,

Or Dan Thomas, or elles Dan Albon?

Thus he speaks also of ‘Dan Constantine,’ and jestingly of the ass as ‘Dan Burnell.’ Thus, Lord Surrey in one of his poems speaks of ‘Dan Homer;’ Spenser of ‘Dan Geoffrey;’ Thomson of ‘Dan Abraham.’ The best way will be, as in many another case, 85to divide the honours between the two; and leaving it thus undecided, I pass on.

Nor is the New Testament without its instances. Let us look at the Apostles first. We have already spoken at some length about ‘John,’ but we purposely kept for the present opportunity the explanation of its popularity in England. There can be little doubt that it owes much to its religious aspect. It was the name not merely of the beloved disciple, but of the Baptist. New and close associations with the latter were just coming into being. We must remember this was the time of the Crusades. It was the custom of all pilgrims who visited the Holy Land to bring back a bottle of water from the Jordan for baptismal purposes. A leathern bottle was an inseparable adjunct to the palmer’s dress. We all remember Walter Scott’s description—

His sandals were with travel tore,

Staff, budget, bottle, scrip he wore:

The faded palm-branch in his hand

Showed pilgrim from the Holy Land.

Early scenes with regard to the river in which the Baptist specially figured would thus be vividly brought to their notice, and in the ceremony of baptism at home nothing could be more natural than to give to the infant the name of the baptizer of the Holy Child Jesus. This is strongly confirmed by the fact of the name taking precedence at this very period. It was thus ‘Jordan’ itself as a surname has arisen. I need not remind students of early records how common is ‘Jordan’ as a Christian name, such cognomens as ‘Jordan de Abingdon’ or ‘Jordan le Clerc’ being of the most familiar occurrence. The baptismal soon became 86surnominal, and now ‘Jordan,’^[78] ‘Jordanson,’ ‘Jordson,’ ‘Jurdan,’ ‘Judd,’ and ‘Judson’^[79] are with us to remind us of this peculiar and interesting epoch.^[80] We have a remarkable confirmation of what I am asserting in the fact of the Baptist’s other name of ‘Elias’ springing into a sudden notoriety at this time. If ‘John’ became thus so popular, it was inevitable ‘Elias’ should be the same; and so it was. Indeed, there was a time when it bid fair to be one of the most familiar sobriquets in England. For it was not merely the second Elias and the Jordan that had this effect. As the armies lay before Acre, remembrance of Elijah and the prophet of Carmel must have oft recurred to their minds. Out of many forms to be found in every early roll, those of ‘Ellis,’ ‘Elys,’ ‘Elice,’ ‘Ellice,’ ‘Elyas,’ ‘Helyas,’ and the diminutive ‘Eliot’ or ‘Elliot,’ seem to have been the most familiar. Numberless are the surnames sprung from it. It is thus we get our ‘Ellises’ and ‘Ellices,’ our ‘Ellsons’ and ‘Ellisons,’ our ‘Elkins’ and ‘Elkinsons,’ our 87‘Elcocks’ and ‘Ellcocks,’ and our ‘Ellicots,’^[81] ‘Elliots,’ and ‘Elliotsons.’ In the north ‘Alis’ seems to have gained the supremacy. Thus it is we have our many ‘Allisons’ or ‘Alisons,’^[82] ‘Allkins’ or ‘Alkins,’ ‘Allcocks’ or ‘Alcocks,’ and ‘Allots.’ ‘Alecot,’ as a synonym with ‘Elicot,’ I do not find to be at present existing, but as a Christian name it occurs at the same period with the above.^[83] ‘Fitzellis,’ as the more aristocratic Norman form, is not 88yet, I believe, extinct. Thus the prophet at Carmel and the forerunner at the Jordan have made their mark upon our English nomenclature.

Peter claims our attention next. When we consider how important has been the position claimed for him it is remarkable that in an age when, so far as England was concerned, this respect was more fully exacted than any other, his name should be so rarely found, rarely when we reflect what an influence the ecclesiastics of the day themselves must have had in the choice of the baptismal name, and what an interest they had in making it popular. It is to them, doubtless, we must refer the fact of its having made any mark at all, for ‘Peter’ was odious to English ears. It reminded them of a tax which was the one of all least liked, as they saw none of its fruits. It is to country records we must look for the ‘Peters’ of the time. The freer towns would none of it. Among the rude peasantry ecclesiastic control was well-nigh absolute; in the boroughs it was proportionately less. I have already quoted an instance of 133 London names where Peter is discovered but once to 35 Johns. In the Norwich Guild already mentioned, the proportion, or rather disproportion, is the same. To 128 Johns, 47 Williams, 41 Thomases, 33 Roberts, and 21 Richards, there are but 4 Peters. On the other hand, in Wiltshire, out of 588 names, we find 16 Peters to 92 Johns. This wide difference of ratio I find to be fully borne out in all other groups of early names. Thanks then to the ecclesiastics it did exist, and its relics at any rate are numerous enough. It is hence we get the shorter ‘Parr,’ ‘Piers,’ ‘Pierce,’ ‘Pears,’ ‘Pearse,’ and ‘Peers.’ It is hence with the patronymic 89added we get our ‘Parsons,’ ‘Pearsons,’ ‘Piersons,’ and the fuller ‘Peterson.’ It is hence once more with the pet desinences attached we get our ‘Perrins’ and ‘Perrens,’ our ‘Perrets,’ ‘Perretts,’ ‘Parrots,’ and ‘Parrets,’^[84] our ‘Peterkins,’ ‘Perkins,’ ‘Parkins,’ and ‘Parkinsons,’ besides our ‘Perks’ and ‘Perkes’ innumerable.

‘Simon,’ or ‘Simeon,’ is represented by at least sixteen different personages in the Scriptures, so we may well expect to find that it has also impressed itself upon our own registers. The usual forms of the name in mediæval rolls is ‘Sim,’ ‘Simkin,’ and ‘Simonet.’ Thus we find such entries as ‘Simon fil. Sim,’ ‘Simkin Cock,’ ‘Symkyn Edward,’ ‘Simonettus Mercator,’ or ‘Symonet Vaillain.’ The French diminutive does not seem to have been so popular as that which the Flemings made so common, for I find no ‘Simnets’ in our directories, while a whole column has to be set aside for our ‘Simpkins’ and ‘Simpkinsons.’ ‘Simcock’ must have existed also, as our ‘Simcocks’ and ‘Simcoxes’ can testify. Other forms are found in ‘Sims,’ ‘Simms,’ ‘Simpson,’ ‘Simmons,’ ‘Simonds,’ ‘Symonds,’ ‘Simmonds,’ and ‘Symondsons.’ This latter is met with in the Rolls of Parliament in the guise of ‘Symondesson.’ ‘Philip,’ as another of the Apostles of Jesus, was also popular. 90As with ‘Simon,’ most of the nursery forms are still found as the chief components of its surnames. Skelton, the poet-laureate—in lieu of a better—of Henry VIII., reminds us of its chief contraction, ‘Philp,’ or ‘Phip,’ in his lines on a dead sparrow, named Philip:—

Many times and oft,

Upon my finger aloft,

I played with him, tittle-tattle,

And fed him with my spattle,

With his bill between my lips.

It was my pretty Phips.

Thus we derive our ‘Phelps,’ ‘Philps,’ ‘Phipps,’ and ‘Phipson.’ Adding to these our ‘Philips,’ ‘Philipsons,’ ‘Philcoxes,’ ‘Philpotts,’ and ‘Phillots,’ we see that we are not likely soon to be quit of Philip. He is now, however, out of fashion as a Christian name. ‘Philpot,’^[85] I need scarcely say, was very popular as the representative of the Norman-French ‘Philipot,’ found in such entries as ‘Thomas Phylypotte,’ or ‘John Philipot;’ but endeavours to deduce his origin as well in spelling as in sound from the characteristics displayed by the renowned Toby Phillpot are not wanting, for I see him figuring in the ‘London Directory’ as ‘Fillpot.’ Archbishop Trench quotes from one of Careless’s letters to Philpot the following passage, which serves to show that three hundred years ago at least the name had been played upon in similar fashion: ‘Oh, good Master Philpot (he says), which art a principal pot indeed, filled with much precious liquor—oh, pot 91most happy! of the High Potter ordained to honour.’ Some years ago, when a Philpott was appointed to the episcopal chair of Worcester, Dr. Philpotts being yet at Exeter, the following lines got abroad:—

‘A good appointment?’ ‘No, it’s not,’

Said old beer-drinking Peter Watts;

‘At Worcester one but hears “Phil-pott;”

At generous Exeter, “Phil-potts.”’

‘Fillpot’ as well as ‘Fillip’ are both found in mediæval registers in the cases of ‘Roger Fylpot’ and ‘Walter Felip.’ An old song, quoted in ‘Political Poems’ (i. 60), says of the defeated soldiers at Halidon Hill:—

On Filip Valas fast cri they,

There for to dwell, and him avaunce.

The ‘Fillpots’ of our present directories may therefore have thus spelt their names for four or five hundred years. Anyhow they have precedent for the form.

‘Matthew the Publican’ seems to have been a favourite alike in England and France. ‘Matt’ was the homely appellative, and thus besides ‘Mathews’ and ‘Mathewson,’ we meet with ‘Matts,’ ‘Matson,’ ‘Mattison,’ and ‘Mattinson.’ Our ‘Mayhews’ represent the foreign dress, and can refer their origin to such personages as ‘Adam fil. Maheu,’ or ‘Mayeu de Basingbourne.’ ‘Bartholomew,’ for what reason I can scarcely say, was a prime favourite with our forefathers, and has left innumerable proofs of the same. ‘Batt’ or ‘Bett’ seems to have been the favourite curtailment. The author of ‘Piers Plowman’ speaks of ‘Bette the Bocher’ (Butcher), ‘Bette the Bedel,’ and makes Reason bid

92Bette kutte

A bough outher tweye,

And bete Beton therewith.

‘Batty,’ ‘Bates,’ ‘Batson,’ ‘Batcock,’ ‘Badcock,’ ‘Batkins,’ ‘Badkins,’ ‘Betson,’ ‘Bedson,’ and ‘Betty’ are relics of this. ‘Bartle,’ and the Norman-French ‘Bartelot,’ found in such entries as ‘Bartel Frobisher,’ ‘John fil. Bertol,’ ‘Bartelot Govi,’ or ‘Edward Barttlette,’ at once bespeak the origin of our ‘Bartles’ and ‘Bartletts.’^[86] Nor was this all. Another favourite sobriquet for this same name was ‘Toly’ or ‘Tholy,’ hence such registrations as ‘Tholy Oldcorn,’ or ‘Robert Toly,’ or ‘William fil. Tholy.’ Our ‘Tolleys,’ ‘Tollys’ and ‘Tolsons’^[87] are thus explained. None of these could have been the offspring of any old ‘Ladye Betty,’ as Mr. Lower seems to imagine, since that name, as I have shown, did not exist in England at this time, nor in fact can it be said to have been known till rendered fashionable by Elizabeth Woodville, the bride of Edward IV. What an influence a single individual may wield over our personal nomenclature may be thus seen, when we remember the enormous preponderance of this latter name during the two centuries that followed the reign of the imperious but ‘good Queen Bess,’ and the glorious scattering of the Spanish Armada. This, too, escaping the withering influences of the Puritan era, continued through all, and now holds the fourth place in English esteem.

93In the poem I have just quoted, Reason

Called Caton his knave

Curteis of speche,

And also Tomme Trewe-tonge.

Thus we see that ‘Tom,’ as the popular form of ‘Thomas,’ has been in vogue for many centuries. ‘Thomas,’ like some of the above names, received an increased impulse from the Crusades. But another circumstance also befriended it. In its numerous progeny may be read again the story of the feud that arose between the haughty Archbishop and Henry II., a feud that terminated so fatally for the former, and made the spot where he fell hallowed for centuries by the pilgrimages of shrine-worshippers. Piers, in Langland’s poem, says,

I nolde fange a ferthyng

For seint Thomas shryne.

The surnames whose origin we must undoubtedly attribute, in the majority of cases, to the notoriety given to the sobriquet possessed by this murdered prelate are many. The patronymic is clearly marked in our ‘Thomasons,’ ‘Thomsons,’ and ‘Thompsons.’ The favoured Norman diminutive is equally assured of perpetuation in our ‘Thomasetts,’ ‘Thomsetts,’ and ‘Thompsetts;’ the Saxon being as fully popularised in our ‘Thompkins,’ ‘Tompkins,’ ‘Tomkins,’ and ‘Tomkinsons.’ The softer termination is also firmly settled in our ‘Thomlins,’ ‘Tomlins,’ and ‘Tomlinsons.’^[88] More abbreviated patronymics are to be met 94with also in our ‘Thomms,’ ‘Thoms,’ and ‘Toms.’ With so many representatives in the list of rational beings, we need not be surprised to find the lower order of creation under obligations to this title. It was with the death of St. Thomas of Canterbury, and the consequent popularity of his name, arose so many sobriquets of which the same name became a component part. The cat became a ‘tom-cat,’ a simple-natured man a ‘tom-coney,’ a silly fellow a ‘tom-noddy’ or ‘tom-fool,’ a romping girl a ‘tom-boy,’ and a wren a ‘tom-tit.’ Andrew has made little impression on English nomenclature, but in Scotland he is universal,^[89] for not only is St. Andrew the patron saint, but some of his relics are said to have been brought thither in the 4th century. ‘Andrew,’ ‘Andrews,’ and ‘Anderson’ are its surnames, but nearly all belong to the north side of the Tweed. ‘James,’ too, has failed to be popular in England, but ‘John’ in the shape of ‘Jack’ has robbed him, as we have seen, of nearly all his property. Such entries as ‘James le Queynt,’ or ‘Ralph Jamson,’ or ‘William Gimmison,’ were occasionally registered, and in the form of ‘James’ ‘Jameson,’ ‘Jimson’ and ‘Jimpson’ they still exist.^[90] ‘Jamieson’ is Scotch. Of the Gospel writers we have already noticed ‘Matthew’ and ‘John.’ In ‘Mark’ we see the progenitor not merely of our ‘Marks’ and 95the Latinized ‘Marcus,’ but of ‘Marcock,’ ‘Markin,’ and ‘Marson’ also. The mention of ‘Luke’ recalls such names as ‘Luckins,’ ‘Luckock,’ ‘Lucock,’ or ‘Locock,’ ‘Luckett,’ and perchance ‘Lockett.’ It is in the form of ‘Lucus,’ however, that he is generally known. The author of ‘Piers Plowman’ speaks of ‘Marc,’ ‘Mathew,’ ‘Johan,’ and ‘Lucas.’

Of the later period of New Testament history, few names were better represented than ‘Nicholas,’ but it was ‘St. Nicholas’ of the fourth century who chiefly gave it its position. Owing to several well-known legends that connected themselves with this famous Archbishop of Myra, he became the patron saint of boys, sailors, parish clerks, and even thieves. Two of the most favoured curtailments of this name were ‘Nicol’ and ‘Nick.’ From the one we have derived our ‘Nicholls’ and ‘Nicholsons;’ from the other our ‘Nixs,’ ‘Nicks,’ ‘Nixons,’ ‘Nicksons,’ and ‘Nickersons.’ Judging from our surnames, ‘Nick’ was the more favoured term. In the old song ‘Joan to the Maypole,’ it is said:

Nan, Noll, Kate, Moll,

Brave lasses have lads to attend ’em;

Hodge, Nick, Tom, Dick,

Brave country dancers, who can amend ’em?

But the most popular form of all was that of ‘Cole’^[91] or ‘Colin,’ which came to us through the Normans. ‘Colin’ is one more instance of the diminutive 96‘on’ or ‘in.’ Thus we derive our ‘Collins,’ ‘Collinsons,’ and ‘Colsons.’ The more usual desinence still lives in our ‘Colletts’ and ‘Colets.’ This is the form found in one of the ‘Coventry Mysteries,’ where allusion is made to

Kytt Cakeler, and Colett Crane,

Gylle Fetyse, and Fayr Jane.

Miss Yonge mentions a ‘Collette Boilet’ who, in the fifteenth century, caused a reformation of the nuns of St. Clara, and Mr. Lower has a ‘St. Colette,’ whose parents had given him the name out of respect to ‘St. Nicholas.’ ‘Coletta Clarke’ is found in Clutterbuck’s ‘Hertford’ (Index). St. Nicholas, it is clear, was not neglected.

The proto-martyr Stephen has left many memorials in our nomenclature of the popularity which his story obtained among the English peasantry. The name proper is found in such entries as ‘Esteven Walays,’ or ‘Jordan fil. Stephen,’ and their descendants now figure amongst us as ‘Stephens,’ ‘Stevens,’ ‘Stephenson,’ and ‘Stevenson.’ More curtailed forms are met with in ‘Steenson’ and ‘Stinson,’ and the more corrupted ‘Stimson’ and ‘Stimpson.’ The Norman diminutive was of course ‘Stevenet’ or ‘Stevenot,’ and this still remains with us in our ‘Stennets’ and ‘Stennetts.’ Nor do Paul and Barnabas lack memorials. Traces of the former are found in our ‘Polsons,’^[92] ‘Pawsons,’ ‘Powlsons,’ and more correct ‘Paulsons.’ 97In one of these, at least, we are reminded of the old pronunciation of this name. Piers Plowman styles it ‘Powel,’ and even so late as 1562 we find Heywood writing the following epigram:—

Rob Peter and pay Poule, thou sayst I do;

But thou robst and poulst Peter and Poule, too.

This at once explains the origin of our more diminutive ‘Pauletts,’ ‘Pouletts,’ ‘Powletts,’ and ‘Pollitts.’^[93] ‘Barnabas’ has left his impress upon our ‘Barnabys,’ and when not local, ‘Barnbys.’ Miss Yonge mentions an epitaph in Durham, dated 1633, commemorative of one of the proctors of the chapter—

Under this thorne tree

Lies honest Barnabee.

A century later we find it in one of D’Orsey’s ballads—

Davy the drowsy, and Barnaby bowzy,

At breakfast will flout and will jeer, boys;

Sluggards shall chatter, with small beer and water,

Whilst you shall tope off the March beer, boys.—Vol. i. 311.

This name is now entirely out of fashion.

With five Alexanders in the New Testament it did not need the celebrity of the great commander nor that of more fabulous heroes to make his name common. In Scotland it obtained great favour, both in palace and cottage. The softer form was always used. Chaucer says—

Alisaundre’s storie is commune;

and Langland, among other foreign places of interest, speaks of

Armonye and Alisaundre.

98This was no doubt the popular pronunciation of the time, except that it was usually abbreviated into ‘Sander,’ or ‘Saunder.’ Thus, in ‘Cocke Lorells Bote,’ it is said—

Here is Saunder Sadeler, of Frog-street Corner,

With Jelyan Joly at sign of the Bokeler.

Hence it is we find such entries as ‘Thomas fil. Saundre,’ ‘John Alisaundre,’ ‘Edward Saundercock,’ or ‘Sandres Ewart,’ and hence again such surnames as ‘Sandercock,’ ‘Sanderson,’ ‘Saunderson,’ ‘Sanders,’ and ‘Saunders.’ ‘Timothy,’ saving in ‘Timms,’ ‘Timbs,’ ‘Timson,’ and ‘Timcock,’ seems to have been overlooked, and yet Glutton in ‘Piers Plowman’ is followed into the tavern by

Wat the warner, and his wife both,

Tymme the tinker, and twain of his ’prentices.

But, however unfortunate Paul’s spiritual son may have been, the same cannot be said of Clement, his fellow-labourer. Raised to high distinction as the title of one of the greatest of the early fathers, a popular name among the Popes (for no less than fourteen were found to bear the sobriquet), Clement could not fail to meet with honour. Its usual forms were ‘Clement,’ ‘Clemence,’ and ‘Clemency.’ Diminutives were found also in ‘Clem’ and ‘Clim.’ Of the noted North English archer it is said, in one of the Robin Hood ballads—

And Clim of the Clough hath plenty enough,

If he but a penny can spare;

and in the old song of the ‘Green-gown’ a rhyme is easily secured by the conjunction of such names as—

Clem, Joan, and Isabel,

Sue, Alice, and bonny Nell.

99The chief surnames whose paternity is traceable to ‘Clement’ are ‘Clements,’ ‘Clementson,’ ‘Clemms,’ ‘Clemson,’ and ‘Clempson.’ Archangelic names are found in our ‘Gabbs,’ ‘Gabbots,’ and ‘Gabcocks,’ from ‘Gabriel;’ and in our ‘Michaelson,’ ‘Mitchels,’ and ‘Mitchelsons,’ from ‘Michael.’

But let us somewhat more closely analyse these names. As I have said before, from the most casual survey one thing is evident, they represent the Church’s Calendar rather than the Church’s Bible. They are the extract of sacred legends rather than of Holy Writ. There is not a single name to betray any internal acquaintance with the Scriptures. Nor could there well be. An English Bible was unknown, and had there been one to consult, the reading powers of the nation were too limited for it to have been much used. Many of the clergy themselves could not read. Thus the Bible, so far as extends beyond the leading incidents it contains, was a sealed book. This had its effect upon our nomenclature. We cannot find a single trace of acquaintance with its rarer histories. What a wide change in this respect did Wicklyffe and the Reformation effect! With an English Bible in their hand, with the clearing away of the mists of ignorance and superstition, with the destruction of all forces that could obstruct the spread of knowledge, all was altered. The Bible, posted up in every church, might be read of all—and all who could probably did read it. This at once had its effect upon our nomenclature. Names familiar enough in our own day to those ordinarily conversant with the Scriptures, but till then absolutely unknown, were brought forth from their hiding-places and made subservient to the new 100impulse of the nation. Names associated with the more obscure books, and with personages less directly confronting us in our study of the Word, begin now to be inscribed upon our registers. The ‘Proceedings in Chancery’ is the best evidence how far this had affected our nomenclature towards the close of the reign of Elizabeth. We come across such names, for example, as ‘Ezechie Newbold,’ ‘Dyna Bocher,’ ‘Phenenna Salmon,’ ‘Ezekiel Guppye,’ ‘Dedimus Buckland,’ ‘Esdras Botright,’ ‘Sydrach Sympson,’ ‘Judith Botswain,’ ‘Isachar Brookes,’ ‘Gamaliel Capell,’ ‘Emanuel Cole,’ ‘Abigaill Cordell,’ ‘Reuben Crane,’ ‘Amos Boteler,’ ‘Philologus Forth,’ ‘Zabulon Clerke,’ ‘Archelaus Gifford,’ ‘Gideon Hancock,’ ‘Seth Awcocke,’ ‘Abacucke Harman,’ or ‘Melchizedek Payn.’ The ‘State Papers’ (domestic) of James I.’s reign are still more largely imbued with the new influence. We are now brought face to face with entries such as ‘Uriah Babington,’ ‘Aquila Wykes,’ ‘Hilkiah Crooke,’ ‘Caleb Morley,’ ‘Philemon Powell,’ ‘Melchior Rainald,’ ‘Zachæus Ivitt,’ ‘Ananias Dyce,’ ‘Agrippina Bingley,’ ‘Apollonia Cotton,’ or ‘Phineas Pett.’ So far, however, the change was of a certain kind. These new names did not clash with the old nomenclature. There was a greater variety, that was all. Both romance and sacred names went together, and in the same family might be seen ‘John’ and ‘Ralph,’ ‘Isaac’ and ‘Robert,’ ‘Reuben’ and ‘Richard.’ But a new spirit was being infused into the heart of the nation, that spirit which at length brought about the Puritan Commonwealth. We all know how this great change came. It is neither our intention, nor need we enter into it here. Sufficient 101for our purpose that it came. This revolution marvellously affected our nomenclature. It was not simply that the old and, so to speak, pagan names ‘William,’ ‘Roland,’ ‘Edward,’ ‘Ralph,’ ‘Aymon,’ and a hundred others, once household words, were condemned to oblivion, but even the names of the Christian saints were ignored. ‘Cromwell,’ says Cleveland, ‘hath beat up his drums clean through the Old Testament—you may know the genealogy of our Saviour by the names of his regiment. The muster master hath no other list than the first chapter of St. Matthew.’ The Old Testament, indeed, seems to have been alone in favour.^[94] The practice of choosing such designations borrowed therefrom as ‘Enoch,’ ‘Hiram,’ ‘Seth,’ ‘Phineas,’ ‘Eli,’ ‘Obadiah,’ ‘Job,’ ‘Joel,’ ‘Hezekiah,’ ‘Habbakuk,’ ‘Caleb,’ ‘Zeruiah,’ ‘Joshua,’ ‘Hephzibah,’ or ‘Zerubbabel,’ has left its mark to this very day, especially in our more retired country districts. Self-abasement showed itself, at least externally, in the choice of names of bad repute. ‘Cains,’ ‘Absoloms,’ ‘Abners,’ ‘Delilahs,’ ‘Dinahs,’ ‘Tamars,’ ‘Korahs,’ ‘Abirams,’ and ‘Sapphiras,’^[95] 102abounded. Nor was this all. Of all excesses those of a religious character are proverbially most intemperate in their course. Abstract qualities, prominent words of Scriptures, nay, even short and familiar sentences culled from its pages, or parodied, were tacked on to represent the Christian name. Camden mentions, as existing in his own day, such appellations as ‘Free-gift,’ ‘Reformation,’ ‘Earth,’ ‘Dust,’ ‘Ashes,’ ‘Delivery,’ ‘Morefruit,’ ‘Tribulation,’ ‘The Lord is near,’ ‘More trial,’ ‘Discipline,’ ‘Joy again,’ ‘From above’—names which, he says, ‘have lately been given by some to their children, with no evil meaning, but upon some singular and precise conceit.’ ‘Praise-God-Barebones’ is but another specimen of this extraordinary spirit. The brother of this latter could boast a still longer sobriquet. He had chosen for himself, it is said, the title, ‘If-Christ-had-not-died-for-you-you-had-been-damned-Barebones,’ but his acquaintances becoming wearied of its length, retained only the last word, and as ‘Damned-Barebones’ left him a sobriquet more curt than pleasant. The following is a list of a jury said to have been enclosed in the county of Sussex at this time, and selected of course from the number of the Saints:—

Accepted Trevor of Norsham.

Redeemed Compton of Battle.

Faint-not Hewit of Heathfield.

Make-peace Heaton of Hare.

God-reward Smart of Fivehurst.

Stand-fast-on-high Stringer of Crowhurst.

103Earth Adams of Waketon.

Called Lower of the same.

Kill-sin Pimple of Witham.

Return Spelman of Watling.

Be-faithful Joiner of Butling.

Fly-debate Roberts of the same.

Fight-the-good-fight-of-faith White of Emer.

More-fruit Fowler of East Hadly.

Hope-for Bending of the same.

Graceful Herding of Lewes.

Weep-not Billing of the same.

Meek Brewer of Oakeham.

The above list may be thought by many a mere burlesque, and so I doubt not it is, but a similar category could be quickly put together from more reliable sources, and some of the names therein set down did certainly exist. The following entries are quoted by Mr. Lower from the registers of Warbleton:—

1617. Be-stedfast Elyarde.

— Goodgift Gynnings.

1622. Lament Willard.

1624. Defend Outered.

1625. Faint-not Dighurst.

— Fere-not Rhodes.

1677. Replenish French.^[96]

The ‘Proceedings in Chancery’ furnish us with ‘Virtue Hunt,’ ‘Temperance Dowlande,’ ‘Charitie Bowes,’ and ‘Lamentation Chapman.’ The ‘Visitation of Yorkshire’ gives us ‘Fayth Neville,’ ‘Grace Clayton,’ ‘Troth Bellingham,’ and ‘Prudence Spenser;’ and amongst other more general instances may be mentioned ‘Experience Mayhew,’^[97] ‘Abstinence 104Pougher,’^[98] ‘Increase Mather,’^[99] ‘Thankfull Frewen,’ ‘Accepted Frewen,’^[100] ‘Live-well Sherwood,’^[101] ‘Faythful Fortescue,’^[102] and ‘Silence Leigh.’^[103] The more extraordinary and rabid phases of this spirit have now passed away, but the general effect remains. It is from this date, I have said, must be noted the declension of such a familiar name as ‘Humphrey,’ or ‘Ralph,’ or ‘Joscelyn,’ and of the romance names generally. From this date we perceive the use of some of our present most familiar and till then well-nigh unknown baptismal names.

With the restoration of Charles II. much of the more rhapsodic features of this curious spirit died out, but it is more than probable it was fed elsewhere. The rigorous persecution of the Nonconformists which marked and blotted his reign, the persecuting spirit which drove hundreds to seek beyond the seas that asylum for religious liberty which was denied them at 105home, could have none other effect than to make these settlers cling the more tenaciously to the new scheme of doctrine and practice, for which they had sacrificed so much. Thus the feeling which had led them at home to allow the Written Word to be the only source from which to select names for their children, or to make substitutions for their own, was not likely to be suppressed in the backwoods.^[104] Their very life and its surroundings there but harmonized with the primitive histories of those whose names they had chosen. A kind of affinity seemed to be established between them. This spirit was fanned by the very paucity of population, and the difficulty of keeping up any connexion with the outer world. They were shut up within themselves, and thus the Bible became to them, not so much a record of the past as that through which ran the chronicle of the present. It was a living thread interwoven into their very lives. Their history was inscribed in its pages, their piety was fed by its doctrines. Its impress lay upon all, its influence pervaded all. All this has left its mark upon Anglo-American nomenclature—nay, to such a degree do these influences still exist, that, though derived from the same sources, the American system and our own can scarce be viewed otherwise than as separate and distinct. Rare, indeed, are the early romance and the Teutonic names in those tracts 106where the descendants of the primitive settlers are found. All are derived from the Scriptures, or are of that fancy character, a love of which arose with their Puritan forefathers. Appellations such as ‘Seth,’ or ‘Abel,’ or ‘Lot,’ or ‘Jonas,’ or ‘Asa,’ or ‘Jabez,’ or ‘Abijah,’ or ‘Phineas,’ or ‘Priscilla,’ or ‘Epaphroditus,’ abound on every hand. Sobriquets like ‘Faith,’ and ‘Hope,’ and ‘Charity,’ and ‘Patience,’ and ‘Prudence,’ and ‘Grace,’ and ‘Mercy,’ have become literally as household words, and names yet more uncouth and strange may be heard every day, sounding oddly indeed to English ears. There would seem to have been a revulsion of feeling, even from such of the Biblical names as had lived in the earlier centuries of our history, as if the connexion of ‘Peter,’ and ‘John,’ and ‘James,’ and ‘Thomas’ with others of more pagan origin had made them unworthy of further use; certain it is, that these are in no way so familiar with them as with us. Such are the strange humours that pass over the hearts of men and communities. Such are the changes that the nomenclature of peoples, as well as of places and things, undergo through the more extraordinary convulsions which sometimes seize the body corporate of society. Truly it is a strange story this that our surnames tell us. ‘What’s in a name?’ in the light of all this, seems indeed but a pleasantry, meant to denote how full, how teeming with the story of our lives is each—as so they are.

107