Surname Origins, Their Source and Significations (1875)

seems to have been forgotten, or passed by unheeded, till it was revived again five generations later in 'John Lackland.' 'William' enjoyed better auspices. It was the name of the founder of the new monarchy. It was the name of his immediate successor. What-ever the character of these two kings, such a conjunction could not but have its weight upon the especially Norman element in the kingdom. We find in Domes-day that while there are 68 'Williams,' 48 'Roberts,'and 28 'Walters,' there are only 10 'Johns.' A century later than this, 'William' must still have claimed precedence among the nobility at least, as is proved by a statement of Robert Montensis. He says, that at a festival held in the court of Henry II., in 1173, Sir William St. John and Sir William Fitz-Hamon, especial officers, had commanded that none but those of the name of 'William' should dine in the Great Chamber with them, and were, therefore, accompanied by one hundred and twenty ' Williams,' all knights. By the time of Edward I. this disproportion had become less marked. In a list of names connected with the county of Wiltshire in that reign, we find, out of a total of 588 decipherable names (for the record is somewhat damaged), 92 'Williams' to 88 'johns,' while 'Richard' is credited with 5 5; 'Robert,' 48; 'Roger,' 23; and 'Geoffrey,' 'Ralph,' and 'Peter,' each 16 names. This denotes clearly that a consider- able change had taken place in the popular estimation of these two appellations. Within a century after this, however, 'John' had evidently gained the supre- macy. In 1347, we find that out of 133 Common Councilmen for London town first convened, 35 were Johns,' the next highest being 17 under the head of

PATRONYMIC SURNAMES.

'William,' 15 under 'Thomas,' which now, for obviousreasons we will mention hereafter, had suddenly sprung into notoriety; f o under 'Richard,'9 under

Henry,'8 under 'Robert,' and so on; ending with one each for 'Laurence,' 'Reynald,' 'Andrew,' 'Alan;' Giles,' 'Gilbert,' and 'Peter.' A still greater disproportion is found forty years later; for in 1385, the Guild of St. George, at Norwich, out of a total of 376 names, possessed 128 'Johns' to 47 'Williams' and 41 ' Thomases.' 'From this period, despite the hatred that was felt for Lackland, 'John' kept the precedenceit had won, and to this circumstance the nation owes the sobriquet it now generally receives, that of 'John Bull.' Long ago, however, under the offensive title of 'Jean Gotdam,' we had become known as a people given to strange and unpleasant oaths. It is interesting to trace the way in which 'William' has again recovered itself in later days. Throughout the Middle Ages it occupied a sturdy second place, fearless-of anyrival beyond the one that had supplanted it. Its dark hour was the Puritan Commonwealth. As a Pagan name it was rejected with horror and disdain. From the day of the Protestant settlement and William's accession, however, it again looked up from the cold shade into which it had fallen, and now once more stands easily, as eight centuries ago, at the head of our baptismal registers. 'John,' on the other hand, though it had the advantage of being in no way hate-

1 This rivalry seems to have made its mark upon the popular superstitions of our forefathers, for to this day the ignis fatuus of our marshy districts is called either 'Will-a-Wisp' or 'Jack-a-Lanthorn: It at least reminds us that there was a day when every country clown was either 'Jack' or 'Will.