The Project Gutenberg EBook of Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature, by Charles W. Bardsley This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature Author: Charles W. Bardsley Release Date: March 28, 2012 [EBook #39284] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CURIOSITIES OF PURITAN NOMENCLATURE *** Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive.) CURIOSITIES OF PURITAN NOMENCLATURE By the same Author. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d. OUR ENGLISH SURNAMES: their Sources and Significations. “Mr. Bardsley has faithfully consulted the original mediæval documents and works from which the origin and development of surnames can alone be satisfactorily traced. He has furnished a valuable contribution to the literature of surnames, and we hope to hear more of him in this field.”—Times. CHATTO AND WINDUS, PICCADILLY, W. CURIOSITIES OF PURITAN NOMENCLATURE BY CHARLES W. BARDSLEY AUTHOR OF “ENGLISH SURNAMES, THEIR SOURCES AND SIGNIFICATIONS” “O my lord, The times and titles now are alter’d strangely” King Henry VIII. London CHATTO AND WINDUS, PICCADILLY 1880 [The right of translation is reserved] Printed by William Clowes and Sons, Limited, London and Beccles. DEDICATED TO HIS FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE HARLEIAN SOCIETY. PREFACE. I will not be so ill-natured as to quote the names of all the writers who have denied the existence of Puritan eccentricities at the font. One, at least, ought to have known better, for he has edited more books of the Puritan epoch than any other man in England. The mistake of all is that, misled perhaps by Walter Scott and Macaulay, they have looked solely to the Commonwealth period. The custom was then in its decay. I have to thank several clergymen for giving me extracts from the registers and records under their care. A stranger to them, I felt some diffidence in making my requests. In every case the assistance I asked for was readily extended. These gentlemen are the Rev. W. Sparrow Simpson, St. Matthew, Friday Street, London; the Rev. W. Wodehouse, Elham, Canterbury; the Rev. J. B. Waytes, Markington, Yorks.; the Rev. William Tebbs, Caterham Valley; the Rev. Canon Howell, Drayton, Norwich; the Rev. J. O. Lord, Northiam, Staplehurst; and the Rev. G. E. Haviland, Warbleton, Sussex. The last-named gentleman copied no less than 120 names, all of Puritan origin, from the Warbleton records. I beg to thank him most warmly, and to congratulate him on possessing the most remarkable register of its kind in England. Certain circumstances led me to suspect that Warbleton was a kind of head-quarters of these eccentricities; I wrote to the rector, and we soon found that we had “struck ile.” That Mr. Heley, the Puritan incumbent, should have baptized his own children by such names as Fear-not and Much-mercy, was not strange, but that he should have persuaded the majority of his parishioners to follow his example proves wonderful personal influence. Amongst the laity, I owe gratitude to Mr. Chaloner Smith, Richmond, Surrey; Mr. R. R. Lloyd, St. Albans; Mr. J. [Pg vii] [Pg viii] E. Bailey, F.S.A., Manchester; Mr. J. L. Beardsley, Cleveland, U.S.A.; Mr. Tarbutts, Cranbrook, Kent; and Mr. Speed, Ulverston. Of publications, I must needs mention Notes and Queries, a treasure-house to all antiquaries; the Sussex Archæological Society’s works, and the Yorkshire Archæological and Topographical Journal. The “Wappentagium de Strafford” of the latter is the best document yet published for students of nomenclature. Out of it alone a complete history of English surnames and baptismal names might be written. Though inscribed with clerkly formality, it contained more pet forms than any other record I have yet seen; and this alone must stamp it as a most important document. The Harleian Society, by publishing church registers, have set a good example, and I have made much use of those that have been issued. They contain few instances of Puritan extravagance, but that is owing to the fact that no leading Puritan was minister of any of the three churches whose records they have so far printed. I sincerely hope the list of subscribers to this society may become enlarged. For the rest—the result of twelve years’ research—I am alone responsible. Heavy clerical responsibilities have often been lightened by a holiday spent among the yellow parchments of churches in town and country, from north to south of England. As it is possible I have seen as many registers as any other man in the country, I will add one statement—a very serious one: there are thousands of entries, at this moment faintly legible, which in another generation will be wholly illegible. What is to be done? Should this little work meet the eye of any of the clergy in Sussex, Kent, and, I may add, Surrey, I would like to state that if they will search the baptismal records of the churches under their charge, say from 1580 to 1620, and furnish me with the result, I shall be very much obliged. Vicarage, Ulverston, March, 1880. NOTE. W. D. S. in the Prologue = “Wappentagium de Strafford.” C. S. P. = “Calendar of State Papers.” CONTENTS. PROLOGUE. THE PET-NAME EPOCH IN ENGLAND. PAGE I. The Paucity of Names after the Conquest 1 II. Pet Forms 9 (a.) Kin 9 (b.) Cock 13 (c.) On or In 17 (d.) Ot or Et 21 (e.) Double Terminatives. 30 III. Scripture Names already in use at the Reformation 34 (a.) Mystery Names 34 (b.) Crusade Names 35 (c.) The Saints’ Calendar 36 (d.) Festival Names 36 [Pg ix] [Pg x] [Pg xi] CHAPTER I. THE HEBREW INVASION. I. The March of the Army 38 II. Popularity of the Old Testament 59 III. Objectionable Scripture Names 70 IV. Losses 76 (a.) The Destruction of Pet Forms 76 (b.) The Decrease of Nick Forms 82 (c.) The Decay of Saint and Festival Names 92 (d.) The Last of some Old Favourites 99 V. The General Confusion 109 CHAPTER II. PURITAN ECCENTRICITIES. I. Introductory 117 II. Originated by the Presbyterian Clergy 121 III. Curious Names not Puritan 128 IV. Instances 134 (a.) Latin Names 134 (b.) Grace Names 138 (c.) Exhortatory Names 155 (d.) Accidents of Birth 166 (e.) General 176 V. A Scoffing World 179 (a.) The Playwrights 182 (b.) The Sussex Jury 191 (c.) Royalists with Puritan Names 194 VI. Bunyan’s Debt to the Puritans 198 VII. The Influence of Puritanism on American Nomenclature 201 EPILOGUE. DOUBLE CHRISTIAN NAMES: THEIR RISE AND PROGRESS. I. Royal Double Names 213 II. Conjoined Names 222 III. Hyphened Names 224 IV. The Decay of Single Patronymics in Baptism 228 V. The Influence of Foundling Names upon Double Baptismal Names 233 Index 239 CURIOSITIES OF PURITAN NOMENCLATURE. PROLOGUE. THE PET-NAME EPOCH IN ENGLAND. “One grows too fat, another too lean: modest Matilda, pretty pleasing Peg, sweet-singing Susan, [Pg xii] [Pg 1] mincing merry Moll, dainty dancing Doll, neat Nancy, jolly Joan, nimble Nell, kissing Kate, bouncing Bess with black eyes, fair Phillis with fine white hands, fiddling Frank, tall Tib, slender Sib, will quickly lose their grace, grow fulsome, stale, sad, heavy, dull, sour, and all at last out of fashion.”—Anatomy of Melancholy. “Be the jacks fair within, the jills fair without, the carpets laid, and everything in order?”—The Taming of the Shrew. I. The Paucity of Names after the Conquest. There were no Scripture names in England when the Conqueror took possession; even in Normandy they had appeared but a generation or two before William came over. If any are found in the old English period, we may feel assured they were ecclesiastic titles, adopted at ordination. Greek and Latin saints were equally unnoticed. It is hard to believe the statement I have made. Before many generations had passed, Bartholomew, Simon, Peter, Philip, Thomas, Nicholas, John, and Elias, had engrossed a third of the male population; yet Domesday Book has no Philip, no Thomas, only one Nicholas, and but a sprinkling of Johns. It was not long before Jack and Jill took the place of Godric and Godgivu as representative of the English sexes, yet Jack was from the Bible, and Jill from the saintly Calendar. Without entering into a deep discussion, we may say that the great mass of the old English names had gone down before the year 1200 had been reached. Those that survived only held on for bare existence. From the moment of William’s advent, the names of the Norman began to prevail. He brought in Bible names, Saint names, and his own Teutonic names. The old English names bowed to them, and disappeared. A curious result followed. From the year 1150 to 1550, four hundred years in round numbers, there was a very much smaller dictionary of English personal names than there had been for four hundred years before, and than there has been in the four hundred years since. The Norman list was really a small one, and yet it took possession of the whole of England. A consequence of this was the Pet-name Epoch. In every community of one hundred Englishmen about the year 1300, there would be an average of twenty Johns and fifteen Williams; then would follow Thomas, Bartholomew, Nicholas, Philip, Simon, Peter, and Isaac from the Scriptures, and Richard, Robert, Walter, Henry, Guy, Roger, and Baldwin from the Teutonic list. Of female names, Matilda, Isabella, and Emma were first favourites, and Cecilia, Catharine, Margaret, and Gillian came closely upon their heels. Behind these, again, followed a fairly familiar number of names of either sex, some from the Teuton, some from the Hebrew, some from the Greek and Latin Church, but, when all told, not a large category. It was, of course, impossible for Englishmen and Englishwomen to maintain their individuality on these terms. Various methods to secure a personality arose. The surname was adopted, and there were John Atte-wood, John the Wheelwright, John the Bigg, and John Richard’s son, in every community. Among the middle and lower classes these did not become hereditary till so late as 1450 or 1500.[1] This was not enough, for in common parlance it was not likely the full name would be used. Besides, there might be two, or even three, Johns in the same family. So late as March, 1545, the will of John Parnell de Gyrton runs: “Alice, my wife, and Old John, my son, to occupy my farm together, till Olde John marries; Young John, my son, shall have Brenlay’s land, plowed and sowed at Old John’s cost.” The register of Raby, Leicestershire, has this entry: “1559. Item: 29th day of August was John, and John Picke, the children of Xtopher and Anne, baptized. “Item: the 31st of August the same John and John were buried.” Mr. Burns, who quotes these instances in his “History of Parish Registers,” adds that at this same time “one John Barker had three sons named John Barker, and two daughters named Margaret Barker.”[2] If the same family had but one name for the household, we may imagine the difficulty when this one name was also popular throughout the village. The difficulty was naturally solved by, firstly, the adoption of nick forms; secondly, the addition of pet desinences. Thus Emma became by the one practice simple Emm, by the other Emmott; and any number of boys in a small community might be entered in a register as Bartholomew, and yet preserve their individuality in work-a-day life by bearing such names as Bat, Bate, Batty, Bartle, Bartelot, Batcock, Batkin, and Tolly, or Tholy. In a word, these several forms of Bartholomew were treated as so many separate proper names. No one would think of describing Wat Tyler’s—we should now say Walter Tyler’s—insurrection as Gowen does: “Watte vocat, cui Thoma venit, neque Symme retardat, [Pg 2] [Pg 3] [Pg 4] [Pg 5] [Pg 6] Bat—que Gibbe simul, Hykke venire subent: Colle furit, quem Bobbe juvat, nocumenta parantes, Cum quibus, ad damnum Wille coire volat— Crigge rapit, dum Davie strepit, comes est quibus Hobbe, Larkin et in medio non minor esse putat: Hudde ferit, quem Judde terit, dum Tibbe juvatur Jacke domosque viros vellit, en ense necat.” These names, taken in order, are Walter, Thomas, Simon, Bartholomew, Gilbert, Isaac, Nicholas, Robert, William, Gregory, David, Robert (2), Lawrence, Hugh, Jordan (or George), Theobald, and John. Another instance will be evidence enough. The author of “Piers Plowman” says— “Then goeth Glutton in, and grete other after, Cesse, the sonteresse, sat on the bench: Watte, the warner, and his wife bothe: Tymme, the tynkere, and twayne of his prentices: Hikke, the hackney man, and Hugh, the pedlere, Clarice, of Cokkeslane, and the clerke of the churche: Dawe, the dykere, and a dozen othere.” Taken in their order, these nick forms represent Cecilia, Walter, Timothy, Isaac, Clarice, and David. It will be seen at a glance that such appellatives are rare, by comparison, in the present day. Tricks of this kind were not to be played with Bible names at the Reformation, and the new names from that time were pronounced, with such exceptions as will be detailed hereafter, in their fulness. To speak of William and John is to speak of a race and rivalry 800 years old. In Domesday there were 68 Williams, 48 Roberts, 28 Walters, to 10 Johns. Robert Montensis asserts that in 1173, at a court feast of Henry II., Sir William St. John and Sir William Fitz-Hamon bade none but those who bore the name of William to appear. There were present 120 Williams, all knights. In Edward I.’s reign John came forward. In a Wiltshire document containing 588 names, 92 are William, 88 John, 55 Richard, 48 Robert, 23 Roger, Geoffrey, Ralph, and Peter 16. A century later John was first. In 1347, out of 133 common councilmen for London, first convened, 35 were John, 17 William, 15 Thomas, (St. Thomas of Canterbury was now an institution), 10 Richard, 8 Henry, 8 Robert. In 1385 the Guild of St. George at Norwich contained 377 names. Of these, John engrossed no less than 128, William 47, Thomas 41. The Reformation and the Puritan Commonwealth for a time darkened the fortunes of John and William, but the Protestant accession befriended the latter, and now, as 800 years ago, William is first and John second. But when we come to realize that nearly one-third of Englishmen were known either by the name of William or John about the year 1300, it will be seen that the pet name and nick form were no freak, but a necessity. We dare not attempt a category, but the surnames of to-day tell us much. Will was quite a distinct youth from Willot, Willot from Wilmot, Wilmot from Wilkin, and Wilkin from Wilcock. There might be half a dozen Johns about the farmstead, but it mattered little so long as one was called Jack, another Jenning, a third Jenkin, a fourth Jackcock (now Jacox as a surname), a fifth Brownjohn, and a sixth Micklejohn, or Littlejohn, or Properjohn (i.e. well built or handsome). The nick forms are still familiar in many instances, though almost entirely confined to such names as have descended from that day to the present. We still talk of Bob, and Tom, and Dick, and Jack. The introduction of Bible names at the Reformation did them much harm. But the Reformation, and the English Bible combined, utterly overwhelmed the pet desinences, and they succumbed. Emmot and Hamlet lived till the close of the seventeenth century, but only because they had ceased to be looked upon as altered forms of old favourite names, and were entered in vestry books on their own account as orthodox proper names. II. Pet Forms. These pet desinences were of four kinds. (a) Kin. The primary sense of kin seems to have been relationship: from thence family, or offspring. The phrases “from generation to generation,” or “from father to son,” in “Cursor Mundi” find a briefer expression: “This writte was gett fra kin to kin, That best it cuth to haf in min.” The next meaning acquired by kin was child, or “young one.” We still speak in a diminutive sense of a manikin, kilderkin, pipkin, lambkin, jerkin, minikin (little minion), or doitkin. Appended to baptismal names it became very [Pg 7] [Pg 8] [Pg 9] familiar. “A litul soth Sermun” says— “Nor those prude yongemen That loveth Malekyn, And those prude maydenes That loveth Janekyn: · · · · Masses and matins Ne kepeth they nouht, For Wilekyn and Watekyn Be in their thouht.” Unquestionably the incomers from Brabant and Flanders, whether as troopers or artisans, gave a great impulse to the desinence. They tacked it on to everything: “Rutterkin can speke no Englyssh, His tongue runneth all on buttyred fyssh, Besmeared with grece abowte his dysshe Like a rutter hoyda.” They brought in Hankin, and Han-cock, from Johannes; not to say Baudkin, or Bodkin, from Baldwin. Baudechon le Bocher in the Hundred Rolls, and Simmerquin Waller, lieutenant of the Castle of Harcourt in “Wars of the English in France,” look delightfully Flemish. Hankin is found late: “Thus for her love and loss poor Hankin dies, His amorous soul down flies.” “Musarum Deliciæ,” 1655. To furnish a list of English names ending in kin would be impossible. The great favourites were Hopkin (Robert),[3] Lampkin and Lambkin (Lambert), Larkin (Lawrence), Tonkin (Antony), Dickin, Stepkin (Stephen),[4] Dawkin (David), Adkin,[5] now Atkin (Adam, not Arthur), Jeffkin (Jeffrey), Pipkin and Potkin (Philip), Simkin, Tipkin (Theobald), Tomkin, Wilkin, Watkin (Walter), Jenkin, Silkin (Sybil),[6] Malkin (Mary), Perkin (Peter), Hankin (Hans), and Halkin or Hawkin (Henry). Pashkin or Paskin reminds us of Pask or Pash, the old baptismal name for children born at Easter. Judkin (now as a surname also Juckin) was the representative of Judd, that is, Jordan. George afterwards usurped the place. All these names would be entered in their orthodox baptismal style in all formal records. But here and there we get free and easy entries, as for instance: “Agnes Hobkin-wyf, iiiid.”—W. D. S. “Henry, son of Halekyn, for 17½ acres of land.”—“De Lacy Inquisition,” 1311. “Emma Watkyn-doghter, iiiid.”—W. D. S. “Thi beste cote, Hankyn, Hath manye moles and spottes, It moste ben y-wasshe.” “Piers Plowman.” Malkin was one of the few English female names with this appendage. Some relics of this form of Mary still remain. Malkin in Shakespeare is the coarse scullery wench: “The kitchen malkin pins Her richest lockram ’bout her reechy neck, Clambering the walls to eye him.” “Coriolanus,” Act ii. sc. 1. While the author of the “Anatomy of Melancholy” is still more unkind, for he says— “A filthy knave, a deformed quean, a crooked carcass, a maukin, a witch, a rotten post, a hedge-stake may be so set out and tricked up, that it shall make a fair show, as much enamour as the rest.”—Part iii. sect. 2, mem. 2, sub-sect. 3. From a drab Malkin became a scarecrow. Hence Chaucer talks of “malkin-trash.” As if this were not enough, malkin became the baker’s clout to clean ovens with. Thus, as Jack took the name of the implements Jack used, as in boot-jack, so by easy transitions Malkin. The last hit was when Grimalkin (that is, grey-malkin) came to be the cant term for an old worn-out quean cat. Hence the witch’s name in “Macbeth.” It will be seen at a glance why Malkin is the only name of this class that has no place among our surnames.[7] She had lost character. I have suggested, in “English Surnames,” that Makin, Meakin, and Makinson owe their origin [Pg 10] [Pg 11] [Pg 12] [Pg 13] to either Mary or Maud. I would retract that supposition. There can be little doubt these are patronymics of Matthew, just as is Maycock or Meacock. Maykinus Lappyng occurs in “Materials for a History of Henry VII.,” and the Maykina Parmunter of the Hundred Rolls is probably but a feminine form. The masculine name was often turned into a feminine, but I have never seen an instance of the reverse order. Terminations in kin were slightly going down in popular estimation, when the Hebrew invasion made a clean sweep of them. They found shelter in Wales, however, and our directories preserve in their list of surnames their memorial for ever.[8] (b) Cock. The term “cock” implied pertness: especially the pertness of lusty and swaggering youth. To cock up the eye, or the hat, or the tail, a haycock in a field, a cock-robin in the wood, and a cock-horse in the nursery, all had the same relationship of meaning—brisk action, pert demonstrativeness. The barn-door cockerel was not more cockapert than the boy in the scullery that opened upon the yard where both strutted. Hence any lusty lad was “Cock,” while such fuller titles as Jeff-cock, or Sim-cock, or Bat-cock gave him a preciser individuality. The story of “Cocke Lorelle” is a relic of this; while the prentice lad in “Gammer Gurton’s Needle,” acted at Christ College, Cambridge, in 1566, goes by the only name of “Cock.” Tib the servant wench says to Hodge, after the needle is gone— “My Gammer is so out of course, and frantic all at once, That Cock our boy, and I, poor wench, have felt it on our bones.” By-and-by Gammer calls the lad to search: “Come hither, Cock: what, Cock, I say. Cock. How, Gammer? Gammer. Go, hie thee soon: and grope behind the old brass pan.” Such terms as nescock, meacock, dawcock, pillicock, or lobcock may be compounds—unless they owe their origin to “cockeney,” a spoiled, home-cherished lad. In “Wit without Money” Valentine says— “For then you are meacocks, fools, and miserable.” In “Appius and Virginia” (1563) Mausipula says (Act i. sc. 1)— “My lady’s great business belike is at end, When you, goodman dawcock, lust for to wend.” In “King Lear” “Pillicock sat on pillicock-hill” seems an earlier rendering of the nursery rhyme— “Pillicock, Pillicock sate on a hill, If he’s not gone, he sits there still.” In “Wily Beguiled” Will Cricket says to Churms— “Why, since you were bumbasted that your lubberly legs would not carry your lobcock body.” These words have their value in proving how familiarly the term cock was employed in forming nicknames. That it should similarly be appended to baptismal names, especially the nick form of Sim, Will, or Jeff, can therefore present no difficulty. Cock was almost as common as “kin” as a desinence. Sim-cock was Simcock to the end of his days, of course, if his individuality had come to be known by the name. “Hamme, son of Adecock, held 29 acres of land. “Mokock de la Lowe, for 10 acres. “Mokock dal Moreclough, for six acres. “Dik, son of Mocock, of Breercroft, for 20 acres.”—“The De Lacy Inquisition,” 1311. Adecock is Adam, and Mocock or Mokock is Matthew. In the same way Sander-cock is a diminutive of Sander, Lay-cock of Lawrence, Luccock of Luke, Pidcock and Peacock of Peter, Maycock and Mycock of Matthew, Jeff-cock of Jeffrey, Johncock of John, Hitch-cock or Hiscock or Heacock of Higg or Hick (Isaac), Elcock of Ellis, Hancock or Handcock of Han or Hand (Dutch John), Drocock or Drewcock of Drew, Wilcock of William, Badcock or Batcock of Bartholomew, and Bawcock of Baldwin, Adcock or Atcock of Adam, Silcock of Silas, and Palcock of Paul: [Pg 14] [Pg 15] [Pg 16] “Johannes Palcock, et Beatrix uxor ejus, iiiid.”—W. D. S. “Ricardus Sylkok, et Matilda uxor ejus, iiiid.”—W. D. S. The difficulty of identification was manifestly lessened in a village or town where Bate could be distinguished from Batkin, and Batkin from Batcock. Hence, again, the common occurrence of such a component as cock. This diminutive is never seen in the seventeenth century; and yet we have many evidences of its use in the beginning of the sixteenth. The English Bible, with its tendency to require the full name as a matter of reverence, while it supplied new names in the place of the old ones that were accustomed to the desinence, caused this. It may be, too, that the new regulation of Cromwell in 1538, requiring the careful registration of all baptized children, caused parents to lay greater stress on the name as it was entered in the vestry-book. Any way, the sixteenth century saw the end of names terminating in “cock.” (c.) On or In. A dictionary instance is “violin,” that is, a little viol, a fiddle of four strings, instead of six. This diminutive, to judge from the Paris Directory, must have been enormously popular with our neighbours. Our connection with Normandy and France generally brought the fashion to the English Court, and in habits of this kind the English folk quickly copied their superiors. Terminations in kin and cock were confined to the lower orders first and last. Terminations in on or in, and ot or et, were the introduction of fashion, and being under patronage of the highest families in the land, naturally obtained a much wider popularity. Our formal registers, again, are of little assistance. Beton is coldly and orthodoxly Beatrice or Beatrix in the Hundred Rolls. Only here and there can we gather that Beatrice was never so called in work-a-day life. In “Piers Plowman” it is said— “Beton the Brewestere Bade him good morrow.” And again, later on: “And bade Bette cut a bough, And beat Betoun therewith.” If Alice is Alice in the registrar’s hands, not so in homely Chaucer: “This Alison answered: Who is there That knocketh so? I warrant him a thefe.” Or take an old Yorkshire will: “Item: to Symkyn, and Watkyn, and Alison Meek, servandes of John of Bolton, to ilk one of yaim, 26s. 8d.”—“Test. Ebor.” iii. 21. Surtees Society. Hugh, too, gets his name familiarly entered occasionally: “Hugyn held of the said earl an oxgang of land, and paid yearly iiis. vid.”—“The De Lacy Inquisition,” 1311. Huggins in our directories is the memorial of this. But in the north of England Hutchin was a more popular form. In the “Wappentagium de Strafford” occurs— “Willelmus Huchon, & Matilda uxor ejus, iiiid.” Also— “Elena Houchon-servant, iiiid.” that is, Ellen the servant of Houchon. Our Hutchinsons are all north of Trent folk. Thus, too, Peter (Pier) became Perrin: “The wife of Peryn.”—“Manor of Ashton-under-Lyne,” Chetham Society, p. 87. Marion, from Mary, is the only familiar instance that has descended to us, and no doubt we owe this fact to Maid Marion, the May-lady. Many a Mary Ann, in these days of double baptismal names, perpetuates the impression that Marion or Marian was compounded of Mary and Ann. Of familiar occurrence were such names as Perrin, from Pierre, Peter; Robin and Dobbin, from Rob and Dob, Robert; Colin, from Col, Nicholas; Diccon, from Dick, Richard; Huggin, from Hugh; Higgin, from Hick or Higg, Isaac; Figgin, from Figg, Fulke;[9] Phippin, from Phip and Philip; and Gibbin, or Gibbon, or Gilpin, from Gilbert. Every instance proves the debt our surnames have incurred by this practice. [Pg 17] [Pg 18] [Pg 19] Several cases are obscured by time and bad pronunciation. Our Tippings should more rightly be Tippins, originally Tibbins, from Tibbe (Theobald); our Collinges and Collings, Collins; and our Gibbings, Gibbins. Our Jennings should be Jennins; Jennin Caervil was barber to the Earl of Suffolk in the French wars (“Wars of England in France,” Henry VI.). Robing had early taken the place of Robin: “Johanne Robyng-doghter, iiiid.”—W. D. S. Such entries as Raoulin Meriel and Raoul Partrer (this Raoul was private secretary to Henry VI.) remind us of the former popularity of Ralph and of the origin of our surnames Rawlins and Rawlinson: “Dionisia Rawlyn-wyf, iiiid.”—W. D. S. Here again, however, the “in” has become “ing,” for Rawlings is even more common than Rawlins. Deccon and Dickin have got mixed, and both are now Dickens, although Dicconson exists as distinct from Dickinson. Spenser knew the name well: “Diggon Davie, I bid her ‘good-day;’ Or Diggon her is, or I missay.” “Matilda Dicon-wyf, webester, iiiid.”—W. D. S. The London Directory contains Lamming and Laming. Alongside are Lampin, Lamin, and Lammin. These again are more correct, all being surnames formed from Lambin, a pet form of Lambert: “Willelmus Lambyn, et Alicia uxor ejus, iiiid.”—W. D. S. Lambyn Clay played before Edward at Westminster at the great festival in 1306 (Chappell’s “Popular Music of ye Olden Time,” i. 29). The French forms are Lambin, Lamblin, and Lamberton, all to be met with in the Paris Directory. All these names are relics of a custom that is obsolete in England, though not with our neighbours. (d.) Ot and Et. These are the terminations that ran first in favour for many generations. This diminutive ot or et is found in our language in such words as poppet, jacket, lancet, ballot, gibbet, target, gigot, chariot, latchet, pocket, ballet. In the same way a little page became a paget, and hence among our surnames Smallpage, Littlepage, and Paget. Coming to baptism, we find scarcely a single name of any pretensions to popularity that did not take to itself this desinence. The two favourite girl-names in Yorkshire previous to the Reformation were Matilda and Emma. Two of the commonest surnames there to-day are Emmott and Tillot, with such variations as Emmett and Tillett, Emmotson and Tillotson. The archbishop came from Yorkshire. Tyllot Thompson occurs under date 1414 in the “Fabric Rolls of York Minster” (Surtees Society). “Rome, April 27, Eugenius IV. (1433). Dispensation from Selow for Richard de Akerode and Emmotte de Greenwood to marry, they being related in the fourth degree.”—“Test. Ebor.,” iii. 317. “Licence to the Vicar of Bradford to marry Roger Prestwick and Emmote Crossley. Bannes thrice in one day” (1466).—“Test. Ebor.,” iii. 338. Isabella was also popular in Yorkshire: hence our Ibbots and Ibbotsons, our Ibbetts and Ibbetsons. Registrations such as “Ibbota filia Adam,” or “Robert filius Ibote,” are of frequent occurrence in the county archives. The “Wappentagium de Strafford” has: “Johanna Ibot-doghter, iiiid. “Willelmus Kene, et Ibota uxor ejus, iiiid. “Thomas Gaylyour, et Ebbot sa femme, iiiid.” Cecilia became Sissot or Cissot: “Willelmus Crake, & Cissot sa femme, iiiid.”—W. D. S. In the “Manor of Ashton-under-Lyne” (Chetham Society), penned fortunately for our purpose in every-day style, we have such entries as— “Syssot, wife of Patrick. [Pg 20] [Pg 21] [Pg 22] “Syssot, wife of Diccon Wilson. “Syssot, wife of Thomas the Cook. “Syssot, wife of Jak of Barsley.” Four wives named Cecilia in a community of some twenty-five families will be evidence enough of the popularity of that name. All, however, were known in every-day converse as Sissot. Of other girl-names we may mention Mabel, which from Mab became Mabbott; Douce became Dowcett and Dowsett; Gillian or Julian, from Gill or Jill (whence Jack and Jill), became Gillot, Juliet, and Jowett; Margaret became Margett and Margott, and in the north Magot. Hence such entries from the Yorkshire parchments, already quoted, as— “Thomas de Balme, et Magota uxor ejus, chapman, iiiid. “Hugo Farrowe, et Magota uxor ejus, smyth, iiiid. “Johannes Magotson, iiiid.” Custance became Cussot, from Cuss or Cust, the nick form. The Hundred Rolls contain a “Cussot Colling”—a rare place to find one of these diminutives, for they are set down with great clerkly formality. From Lettice, Lesot was obtained: “Johan Chapman, & Lesot sa femme, iiiid.”—W. D. S. And Dionisia was very popular as Diot: “Johannes Chetel, & Diot uxor ejus, iiiid. “Willelmus Wege, & Diot uxor ejus, iiiid.”—W. D. S. Of course, it became a surname: “Robertus Diot, & Mariona uxor ejus, iiiid. “Willelmus Diotson, iiiid.”—W. D. S. It is curious to observe that Annot, which now as Annette represents Anne, in Richard II.’s day was extremely familiar as the diminutive of Annora or Alianora. So common was Annot in North England that the common sea- gull came to be so known. It is a mistake to suppose that Annot had any connection with Anna. One out of every eight or ten girls was Annot in Yorkshire at a time when Anna is never found to be in use at all: “Stephanus Webester, & Anota uxor ejus, iiiid. “Richard Annotson, wryght, iiiid.”—W. D. S. As Alianora and Eleanora are the same, so were Enot and Anot: “Henricus filius Johannis Enotson, iiiid.”—W. D. S. Again, Eleanor became Elena, and this Lina and Linot. Hence in the Hundred Rolls we find “Linota atte Field.” In fact, the early forms of Eleanor are innumerable. The favourite Sibilla became Sibot: “Johannes de Estwode, et Sibota uxor ejus, iiiid. “Willelmus Howeson, et Sibbota uxor ejus, iiiid.”—W. D. S. Mary not merely became Marion, but Mariot, and from our surnames it would appear the latter was the favourite: “Isabella serviens Mariota Gulle, iiiid.”—W. D. S. “Mariota in le Lane.”—Hundred Rolls. Eve became Evot, Adam and Eve being popular names. In the will of William de Kirkby, dated 1391, are bequests to “Evæ uxori Johannes Parvying” and “Willielmo de Rowlay,” and later on he refers to them again as the aforementioned “Evotam et dictum Willielmum Rowlay” (“Test. Ebor.,” i. 145. Surtees Society). But the girl-name that made most mark was originally a boy’s name, Theobald. Tibbe was the nick form, and Tibbot the pet name. Very speedily it became the property of the female sex, such entries as Tibot Fitz-piers ending in favour of Tibota Foliot. After the year 1300 Tib, or Tibet, is invariably feminine. In “Gammer Gurton’s Needle,” Gammer says to her maid— “How now, Tib? quick! let’s hear what news thou hast brought hither.”—Act. i. sc. 5. [Pg 23] [Pg 24] [Pg 25] In “Ralph Roister Doister,” the pet name is used in the song, evidently older than the play: “Pipe, merry Annot, etc., Trilla, Trilla, Trillary. Work, Tibet; work, Annot; work, Margery; Sew, Tibet; knit, Annot; spin, Margery; Let us see who will win the victory.” Gib, from Gilbert, and Tib became the common name for a male and female cat. Scarcely any other terms were employed from 1350 to 1550: “For right no more than Gibbe, our cat, That awaiteth mice and rattes to killen, Ne entend I but to beguilen.” Hence both Tibet and Gibbet were also used for the same; as in the old phrase “flitter-gibbett,” for one of wanton character. Tom in tom-cat came into ordinary parlance later. All our modern Tibbots, Tibbetts, Tibbitts, Tippitts, Tebbutts, and their endless other forms, are descended from Tibbe. Coming to boys’ names, all our Wyatts in the Directory hail from Guiot,[10] the diminutive of Guy, just as Wilmot from William: “Adam, son of Wyot, held an oxgang of land.”—“De Lacy Inquisition.” “Ibbote Wylymot, iiiid.”—W. D. S. Payn is met in the form of Paynot and Paynet, Warin as Warinot, Drew as Drewet, Philip as Philpot, though this is feminine sometimes: “Johannes Schikyn, et Philipot uxor ejus, iiiid.”—W. D. S. Thomas is found as Thomaset, Higg (Isaac) as Higgot, Jack as Jackett, Hal (Henry) as Hallet (Harriot or Harriet is now feminine), and Hugh or Hew as Hewet: “Dionisia Howet-doghter, iiiid.”—W. D. S. The most interesting, perhaps, of these examples is Hamnet, or Hamlet. Hamon, or Hamond, was introduced from Normandy: “Hamme, son of Adcock, held 29 acres of land.”—“De Lacy Inquisition,” 1311. It became a favourite among high and low, and took to itself the forms of Hamonet and Hamelot: “The wife of Richard, son of Hamelot.”—“De Lacy Inquisition,” 1311. These were quickly abbreviated into Hamnet and Hamlet. They ran side by side for several centuries, and at last, like Emmot, defied the English Bible, the Reformation, and even the Puritan period, and lived unto the eighteenth century. Hamlet Winstanley, the painter, was born in 1700, at Warrington, and died in 1756. In Kent’s London Directory for 1736 several Hamnets occur as baptismal names. Shakespeare’s little son was Hamnet, or Hamlet, after his godfather Hamnet Sadler. I find several instances where both forms are entered as the name of the same boy: “Nov. 13, 1502. Item: the same day to Hamlet Clegge, for money by him layed out ... to the keper of Dachet Ferrey in rewarde for conveying the Quenes grace over Thamys there, iiis. iiiid.” Compare this with— “June 13, 1502. Item: the same day to Hampnet Clegge, for mone by him delivered to the Quene for hir offring to Saint Edward at Westm., vis. viiid.”—“Privy Purse Expenses, Eliz. of York,” pp. 21 and 62. Speaking of Hamelot, we must not forget that ot and et sometimes became elot or elet. As a diminutive it is found in such dictionary words as bracelet, tartlet, gimblet, poplet (for poppet). The old ruff or high collar worn alike by men and women was styled a partlet: “Jan. 1544. Item: from Mr. Braye ii. high collar partletts, iiis. ixd.”—“Privy Purse Expenses, Princess Mary.” Hence partlet, a hen, on account of the ruffled feathers, a term used alike by Chaucer and Shakespeare. In our nomenclature we have but few traces of it. In France it was very commonly used. But Hughelot or Huelot, from Hugh, was popular, as our Hewletts can testify. Richelot for Richard, Hobelot and Robelot for Robert, Crestolot for Christopher, Cesselot for Cecilia, and Barbelot for Barbara, are found also, and prove that the [Pg 26] [Pg 27] [Pg 28] desinence had made its mark. Returning, however, to ot and et: Eliot or Elliot, from Ellis (Elias), had a great run. In the north it is sometimes found as Aliot: “Alyott de Symondeston held half an oxgang of land, xixd.”—“De Lacy Inquisition,” 1311. The feminine form was Elisot or Elicot, although this was used also for boys. The will of William de Aldeburgh, written in 1319, runs— “Item: do et lego Elisotæ domicellæ meæ 40s.”—“Test. Ebor.,” i. 151. The will of Patrick de Barton, administered in the same year, says— “Item: lego Elisotæ, uxori Ricardi Bustard unam vaccam, et 10s.”—“Test. Ebor.,” i. 155. “Eliseus Carpenter, cartwyth, et Elesot uxor ejus, vid.”—W. D. S. As Ellis became Ellisot, so Ellice became Ellicot, whence the present surname. Bartholomew became Bartelot, now Bartlett, and from the pet form Toll, or Tolly, came Tollett and Tollitt. It is curious to notice why Emmot and Hamlet, or Hamnet, survived the crises that overwhelmed the others. Both became baptismal names in their own right. People forgot in course of time that they were diminutives of Emma and Hamond, and separated them from their parents. This did not come about till the close of Elizabeth’s reign, so they have still the credit of having won a victory against terrible odds, the Hebrew army. Hamnet Shakespeare was so baptized. Hamon or Hamond would have been the regular form. Looking back, it is hard to realize that a custom equally affected by prince and peasant, as popular in country as town, as familiar in Yorkshire and Lancashire as in London and Winchester, should have been so completely uprooted, that ninety-nine out of the hundred are now unaware that it ever existed. This was unmistakably the result of some disturbing element of English social life. At the commencement of the sixteenth century there was no appearance of this confusion. In France the practice went on without let or hindrance. We can again but attribute it to the Reformation, and the English Bible, which swept away a large batch of the old names, and pronounced the new without addition or diminution. When some of the old names were restored, it was too late to fall back upon the familiarities that had been taken with them in the earlier period. (e.) Double Terminatives. In spite of the enormous popularity in England of ot and et, they bear no proportion to the number in France. In England our local surnames are two-fifths of the whole. In France patronymic surnames are almost two-fifths of the whole. Terminatives in on or in, and ot and et, have done this. We in England only adopted double diminutives in two cases, those of Colinet and Robinet, or Dobinet, and both were rarely used. Robinet has come down to us as a surname; and Dobinet so existed till the middle of the fifteenth century, for one John Dobynette is mentioned in an inventory of goods, 1463 (Mun. Acad. Oxon.). This Dobinet seems to have been somewhat familiarly used, for Dobinet Doughty is Ralph’s servant in “Ralph Roister Doister.” Matthew Merrygreek says— “I know where she is: Dobinet hath wrought some wile. Tibet Talkapace. He brought a ring and token, which he said was sent From our dame’s husband.”—Act. iii. sc. 2. Colin is turned into Colinet in Spenser’s “Shepherd’s Calendar,” where Colin beseeches Pan: “Hearken awhile from thy green cabinet, The laurel song of careful Colinet?” Jannet is found as Janniting (Jannetin) once on English soil, for in the “London Chanticleers,” a comedy written about 1636, Janniting is the apple-wench. Welcome says— “Who are they which they’re enamoured so with? Bung. The one’s Nancy Curds, and the other Hanna Jenniting: Ditty and Jenniting are agreed already ... the wedding will be kept at our house.”—Scene xiii. But the use of double diminutives was of every-day practice in Normandy and France, and increased their total greatly. I take at random the following surnames (originally, of course, christian names) from the Paris Directory: —Margotin, Marioton, Lambinet (Lambert), Perrinot, Perrotin, Philiponet, Jannotin, Hugonet, Huguenin, Jacquinot, and Fauconnet (English Fulke). Huguenin (little wee Hugh) repeats the same diminutive; Perrinot and Perrotin (little wee Peter) simply reverse the order of the two diminutives. The “marionettes” in the puppet-show take the same liberty with Mariotin (little wee Mary) above mentioned. Hugonet, of course, is the same as [Pg 29] [Pg 30] [Pg 31] [Pg 32] Huguenot; and had English, not to say French, writers remembered this old custom, they would have found no difficulty in reducing the origin of the religious sect of that name to an individual as a starting-point. Guillotin (little wee William) belongs to the same class, and descended from a baptismal name to become the surname of the famous doctor who invented the deadly machine that bears his title. I have discovered one instance of this as a baptismal name, viz. Gillotyne Hansake (“Wars of English in France: Henry VI.,” vol. ii. p. 531). Returning to England, we find these pet forms in use well up to the Reformation: “Nov., 1543. Item: geven to Fylpot, my Lady of Suffolk’s lackaye, viis. vid. “June, 1537. Item: payed to Typkyn for cherys, xxd.”—“Privy Purse Expenses, Princess Mary.” “1548, July 22. Alson, d. of Jenkin Rowse.”—St. Columb Major. “1545, Oct. 3. Baptized Alison, d. of John James.”—Ditto.[11] “Ralph Roister Doister,” written not earlier than 1545, and not later than 1550, by Nicholas Udall, contains three characters styled Annot Alyface, Tibet Talkapace, and Dobinet Doughty. Christian Custance, Sim Suresby, Madge Mumblecheek, and Gawyn Goodluck are other characters, all well-known contemporary names. In “Thersites,” an interlude written in 1537, there is mention of “Simkin Sydnam, Sumnor, That killed a cat at Cumnor.” Jenkin Jacon is introduced, also Robin Rover. In a book entitled “Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic” (Henry VIII.), we find a document (numbered 1939, and dated 1526) containing a list of the household attendants and retinue of the king. Even here, although so formal a record, there occurs the name of “Hamynet Harrington, gentleman usher.” We may assert with the utmost certainty that, on the eve of the Hebrew invasion, there was not a baptismal name in England of average popularity that had not attached to it in daily converse one or other of these diminutives —kin, cock, in, on, ot, and et; not a name, too, that, before it had thus attached them, had not been shorn of all its fulness, and curtailed to a monosyllabic nick form. Bartholomew must first become Bat before it becomes Batcock, Peter must become Pierre before Perrot can be formed, Nicholas must be abbreviated to Col or Cole before Col or Cole can be styled Colin, and Thomas must be reduced to Tom before Tomkin can make his appearance. Several names had attached to themselves all these enclytics. For instance, Peter is met with, up to the crisis we are about to consider, in the several shapes of Perkin or Parkin, Peacock, Perrot, and Perrin; and William as Willin (now Willing and Willan in our directories), Wilcock, Wilkin, and Wilmot, was familiar to every district in the country. III. Scripture Names already in use at the Reformation. It now remains simply to consider the state of nomenclature in England at the eve of the Reformation in relation to the Bible. Four classes may be mentioned. (a.) Mystery Names. The leading incidents of Bible narrative were familiarized to the English lower orders by the performance of sacred plays, or mysteries, rendered under the supervision of the Church. To these plays we owe the early popularity of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Sara, Daniel, Sampson, Susanna, Judith, Hanna or Anna, and Hester. But the Apocryphal names were not frequently used till about 1500. Scarcely any diminutives are found of them. On the other hand, Adam became Adcock and Adkin; Eve, Evott and Evett; Isaac, Hickin, and Higgin, and Higgot, and Higget; Joseph, Joskin; and Daniel, Dankin and Dannet. (b.) Crusade Names. The Crusaders gave us several prominent names. To them we are indebted for Baptist, Ellis, and Jordan: and John received a great stimulus. The sacred water brought in the leathern bottle was used for baptismal purposes. The Jordan commemorated John the Baptist, the second Elias, the forerunner and baptizer of Jesus Christ. Children were styled by these incidents. Jordan became popular through Western Europe. In England he gave us, as already observed, Judd, Judkin, Judson, Jordan, and Jordanson. Elias, as Ellis, took about the eighth place of frequency, and John, for a while, the first. [Pg 33] [Pg 34] [Pg 35] [Pg 36] (c.) The Saints’ Calendar. The legends of the saints were carefully taught by the priesthood, and the day as religiously observed. All children born on these holy days received the name of the saint commemorated: St. James’s Day, or St. Nicholas’s Day, or St. Thomas’s Day, saw a small batch of Jameses, Nicholases, and Thomases received into the fold of the Church. In other cases the gossip had some favourite saint, and placed the child under his or her protection. Of course, it bore the patron’s name. A large number of these hagiological names were extra-Biblical—such as Cecilia, Catharine, or Theobald. Of these I make no mention here. All the Apostles, save Judas, became household names, John, Simon, Peter, Bartholomew, Matthew, James, Thomas, and Philip being the favourites. Paul and Timothy were also utilized, the former being always found as Pol. (d.) Festival Names. If a child was born at Whitsuntide or Easter, Christmas or Epiphany, like Robinson Crusoe’s man Friday, or Thursday October Christian of the Pitcairn islanders, he received the name of the day. Hence our once familiar names of Noel or Nowell, Pask or Pascal, Easter, Pentecost, and Epiphany or Tiffany. It will be observed that all these imply no direct or personal acquaintance with the Scriptures. All came through the Church. All, too, were in the full tide of prosperity—with the single exception of Jordan, which was nearly obsolete—when the Bible, printed into English and set up in our churches, became an institution. The immediate result was that the old Scripture names of Bartholomew, Peter, Philip, and Nicholas received a blow much deadlier than that received by such Teutonic names as Robert, Richard, Roger, and Ralph. But that will be brought out as we progress. The subject of the influence of an English Bible upon English nomenclature is not uninteresting. It may be said of the “Vulgar Tongue” Bible that it revolutionized our nomenclature within the space of forty years, or little over a generation. No such crisis, surely, ever visited a nation’s register before, nor can such possibly happen again. Every home felt the effect. It was like the massacre of the innocents in Egyptian days: “There was not one house where there was not one dead.” But in Pharoah’s day they did not replace the dead with the living. At the Reformation such a locust army of new names burst upon the land that we may well style it the Hebrew Invasion. CHAPTER I. THE HEBREW INVASION. “With what face can they object to the king the bringing in of forraigners, when themselves entertaine such an army of Hebrewes?” The Character of a London Diurnall (Dec. 1644). “Albeit in our late Reformation some of good consideration have brought in Zachary, Malachy, Josias, etc., as better agreeing with our faith, but without contempt of Country names (as I hope) which have both good and gracious significations, as shall appeare hereafter.”—Camden, Remaines. 1614. I. The March of the Army. The strongest impress of the English Reformation to-day is to be seen in our font-names. The majority date from 1560, the year when the Genevan Bible was published. This version ran through unnumbered editions, and for sixty, if not seventy, years was the household Bible of the nation. The Genevan Bible was not only written in the vulgar tongue, but was printed for vulgar hands. A moderate quarto was its size; all preceding versions, such as Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and of course the Great Bible, being the ponderous folio, specimens of which the reader will at some time or other have seen. The Genevan Bible, too, was the Puritan’s Bible, and was none the less admired by him on account of its Calvinistic annotations. But although th...