Surname Origins, Their Source and Significations (1875)

There can be scarcely any doubt, I think, that Malkin was originally the pet name of Matilda; then, as that favourite name gradually sunk in estimation, and Mary proportionately advanced, but this much later on, it wastransferred. Thus, if I am correct, our 'Makinsons' and 'Makins,' 'our 'Meakins' and 'Meekins,' and our 'Mawsons'2 will be sprung from Maud, rather than Mary. In confirmation of this, I may quote 'Malkin,'the early cant term for a ' slut,' a word as old as Chaucer himself, and one that Mary could not have possibly acquired in his day, as barely familiar.

Mawdkin' or 'Malkin,' on the other hand, would be the ordinary term for every household drudge. It is only those who have carefully studied early registers who can realize the difference of position 'Matilda' and 'Mary' relatively occupy at such a period as this. There were six 'Matildas' of royal lineage between William I. and Henry II. alone. It greets one at every turn; the present popularity of the latter is entirely thegrowth of a later and more superstitious age.3

Speaking of Mary, we must not forget Elizabeth, known, generations ere Queen Bess made it

'It has been thought by some that our 'Makins' and 'Makinsons' are from Matthew, and not in any way connected with feminine nomenclature. This may be so, for although there is the entry 'Maykina Parmunter' in the Parliamentary Rolls, there is also 'Maykinus Lappyng' in Materials for Hist. Reign of Henry VII.

2 Thomas Mawdeson (F. F.) would lead one to suppose that Mawson was a direct corruption. It may be so, but 'Maw' itself seems to have existed as a pet form of Maud. In the 'De Lacy Inquisition' (1311) there occurs 'Richard, son of Mawe, for 25 acres, etc.' — p. so (Chelt. Soc.)

The preceding paragraphs will sufficiently answer, I doubt not, the questions of correspondents in ' Notes and Queries,' as to whether we have any surnames derived from female baptismal names.

PATRONYMIC SURNAMES.

so popular, as Isabella. It was in this form it came into England with that princess of Angoulême who married John Lackland. But it was not a favourite; pretty as it was, its connexion with our most despicable monarch spoiled all chance of popularity, and while on the Continent it gained friends on every hand, it was only with the higher nobility of our own land it got any place worth speaking of. Still it has left its mark. As Elizabeth' at a later stage became 'Lib' and 'Libby,' so Isabel was fondled into 'I'b' and Ibby.' Thus we come across such entries as 'Henry Ebison,' 'Thomas Ibson,' or 'John Ibson.' But a foreign name without the foreign desinence would be impossible. With the introduction of Isabel came in the diminutive ' Ibbot' or 'Ibbet.' Registrations like 'Ibbota fil. Adam,' 'lbote Babyngton,' or 'Ebote Gylle,'and as surnames 'Walter Ibbot,' 'Robert fil. Ibote,' Francis Ibbitson,' or 'Alice Ebotson' are of common occurrence.2 Another form of the same diminutive was'Isot,' hence 'Isotte Symes,' 'Izott Barn,' or 'Ezota

1 Elizabeth Caine into use too late to leave any mark upon our surnames. I have not come across, to the best of my remembrance, a single instance in any record earlier than the fifteenth century. 'Bess,'or 'Bessie,' was the first pet name formed from it, and this very probably began to grow into favour about the time of Elizabeth Woodville's marriage. With the proud imperious Queen Bess, however, came in every conceivable variety that could be played upon the name, 'Betsey,' or 'Betsy,' 'Betty,' 'Eliza,' ' Lizzie,' and 'Libbie' being the favourites. The first 'Bessie' I find is that of 'Bessye Tripps,' 1558; the first 'Betty' being that of 'Bettye Sheile,' 1580, both being in a Newcastle will. Betty for two centuries was, perhaps, the form most in favour in aristocratic circles. How fickle is fashion ! It is entirely tabooed there in the nineteenth.

2 Thomas and John Ibson are recorded in the 'Corpus Christi Guild,' York. (Surt. Soc.)