Читать книгу Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature - Charles Wareing Endell Bardsley - Страница 6
Оглавление“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.
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.
“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.
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 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 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.
(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.
