CHAPTER II.

“Sister Barebottle, I must not be called Cutter any more: that is a name of Cavalier’s darkness; the Devil was a Cutter from the beginning: my name is now Abednego: I had a vision which whispered to me through a key-hole, ‘Go, call thyself Abednego.’”

In his epilogue to this same comedy, Cutter is supposed to address the audience as a “congregation of the elect,” the playhouse is a conventicle, and he is a “pious cushion-thumper.” Gazing about the theatre, he says—through his nose, no doubt—

“But yet I wonder much not to espy aBrother in all this court called Zephaniah.”

This is a better rhyme even than Butler’s

“Their dispensations had been stifledBut for our Adoniram Byfield.”

In Brome’s “Covent Garden Weeded,” the arrival at the vintner’s door is thus described:

“Rooksbill.Sure you mistake him, sir.Vintner.You are welcome, gentlemen: Will, Harry, Zachary!Gabriel.Zachary is a good name.Vintner.Where are you? Shew up into the Phoenix.”—Act. ii. sc. 2.

“Rooksbill.Sure you mistake him, sir.

Vintner.You are welcome, gentlemen: Will, Harry, Zachary!

Gabriel.Zachary is a good name.

Vintner.Where are you? Shew up into the Phoenix.”—Act. ii. sc. 2.

The contrast between Will or Harry, the nick forms, and Zachary,[20]the full name, is intentionally drawn, and Gabriel instantly rails at it.

In “Bartholomew Fair,” half the laughter that convulsed Charles II., his courtiers, and courtezans, was at the mention ofEzekiel, the cut-purse, orZeal-of-the-land, the baker, who saw visions; while the veriest noodle in the pit saw the point of Squire Cokes’ perpetually addressing his body-man Humphrey in some such style as this:

“O, Numps! are you here, Numps? Look where I am, Numps, and Mistress Grace, too! Nay, do not look so angrily, Numps: my sister is here and all, I do not come without her.”

How the audience would laugh and cheer at a sally that was simply manufactured of a repetition of the good old-fashioned name for Humphrey; and thus a passage that reads as very dull funindeed to the ears of the nineteenth century, would seem to be brimful of sarcastic allusion to the popular audience of the seventeenth, especially when spoken by such lips as Wintersels.

The same effect was attempted and attained in the “Alchemist.” Subtle addresses the deacon:

“What’s your name?Ananias.My name is Ananias.Subtle.Out, the varletThat cozened the Apostles! Hence away!Flee, mischief! had your holy consistoryNo name to send me, of another sound,Than wicked Ananias? Send your eldersHither, to make atonement for you, quickly,And give me satisfaction: or out goesThe fire ...If they stay threescore minutes; the aqueity,Terreity, and sulphureityShall run together again, and all be annulled,Thou wicked Ananias!”

Exit Ananias, and no wonder. Of course, the pit would roar at the expense of Ananias. But Abel, the tobacco-man, who immediately appears in his place, is addressed familiarly as “Nab:”

“Face.Abel, thou art made.Abel.Sir, I do thank his worship.Face.Six o’ thy legs more will not do it, Nab.He has brought you a pipe of tobacco, doctor.Abel.Yes, sir; I have another thing I would impart——Face.Out with it, Nab.Abel.Sir, there is lodged hard by meA rich young widow.”

To some readers there will be little point inthis. They will say “Abel,” as an Old Testament name, should neither have been given to an un-puritanic character, nor ought it to have been turned into a nickname. This would never have occurred to the audience. Abel, or Nab, had been one of the most popular of English names for at least three centuries before the Reformation. Hence it wasneverused by the Puritans, and was, as a matter of course, the undisturbed property of their enemies. Three centuries of bad company had ruined Nab’s morals. The zealot would none of it.[21]

But from all this it will be seen that a much better fight was made in behalf of the old nick forms than of the diminutives. By a timely rally, Tom, Jack, Dick, and Harry were carried, against all hindrances, into the Restoration period, and from that time they were safe. Wat, Phip, Hodge, Bat or Bate, and Cole lost their position, but so had the fuller Philip, Roger, Bartholomew, and Nicholas, But the opponents of Puritanism carried the war into the enemy’s camp in revenge for this, and Priscilla, Deborah, Jeremiah, and Nathaniel, although they were rather of the Reformation than Puritanic introductions, were turned by the timeof Charles I. into the familiar nick forms of Pris, Deb, Jerry, and Nat. The licentious Richard Brome, in “The New Academy,” even attempts a curtailment of Nehemiah:

“Lady Nestlecock.Negh, Negh!Nehemiah.Hark! my mother comes.Lady N.Where are you, childe? Negh!Nehemiah.I hear herneighingafter me.”Act iv. sc. 1. (1658).

It was never tried out of doors, however, and the experiment was not repeated. Brome was still more scant in reverence to Damaris. In “Covent Garden Weeded” Madge begins “the dismal story:”

“This gentlewoman whose name is Damaris——Nich.Damyris, stay: her nickname then is Dammy: so we may call her when we grow familiar; and to begin that familiarity—Dammy, here’s to you. (Drinks.)”

“This gentlewoman whose name is Damaris——

Nich.Damyris, stay: her nickname then is Dammy: so we may call her when we grow familiar; and to begin that familiarity—Dammy, here’s to you. (Drinks.)”

After this she is Dammy in the mouth of Nicholas throughout the play. This, too, was a failure. Indeed, it demonstrates a remarkable reverence for their Bible on the part of the English race, that every attempt to turn one of its names into a nick form (saving in some three or four instances) has ignominiously failed. We mean, of course, since the Reformation.

The Restoration was a great restoration of nick forms. Such names as had survived were again for a while in full favour, and the reader has onlyto turn to the often coarse ballads and songs contained in such collections as Tom d’Urfey’s “Pills to Purge Melancholy” to see how Nan, Sis, Sib, Kate, and Doll had been brought back to popular favour. It was but a spurt, however, in the main. As the lascivious reaction from the Puritanic strait-lacedness in some degree spent itself, so did the newly restored fashion, and when the eighteenth century brought in a fresh innovation, viz. theclassicforms, such as Beatrix, Maria, Lætitia, Carolina, Louisa, Amelia, Georgina, Dorothea, Prudentia, Honora—an innovation that for forty years ran like an epidemic through every class of society, and was sarcastically alluded to by Goldsmith in Miss Carolina Wilhelmina Amelia Skeggs, and the sisters Olivia and Sophia—the old nick forms once more bade adieu to English society, and now enjoy but a partial favour. But Bill, Tom, Dick, and Harry still hold on like grim death. Long may they continue to do so!

(c.)The Decay of Saint and Festival Names.

There were some serious losses in hagiology. Names that had figured in the calendar for centuries fared badly; Simon, Peter, Nicholas, Bartholomew, Philip, and Matthew, from being first favourites, lapsed into comparative oblivion.Some virgins and martyrs of extra-Biblical repute, like Agnes, Ursula, Catharine, Cecilia, or Blaze, crept into the registers of Charles’s reign, but they had then become but shadows of their former selves.

‘Sis’ is often found in D’Urfey’s ballads, but it only proves the songs themselves were old ones, or at any rate the choruses, for Cecilia was practically obsolete:

“1574, Oct. 8. Buried Cisly Weanewright, ye carter’s wife.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.“1578, June 1. Buried Cissellye, wife of Gilles Lambe.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.“1547, Dec. 26. Married Thomas Bodnam and Urcylaye Watsworth.”—Ditto.“1654, Sep. 20. Buried Ursley, d. of John Fife.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1574, Oct. 8. Buried Cisly Weanewright, ye carter’s wife.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1578, June 1. Buried Cissellye, wife of Gilles Lambe.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

“1547, Dec. 26. Married Thomas Bodnam and Urcylaye Watsworth.”—Ditto.

“1654, Sep. 20. Buried Ursley, d. of John Fife.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

It was now that Awdry gave way:

“1576, Sept. 7. Buryed Awdry, the widow of — Seward.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.“1610, May 27. Baptized Awdrey, d. of John Cooke, butcher.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

“1576, Sept. 7. Buryed Awdry, the widow of — Seward.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1610, May 27. Baptized Awdrey, d. of John Cooke, butcher.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

St. Blaze,[22]the patron saint of wool-combers and thenom-de-plumeof Gil Blas, has only a church or two to recall his memory to us now. But he lived into Charles’s reign:

“Blaze Winter was master of Stodmarsh Hospital, when it was surrendered to Queen Elizabeth, 1575.”—Hasted’s “History of Kent.”“1550, May 23. Baptized Blaze, daughter of — Goodwinne.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.“1555, Julie 21. Wedding of Blase Sawlter and Collis Smith.”—Ditto.“1662, May 6. Blase Whyte, one of ye minor cannons, to Mrs. Susanna Wright, widow.”—Cant. Cath.

“Blaze Winter was master of Stodmarsh Hospital, when it was surrendered to Queen Elizabeth, 1575.”—Hasted’s “History of Kent.”

“1550, May 23. Baptized Blaze, daughter of — Goodwinne.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1555, Julie 21. Wedding of Blase Sawlter and Collis Smith.”—Ditto.

“1662, May 6. Blase Whyte, one of ye minor cannons, to Mrs. Susanna Wright, widow.”—Cant. Cath.

This is the last instance I have seen. Hillary shared the same fate:

“1547, Jan. 30. Married Hillarye Finch and Jane Whyte.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.“1557, June 27. Wedding of Hillary Wapolle and Jane Garret.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.“1593, Jan. 20. Christening of Hillary, sonne of Hillary Turner, draper.”—Ditto.

“1547, Jan. 30. Married Hillarye Finch and Jane Whyte.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

“1557, June 27. Wedding of Hillary Wapolle and Jane Garret.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1593, Jan. 20. Christening of Hillary, sonne of Hillary Turner, draper.”—Ditto.

Bride is rarely found in England now:

“1556, May 22. Baptized Bryde, daughter of — Stoakes.“1553, Nov. 27. Baptized Bryde, daughter of — Faunt.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1556, May 22. Baptized Bryde, daughter of — Stoakes.

“1553, Nov. 27. Baptized Bryde, daughter of — Faunt.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

Benedict, which for three hundred years had been known as Bennet, as several London churches can testify, became well-nigh extinct; but the feminine Benedicta, with Bennet for its shortened form, suddenly arose on its ashes, and flourished for a time:

“1517, Jan. 28. Wedding of William Stiche and Bennet Bennet, widow.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.“1653, Sep. 29. Married Richard Moone to Benedicta Rolfe.”—Cant. Cath.“1575, Jan. 25. Baptized Bennett, son of John Langdon.”—St. Columb Major.

“1517, Jan. 28. Wedding of William Stiche and Bennet Bennet, widow.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1653, Sep. 29. Married Richard Moone to Benedicta Rolfe.”—Cant. Cath.

“1575, Jan. 25. Baptized Bennett, son of John Langdon.”—St. Columb Major.

These feminines are sometimes bothering. Look, for instance, at this:

“1596, Feb. 6. Wedding of William Bromley and Mathew Barnet, maiden, of this parish.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.“1655, Sep. 24. Married Thomas Budd, miller, and Mathew Larkin, spinster.”—Ditto.

“1596, Feb. 6. Wedding of William Bromley and Mathew Barnet, maiden, of this parish.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1655, Sep. 24. Married Thomas Budd, miller, and Mathew Larkin, spinster.”—Ditto.

The true spelling should have been Mathea, which, previous to the Reformation, had been given to girls born on St. Matthew’s Day.[23]The nick formMatchanged sexes. In “Englishmen for my Money” Walgrave says—

“Nay, stare not, look you here: no monster I, But even plain Ned, and here stands Mat my wife.”

Appoline, all of whose teeth were extracted at her martyrdom with pincers, was a favourite saint for appeal against toothache. In the Homily “Against the Perils of Idolatry,” it is said—

“All diseases have their special saints, as gods, the curers of them: the toothache, St. Appoline.”[24]

Scarcely any name for girls was more common than this for a time; up to the Commonwealth period it contrived to exist. Take St. Peter, Cornhill, alone:

“1593, Jan. 13. Christened Apeline, d. of John Moris, clothworker.“1609, Mch. 11. Christened Apoline, d. of Willm. Burton, marchant.“1617, June 29. Buried Appelyna, d. of Thomas Church.”

“1593, Jan. 13. Christened Apeline, d. of John Moris, clothworker.

“1609, Mch. 11. Christened Apoline, d. of Willm. Burton, marchant.

“1617, June 29. Buried Appelyna, d. of Thomas Church.”

Names from the great Church festivals fared as badly as those from the hagiology. The high day of the ecclesiastical calendar is Easter. We have more relics of this festival than any other. Pasche Oland or Pascoe Kerne figure in the Chancery suits of Elizabeth. Long before this the Hundred Rolls had given us aHuge fil. Pasche, and a contemporary record contained anAntony Pascheson. The different forms lingered till the Commonwealth:

“1553, Mch. 23. Baptized Pascall, son of John Davye.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.“1651, Mch. 18. Married Thomas Strato and Paskey Prideaux.”—St. Peter’s, Cornhill.“1747, May 4. Baptized Rebekah, d. of Pasko and Sarah Crocker.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.“1582, June 14. Baptized Pascow, son-in-law of Pascowe John.”—St. Columb Major.

“1553, Mch. 23. Baptized Pascall, son of John Davye.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

“1651, Mch. 18. Married Thomas Strato and Paskey Prideaux.”—St. Peter’s, Cornhill.

“1747, May 4. Baptized Rebekah, d. of Pasko and Sarah Crocker.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

“1582, June 14. Baptized Pascow, son-in-law of Pascowe John.”—St. Columb Major.

Pascha Turner, widow, was sister of Henry Parr, Bishop of Worcester.

The more English “Easter” had a longer survival, but this arose from its having become confounded with Esther. To this mistake it owes the fact that it lived till the commencement of the present century:

“April, 1505. Christened Easter, daughter of Thomas Coxe, of Wapping.”—Stepney.“May 27, 1764. Buried Easter Lewis, aged 56 years.”—Lidney, Glouc.“July 27, 1654. Married Thomas Burton, marriner, and Easter Taylor.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“April, 1505. Christened Easter, daughter of Thomas Coxe, of Wapping.”—Stepney.

“May 27, 1764. Buried Easter Lewis, aged 56 years.”—Lidney, Glouc.

“July 27, 1654. Married Thomas Burton, marriner, and Easter Taylor.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

Epiphany, orTheophania(shortened to Tiffany), was popular with both sexes, but the ladies got the chief hold of it.

“Megge Merrywedyr, and Sabyn Sprynge,Tiffany Twynkeler, fayle for no thynge,”

says one of our old mysteries. This form succumbed at the Reformation. Tyffanie Seamor appears as defendant about 1590, however (“Chancery Suits: Eliz.”), and in Cornwall the name reached the seventeenth century:

“1594, Nov. 7. Baptized Typhenie, daughter of Sampson Bray.“1600, June 21. Baptized Tiffeny, daughter of Harry Hake.”—St. Columb Major.

“1594, Nov. 7. Baptized Typhenie, daughter of Sampson Bray.

“1600, June 21. Baptized Tiffeny, daughter of Harry Hake.”—St. Columb Major.

The following is from Banbury register:

“1586, Jan. 9. Baptized Epiphane, ye sonne of Ambrose Bentley.”[25]

Epiphany Howarth records his name also about 1590 (“Chancery Suits: Eliz.”), and a few years later he is once more met with in a State paper (C. S. P. 1623-25):

“1623, June. Account of monies paid by Epiphan Haworth, of Herefordshire, recusant, since Nov. 11, 1611, £6 10 0.”

This Epiphan is valuable as showing the transition state between Epiphania and Ephin, the latter being the form that ousted all others:

“1563, March 14. Christening of Ephin King, d. of — King.“1564, June 30. Christening of Effam, d. of John Adlington.“1620, March 30. Frauncis, sonne of Alexander Brounescome, and Effym, his wife, brought a bead at Mr. Vowell’s house.“1635, Jan. 28. Buried Epham Vowell, widow.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1563, March 14. Christening of Ephin King, d. of — King.

“1564, June 30. Christening of Effam, d. of John Adlington.

“1620, March 30. Frauncis, sonne of Alexander Brounescome, and Effym, his wife, brought a bead at Mr. Vowell’s house.

“1635, Jan. 28. Buried Epham Vowell, widow.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

But Ephin was not a long liver, and by the time of the Restoration had wholly succumbed. The last entry I have seen is in the Westminster Abbey register:

“1692, Jan. 25. Buried Eppifania Cakewood, an almsman’s wife.”

Pentecost was more sparely used. In the “Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londonensi” occur both Pentecost de London (1221) and Pentecost Servicus, and a servitor of Henry III. bore the only name of “Pentecost” (“Inquis., 13 Edw. I.,” No. 13). This name was all but obsolete soon after the Reformation set in, but it lingered on till the end of the seventeenth century.

“1577, May 25. Baptized Pentecost, daughter of Robert Rosegan.”—St. Columb Major.“1610, May 27. Baptized Pentecost, d. of William Tremain.”—Ditto.“August 7, 1696. Pentecost, daughter of Mr. Ezekel and Pentecost Hall, merchant, born and baptized.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

“1577, May 25. Baptized Pentecost, daughter of Robert Rosegan.”—St. Columb Major.

“1610, May 27. Baptized Pentecost, d. of William Tremain.”—Ditto.

“August 7, 1696. Pentecost, daughter of Mr. Ezekel and Pentecost Hall, merchant, born and baptized.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

Noel shared the same fate. The Hundred Rolls furnish a Noel de Aubianis, while the “Materialsfor a History of Henry VII.” (p. 503) mentions a Nowell Harper:

“1486, July 16. General pardon to Nowell Harper, late of Boyleston, co. Derby, gent.”“1545, Dec. 20. Baptized Nowell, son of William Mayhowe.”—St. Columb Major.“1580, March 1. Baptized James, son of Nowell Mathew.”—Ditto.“1627. Petition of Nowell Warner.”—“C. S. P. Domestic,” 1627-8.

“1486, July 16. General pardon to Nowell Harper, late of Boyleston, co. Derby, gent.”

“1545, Dec. 20. Baptized Nowell, son of William Mayhowe.”—St. Columb Major.

“1580, March 1. Baptized James, son of Nowell Mathew.”—Ditto.

“1627. Petition of Nowell Warner.”—“C. S. P. Domestic,” 1627-8.

Noel still struggled gamely, and died hard, seeing the eighteenth century well in:

“1706, April 23. Noell Whiteing, son of Noell and Ann Whiteing, linendraper, baptized.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

Again the Reformation, apart from Puritanism, had much to do with the decay of these names.

(d.)The Last of some Old Favourites.

There were some old English favourites that the Reformation and the English Bible did not immediately crush. Thousands of men were youths when the Hebrew invasion set in, and lived unto James’s reign. Their names crop up, of course, in the burial registers. Others were inclined to be tenacious over family favourites. We must be content, in the records of Elizabeth’s and even James’s reign, to find some old friends standing side by side with the new. The majority of them were extra-Biblical, and therefore did not meetwith the same opposition as those that savoured of the old ecclesiasticism. Nevertheless, this new fashion was telling on them, and of most we may say, “Their places know them no more.”

Looking from now back to then, we see this the more clearly. We turn to the “Calendar of State Papers,” and we find a grant, dated November 5, 1607, toFulkReade to travel four years. Shortly afterwards (July 15, 1609), we come across a warrant to John Carse, of the benefit of the recusancy ofDrewLovett, of the county of Middlesex. Casting our eye backwards we speedily reach a grant or warrant in 1603, whereinGavin[26]Harvey is mentioned. In 1604 comesIngramFyser. One after another these names occur within the space of five years—names then, although it was well in James’s reign, known of all men, and borne reputably by many. But who will say that Drew, or Fulk, or Gavin, or Ingram are alive now? How they were to be elbowed out of existence these very same records tell us; for within the same half-decade we may see warrants or grants relating toMatathiasMason(April 7, 1610) orGersomeHolmes (January 23, 1608).JethroForstall obtains licence, November 12, 1604, to dwell in one of the alms-rooms of Canterbury Cathedral; whileMelchizedecBradwood receives sole privilege, February 18, 1608, of printing Jewel’s “Defence of the Apology of the English Church.” The enemy was already within the bastion, and the call for surrender was about to be made.

Take another specimen a few years earlier. In the Chancery suits at the close of Elizabeth’s reign, we find a plaintiff named Goddard Freeman, another styled Anketill Brasbridge, a defendant bearing the good old title of Frideswide Heysham, while a fourth endeavours to secure his title to some property under the signature of Avery Howlatt. Hamlett Holcrofte and Hammett Hyde are to be met with (but we have spoken of them), and such other personages as Ellice Heye, Morrice Cowles, and Gervase Hatfield. Within a few pages’ limit we come across Dogory Garry, Digory Greenfield, Digory Harrit, and Degory Hollman. These names of Goddard, Anketill, Frideswide, Avery, Hamlet, Ellice, Morrice, Gervase, and Digory were on everybody’s lips when Henry VIII. was king. Who can say that they exist now? Only Maurice and Gervase enjoy a precariousexistence. A breath of popular disregard would blow them out. Avery held out, but in vain:

“Avery Terrill, cooke at ye Falcon, Lothbury, 1650.”—“Tokens of Seventeenth Century.”

But what else do we see in these same registers? We are confronted with pages bearing such names as Esaye Freeman (Isaiah), or Elizar Audly (Eliezer), or Seth Awcocke, or Urias Babington, or Ezekias Brent,—and this not forty years after the Reformation. These men must have been baptized in the very throes of the great contest.

Another “Calendar of State Papers,” bearing dates between 1590 and 1605, contains the names of Colet Carey (1580) and Amice Carteret (1599), alongside of whom stands Aquila Wyke (1603). Here once more we are reminded of two pretty baptismal names that have gone the way of the others. It makes one quite sad to think of these national losses. Amice, previous to the Reformation, was a household favourite, and Colet a perfect pet. Won’t somebody come to the rescue? Why on earth should the fact that the Bible has been translated out of Latin into English strip us of these treasures?

Turn once more to our church registers. Few will recognize Thurstan as a baptismal name:

“1544, May 11. Married Thryston Hogkyn and Letyce Knight.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.“1573, Nov. 15. Wedding of Thrustone Bufford and Annes Agnes Dyckson.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1544, May 11. Married Thryston Hogkyn and Letyce Knight.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

“1573, Nov. 15. Wedding of Thrustone Bufford and Annes Agnes Dyckson.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

Drew and Fulk are again found:

“1583, April 16. Buried Drew Hewat, sonne of Nicholas Hewat.“1583, March 8. Buried Foulke Phillip, sonne of Thomas Phillip, grocer.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1583, April 16. Buried Drew Hewat, sonne of Nicholas Hewat.

“1583, March 8. Buried Foulke Phillip, sonne of Thomas Phillip, grocer.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

Take the following, dropped upon hap-hazard as I turn the pages of St. Dionis Backchurch:

“1540, Oct. 25. Buried Jacomyn Swallowe.“1543, Aug. 3. Buried Awdrye Hykman.“1543, June 12. Married Bonyface Meorys and Jackamyn Kelderly.“1546, Nov. 23. Christened Grizill, daughter of—Deyne.“1557, Nov. 8. Buried Austin Clarke.“1567, April 22. Married Richard Staper and Dennis Hewyt.“1573, Sep. 25. Married John Carrington and Gyllian Lovelake.“1574, Oct. 23. Buried Joyce, d. of John Bray.“1594, Nov. 1. Married Gawyn Browne and Sibbell Halfhed.”

“1540, Oct. 25. Buried Jacomyn Swallowe.

“1543, Aug. 3. Buried Awdrye Hykman.

“1543, June 12. Married Bonyface Meorys and Jackamyn Kelderly.

“1546, Nov. 23. Christened Grizill, daughter of—Deyne.

“1557, Nov. 8. Buried Austin Clarke.

“1567, April 22. Married Richard Staper and Dennis Hewyt.

“1573, Sep. 25. Married John Carrington and Gyllian Lovelake.

“1574, Oct. 23. Buried Joyce, d. of John Bray.

“1594, Nov. 1. Married Gawyn Browne and Sibbell Halfhed.”

So they run. How quaint and pretty they sound to modern ears! Amongst the above I have mentioned some girl-names. The change is strongly marked here. It was Elizabeth’s reign saw the end of Joan. Jane Grey set the fashionable Jane going; Joan was relegated to the milkmaid, and very soon even the kitchen wench would none of it. Joan is obsolete; Jane is showing signs of dissolution.[27]

It was Elizabeth’s reign saw the end of Jill, or Gill, which had been the pet name of Juliana for three centuries:

“1586, Feb. 5. Christening of Gillian Jones, daughter of Thomas Jones, grocer.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.“1573, Sep. 25. Married John Carrington, Cheape, and Gillian Lovelake.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

“1586, Feb. 5. Christening of Gillian Jones, daughter of Thomas Jones, grocer.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1573, Sep. 25. Married John Carrington, Cheape, and Gillian Lovelake.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

In one of our earlier mysteries Noah’s wife had refused to enter the ark. To Noah she had said—

“Sir, for Jak nor for GilleWille I turne my face,Tille I have on this hilleSpun a space.”

It lingered on till the close of James’s reign. In 1619 we find in “Satyricall Epigrams”—

“Wille squabbled in a tavern very sore,Because one brought agillof wine—no more:‘Fill me a quart,’ quoth he, ‘I’m called Will;The proverb is, eachJackeshall have hisGill.’”

But Jill had become a term for a common street jade, like Parnel and Nan. All these disappeared at this period, and must have sunk into disuse, Bible or no Bible. A nanny-house, or simple “nanny,” was well known to the loose and dissolute of either sex at the close of the sixteenth century. Hence, in the ballad “The Two Angrie Women of Abington,” Nan Lawson is a wanton; while, in “Slippery Will,” the hero’s inclination for Nan is anything but complimentary:

“Long have I lived a bachelor’s life,And had no mind to marry;But now I faine would have a wife,Either Doll, Kate, Sis, or Mary.These four did love me very well,I had my choice of Mary;But one did all the rest excell,And that was pretty Nanny.“Sweet Nan did love me deare indeed,” etc.

Respectable people, still liking the name, changed it to Nancy, and in that form it still lives.

Parnel, the once favourite Petronilla, fell under the same blight as Peter, and shared his fate; but her character also ruined her. In the registers of St. Peter, Cornhill, we find the following entries:—

“1539, May 20. Christened Petronilla, ignoti cognominis.”“1594, Sep. 15. Christening of Parnell Griphin, d. of John Griphin, felt-maker.”“1586, April 17. Christening of Parnell Averell, d. of William Averell, merchant tailor.”

“1539, May 20. Christened Petronilla, ignoti cognominis.”

“1594, Sep. 15. Christening of Parnell Griphin, d. of John Griphin, felt-maker.”

“1586, April 17. Christening of Parnell Averell, d. of William Averell, merchant tailor.”

Two other examples may be furnished:—

“1553, Nov. 15. Peternoll, daughter of William Agar, baptized.”—St. Columb Major.“1590, April. Pernell, d. of Antony Barton, of Poplar.”—Stepney, London.

“1553, Nov. 15. Peternoll, daughter of William Agar, baptized.”—St. Columb Major.

“1590, April. Pernell, d. of Antony Barton, of Poplar.”—Stepney, London.

The Restoration did not restore Parnel, and the name is gone.

Sibyl had a tremendous run in her day, and narrowly escaped a second epoch of favour in the second Charles’s reign. Tib and Sib were alwaysplaced side by side. Burton, speaking of “love melancholy,” says—

“One grows too fat, another too lean: modest Matilda, pretty pleasing Peg, sweet singing Susan, 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.”

The “Psalm of Mercie,” too, has it:

“‘So, so,’ quoth my sister Bab,And ‘Kill ’um,’ quoth Margerie;‘Spare none,’ cry’s old Tib; ‘No quarter,’ says Sib,‘And, hey, for our monachie.’”

In “Cocke Lorelle’s Bote,” one of the personages introduced is—

“Sibby Sole, mylke wyfe of Islynton.”“Sibb Smith, near Westgate, Canterbury, 1650.”—“Half-penny Tokens of Seventeenth Century.”“1590, Aug. 30. Christening of Cibell Overton, d. of Lawrence Overton, bowyer.”

“Sibby Sole, mylke wyfe of Islynton.”

“Sibb Smith, near Westgate, Canterbury, 1650.”—“Half-penny Tokens of Seventeenth Century.”

“1590, Aug. 30. Christening of Cibell Overton, d. of Lawrence Overton, bowyer.”

Three names practically disappeared in this same century—Olive, Jacomyn or Jacolin, and Grissel:

“1581, Feb. 17. Baptized Olyff, daughter of Degorie Stubbs.”—St. Columb Major.“1550, Dec. 11. Christning of Grysell, daughter of — Plummer.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.“1598, March 15. Buried Jacolyn Backley, widow.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

“1581, Feb. 17. Baptized Olyff, daughter of Degorie Stubbs.”—St. Columb Major.

“1550, Dec. 11. Christning of Grysell, daughter of — Plummer.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1598, March 15. Buried Jacolyn Backley, widow.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

Olive was a great favourite in the west of England, and was restored by a caprice of fashion as Olivia in the eighteenth century. It was theproperty of both sexes, and is often found in the dress of “Olliph,” “Olyffe,” and “Olif.” From being a household pet, Dorothy, as Doll, almost disappeared for a while. Doll and Dolly came back in the eighteenth century, under the patronage of the royal and stately Dorothea. What a run it again had! Dolly is one of the few instances of a really double existence. It was the rage from 1450 to 1570; it was overwhelmed with favour from 1750 to 1820. Dr. Syntax in his travels meets with three Dollys. Napoleon is besought in the rhymes of the day to

“quit his folly,Settle in England, and marry Dolly.”

Once more Dolly, saving for Dora, has made her bow and exit. I suppose she may turn up again about 1990, and all the little girls will be wearing Dolly Vardens.

Barbara, with its pet Bab, is now of rarest use.Dowse, the pretty Douce of earlier days, is defunct, and with it the fuller Dowsabel:

“1565, Sep. 9. Buried Dowse, wife of John Thomas.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

Joycefought hard, but it was useless:

“1563, Sep. 8. Buried Joyce, wife of Thomas Armstrong.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.“1575, April 5. Baptized Joyes, daughter of John Lyttacott.”—St. Columb Major.“1652, Aug. 18. Married Joseph Sumner and Joyce Stallowhace.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1563, Sep. 8. Buried Joyce, wife of Thomas Armstrong.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

“1575, April 5. Baptized Joyes, daughter of John Lyttacott.”—St. Columb Major.

“1652, Aug. 18. Married Joseph Sumner and Joyce Stallowhace.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

Letticedisappeared, to come back as Lætitia in the eighteenth century:

“1587, June 19. Married Richard Evannes and Lettis Warren.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

Amery, orEmery, the property of either sex, lost place:

“1584, April 9. Buried Amery Martin, widow, of Wilsdon.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.“1668. Emerre Bradley, baker, Hartford.”—“Tokens of Seventeenth Century.”

“1584, April 9. Buried Amery Martin, widow, of Wilsdon.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1668. Emerre Bradley, baker, Hartford.”—“Tokens of Seventeenth Century.”

Aviceshared the same fate:

“Avis Kingston and Amary Clerke, widow, applied for arrears of pay due to their husbands, May 13, 1656.”—C. S. P.“1590-1, Jan. Christened Avis, d. of Philip Cliff.”—Stepney.“1600, Feb. 6. Baptized Avice, daughter of Thomas Bennett.”—St. Columb Major.“1623, August 5. Christened Thomas, the sonne of James Jennets, and Avice his wife.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“Avis Kingston and Amary Clerke, widow, applied for arrears of pay due to their husbands, May 13, 1656.”—C. S. P.

“1590-1, Jan. Christened Avis, d. of Philip Cliff.”—Stepney.

“1600, Feb. 6. Baptized Avice, daughter of Thomas Bennett.”—St. Columb Major.

“1623, August 5. Christened Thomas, the sonne of James Jennets, and Avice his wife.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

Thomasine requires a brief notice. Coming into use as a fancy name about 1450, it seems to have met with no opposition, and for a century and a half was a decided success. It became familiar to every district in England, north or south, and is found in the registers of out-of-the-way villages in Derbyshire, as plentifully as in those of the metropolitan churches:

“1538, Nov. 30. Married Edward Bashe and Thomeson Agar.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.“1582, Nov. 1. Baptized Tamson, daughter of Richard Hodge.”—St. Columb Major.“1622, Jan. 19. Christened Thomas, the sonne of Henery Thomson, haberdasher, and of Thomazine his wife.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.“1620, Jan. 21. Baptized Johanna, fil. Tamsin Smith, adulterina.”—Minster.“1640, Jan. 31. Buried Thomasing, filia William Sympson.”—Wirksworth, Derbyshire.

“1538, Nov. 30. Married Edward Bashe and Thomeson Agar.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

“1582, Nov. 1. Baptized Tamson, daughter of Richard Hodge.”—St. Columb Major.

“1622, Jan. 19. Christened Thomas, the sonne of Henery Thomson, haberdasher, and of Thomazine his wife.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.

“1620, Jan. 21. Baptized Johanna, fil. Tamsin Smith, adulterina.”—Minster.

“1640, Jan. 31. Buried Thomasing, filia William Sympson.”—Wirksworth, Derbyshire.

In other registers such forms as Thomasena, Thomesin, Thomazin, Tomasin, and Thomasin occur. In Cowley’s “Chronicle,” too, the name is found:

“Then Jone and Jane and Audria,And then a pretty Thomasine,And then another Katharine,And then a long et cætera.”

V.The General Confusion.

But what a state of confusion does all this reveal! By the time of the Commonwealth, there was the choice of three methods of selection open to the English householder in this matter of names. He might copy the zealot faction, and select his names from the Scriptures or the category of Christian graces; he might rally by the old English gentleman, who at this time was generally a Cavalier, and Dick, Tom, Harry, or Dolly, his children; or he might be careless about the whole matter, and mix the two, according to his capriceor fancy. That Royalist had no bad conception of the state of society in 1648, when he turned off verses such as these:

“And Greenwich shall be for tenements freeFor saints to possess Pell-Mell,And where all the sport is at Hampton CourtShall be for ourselves to dwell.Chorus.‘’Tis blessed,’ quoth Bathsheba,And Clemence, ‘We’re all agreed.’‘’Tis right,’ quoth Gertrude, ‘And fit,’ says sweet Jude,And Thomasine, ‘Yea, indeed.’“What though the king proclaimsOur meetings no more shall be;In private we may hold forth the right way,And be, as we should be, free.Chorus.‘O very well said,’ quoth Con;‘And so will I do,’ says Franck;And Mercy cries, ‘Aye,’ and Mat, ‘Really,’‘And I’m o’ that mind,’ quoth Thank.”

As we shall show in our next chapter, “Thank” was no imaginary name, coined to meet the exigencies of rhyme. Thanks, however, to the good sense of the nation, an effort was made in behalf of such old favourites as John, William, Richard, Robert, and Thomas. So early as 1643, Thomas Adams, Puritan as he was, had delivered himself in a London pulpit to the effect that “he knew ‘Williams’ and ‘Richards’ who, though they bore names not found in sacred story, but familiar to the country, were as gracious saints” as any whobore names found in it (“Meditations upon the Creed”). The Cavalier, we know, had deliberately stuck by the old names. A political skit, already referred to, after running through a list of all the new-fangled names introduced by the fanatics, concludes:

“They’re just like the Gadaren’s swine,Which the devils did drive and bewitch:An herd set on evillWill run to the de-villAnd his dam when their tailes do itch.‘Then let ’em run on!’Says Ned, Tom, and John.‘Ay, let ’um be hanged!’ quoth Mun:‘They’re mine,’ quoth old Nick,‘And take ’um,’ says Dick,‘And welcome!’ quoth worshipful Dun.‘And God blesse King Charles!’ quoth George,‘And save him,’ says Simon and Sill;‘Aye, aye,’ quoth old Cole and each loyall soul,‘And Amen, and Amen!’ cries Will.”

Another ballad, lively and free as the other, published in 1648, and styled “The Anarchie, or the Blest Reformation,” after railing at the confusion of things in general, and names in particular, concludes with the customary jolly old English flourish:

“‘A health to King Charles!’ says Tom;‘Up with it,’ says Ralph like a man;‘God bless him,’ says Moll, ‘And raise him,’ says Doll,‘And send him his owne,’ says Nan.”

The Restoration practically ended the conflict,but it was a truce; for both sides, so far as nomenclature is concerned, retained trophies of victory, and, on the whole, the Hebrew was the gainer. At the start he had little to lose, and he has filled the land with titles that had lain in abeyance for four thousand years. The old English yeoman has lost many of his most honoured cognomens, but he can still, at least, boast one thing. The two names that were foremost before the middle of the twelfth century stand at this moment in the same position. Out of every hundred children baptized in England, thirteen are entered in the register as John or William. The Cavalier, too, can boast that “Charles,”[28]although there were not more of that name throughout the length and breadth of England at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign than could be counted on the fingers of one hand, nowoccupies the sixth place among male baptismal names.

Several names, now predominant, were for various reasons lifted above the contest. George holds the fourth position among boys; Mary and Elizabeth, the first and second among girls. George dates all his popularity from the last century, and Mary was in danger of becoming obsolete at the close of Elizabeth’s reign, so hateful had it become to Englishmen, whether Churchmen or Presbyterians. It was at this time Philip, too, lost a place it can never recover. But the fates came to the rescue of Mary, when the Prince of Orange landed at Torbay, and sate with James’s daughter on England’s throne. It has been first favourite ever since. As for Elizabeth, a chapter might be written upon it. Just known, and no more, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, it was speedily popularized in the “daughter of the Reformation.” The Puritans, in spite of persecution and other provocations, were ever true to “Good Queen Bess.” The name, too, was scriptural, and had not been mixed up with centuries of Romish superstition. Elizabeth ruled supreme, and was contorted and twisted into every conceivable shape that ingenuity could devise. It narrowly escaped the diminutive desinence, for Ezot and Ezota occurto my knowledge four times in records between 1500 and 1530. But Bess and Bessie took up the running, and, a century later, Bett and Betty. It will surprise almost all my readers, I suspect, to know that the “Lady Bettys” of the early part of last century were never, or rarely ever, christened Elizabeth. Queen Anne’s reign, even William and Mary’s reign, saw the fashionable rage for Latinized forms, already referred to, setting in. Elizabeth was turned into Bethia and Betha:

“1707, Jan. 2. Married Willm. Simonds and Bethia Ligbourne.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.“1721. Married Charles Bawden to Bethia Thornton.”—Somerset House Chapel.“1748. Married Adam Allyn to Bethia Lee.”[29]—Ditto.

“1707, Jan. 2. Married Willm. Simonds and Bethia Ligbourne.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.

“1721. Married Charles Bawden to Bethia Thornton.”—Somerset House Chapel.

“1748. Married Adam Allyn to Bethia Lee.”[29]—Ditto.

The familiar form of this was Betty:

“Betty Trevor, wife of the Hon. John Trevor, eldest d. of Sir Thomas Frankland, of Thirkleby, in the county of York, Baronet, ob. Dec. 28, 1742, ætat. 25.”—“Suss. Arch. Coll.,” xvii. 148.

Bess was forgotten, and it was not till the present century that, Betty having become the property of the lower orders, who had soon learnt to copy their betters, the higher classes fell back once more on the Bessie of Reformation days.

Meanwhile other freaks of fancy had a turn. Bessie and Betty were dropped into a mill, and ground out as Betsy. This, after a while, was relegated to the peasantry and artisans north of Trent. Then Tetty and Tetsy had an innings. Dr. Johnson always called his wife Tetty. Writing March 28, 1753, he says—

“I kept this day as the anniversary of my Tetty’s death, with prayer and tears in the morning.”

Eliza arose before Elizabeth died; was popular in the seventeenth, much resorted to in the eighteenth, and is still familiar in the nineteenth century. Thomas Nash, in “Summer’s Last Will and Testament,” has the audacity to speak of the queen as—

“that Eliza, England’s beauteous queen,On whom all seasons prosperously attend.”

Dr. Johnson, in an epigram anent Colley Cibber and George II., says—

“Augustus still survives in Maro’s strain,And Spenser’s verse prolongs Eliza’s reign.”

But by the lexicographer’s day, the poorerclasses had ceased to recognize that Eliza and Betty were parts of one single name. They took up each on her own account, as a separate name, and thus Betty and Eliza were commonly met with in the same household. This is still frequently seen. TheSpectator, the other day, furnished a list of our commonest font names, wherein Elizabeth is placed fourth, with 4610 representatives in every 100,000 of the population. Looking lower down, we find “Eliza” ranked in the twenty-first place with 1507. This is scarcely fair. The two ought to be added together; at least, it perpetuates a misconception.

PURITAN ECCENTRICITIES.

Back to Index Next