Surname Origins, Their Source and Significations (1875)

impulse of the nation. Names associated with the more obscure books, and with personages less directlyconfronting us in our study of the Word, begin now to be inscribed upon our registers. The ' Proceedings in Chancery' is the best evidence how far this had affected our nomenclature towards the close of the reign of Elizabeth. We come across such names, for example, as 'Ezechi Newbold,' 'Dyna Bocher,' ' Phenenna Salmon,' 'Ezekiel Guppye,' 'Dedimus Buckland,' 'Esdras Botright,' 'Sydrach Sympson,' 'Judith Botswain,' 'Isachar Brookes,' 'Gamaliel Capell,' 'Emanuel Cole,' 'Abigaill Cordell,' 'Reuben Crane,' 'Amos Boteler,' 'Philologus Forth,' 'Zabulon Clerke,' 'Archelaus Gifford,' 'Gideon Hancock,' 'SethAwcocke,' ' Abacucke Harman,' or 'Melchizedek Payn.' The 'State Papers' (domestic) of James I.'s reign are still more largely imbued with the new influence. We are now brought face to face with entries such as 'Uriah Babington,' 'Aquila Wykes,' 'Hilkiah Crooke,' 'Caleb Morley,' 'Philemon Powell,' 'Melchior Rainald,' ' Zachaeus Ivitt,' 'Ananias Dyce,' 'Agrippina Bingley,' 'Apollonia Cotton,' or 'Phineas Pett.' So far, however, the change was of a certain kind. These new names did not clash with the old nomenclature. There was a greater variety, that was all. Both romance and sacred names went together, and in the same family might be seen 'John' and 'Ralph,' 'Isaac' and 'Robert,' 'Reuben' and 'Richard.' But a new spirit was being infused into the heart of the nation, that spirit which at length brought about the Puritan Commonwealth. We all know how this great change came. It is neither our intention, nor need we enter into it here. Sufficient

PATRONYMIC SURNAMES.

for our purpose that it came. This revolution marvellously affected our nomenclature. It was not simply that the old and, so to speak, pagan names 'William,' 'Roland,' 'Edward,' 'Ralph,' 'Aymon,' and a hundred others, once household words, were condemned to oblivion, but even the names of the Christian saints were ignored. 'Cromwell,' says Cleveland, 'hath beat up his drums clean through the Old Testament — you may know the genealogy of our Saviour by the names of his regiment. The muster master hath no other list than the first chapter of St. Matthew.' The Old Testament, indeed, seems to have been alone in favour.' The practice of choosing such designations borrowed therefrom as 'Enoch,' 'Hiram,' 'Seth,' 'Phineas,' 'Eli,' ' Obadiah,' 'Job,' 'Joel,' 'Hezekiah,' 'Habbakuk,' 'Caleb,' 'Zeruiah,' Joshua,' 'Hephzibah,' or 'Zerubbabel,' has left its mark to this very day, especially in our more retired country districts. Self-abasement showed itself; at least externally, in the choice of names of bad repute. Cains,' 'Absoloms,' 'Abners,' 'Delilahs,' ' Dinahs,' 'Tamars,' 'Korahs,' 'Abirams,' and 'Sapphiras,' 2

'Lord Macaulay has noticed this. Speaking of the Old Testament, and in respect of the old Puritans, he says: 'In such a history it was not difficult for fierce and gloomy spirits to find much that might be distorted to suit their wishes. The extreme Puritans, therefore, began to feel for the Old Testament a preference which, perhaps, they did not distinctly avow even to themselves, but which showed itself in all their sentiments and habits. They paid to the Hebrew language a respect which they refused to that tongue in which the discourses of Jesus and the epistles of Paul have come down to us. They baptized their children by the names, not of Christian saints, but of Hebrew patriarchs and warriors.' — (Hist. Eng. ch. I.)

2 The most curious illustration of this class is that of 'Melcom Groat' (T. T.). 'Milcom, the abomination of the children of Ammon.'