LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

and yet preserve their individuality in work-a-day life by bearing such names as Bat, Bate, Batty, Bartle, Bartelot, Batcock, Batkin, and Tolly, or Tholy. In a word, these several forms of Bartholomew were treated as so many separate proper names.

      No one would think of describing Wat Tyler’s – we should now say Walter Tyler’s – insurrection as Gowen does:

      “Watte vocat, cui Thoma venit, neque Symme retardat,

      Bat– que Gibbe simul, Hykke venire subent:

      Colle furit, quem Bobbe juvat, nocumenta parantes,

      Cum quibus, ad damnum Wille coire volat —

      Crigge rapit, dum Davie strepit, comes est quibus Hobbe,

      Larkin et in medio non minor esse putat:

      Hudde ferit, quem Judde terit, dum Tibbe juvatur

      Jacke domosque viros vellit, en ense necat.”

      These names, taken in order, are Walter, Thomas, Simon, Bartholomew, Gilbert, Isaac, Nicholas, Robert, William, Gregory, David, Robert (2), Lawrence, Hugh, Jordan (or George), Theobald, and John.

      Another instance will be evidence enough. The author of “Piers Plowman” says —

      “Then goeth Glutton in, and grete other after,

      Cesse, the sonteresse, sat on the bench:

      Watte, the warner, and his wife bothe:

      Tymme, the tynkere, and twayne of his prentices:

      Hikke, the hackney man, and Hugh, the pedlere,

      Clarice, of Cokkeslane, and the clerke of the churche:

      Dawe, the dykere, and a dozen othere.”

      Taken in their order, these nick forms represent Cecilia, Walter, Timothy, Isaac, Clarice, and David. It will be seen at a glance that such appellatives are rare, by comparison, in the present day. Tricks of this kind were not to be played with Bible names at the Reformation, and the new names from that time were pronounced, with such exceptions as will be detailed hereafter, in their fulness.

      To speak of William and John is to speak of a race and rivalry 800 years old. In Domesday there were 68 Williams, 48 Roberts, 28 Walters, to 10 Johns. Robert Montensis asserts that in 1173, at a court feast of Henry II., Sir William St. John and Sir William Fitz-Hamon bade none but those who bore the name of William to appear. There were present 120 Williams, all knights. In Edward I.’s reign John came forward. In a Wiltshire document containing 588 names, 92 are William, 88 John, 55 Richard, 48 Robert, 23 Roger, Geoffrey, Ralph, and Peter 16. A century later John was first. In 1347, out of 133 common councilmen for London, first convened, 35 were John, 17 William, 15 Thomas, (St. Thomas of Canterbury was now an institution), 10 Richard, 8 Henry, 8 Robert. In 1385 the Guild of St. George at Norwich contained 377 names. Of these, John engrossed no less than 128, William 47, Thomas 41. The Reformation and the Puritan Commonwealth for a time darkened the fortunes of John and William, but the Protestant accession befriended the latter, and now, as 800 years ago, William is first and John second.

      But when we come to realize that nearly one-third of Englishmen were known either by the name of William or John about the year 1300, it will be seen that the pet name and nick form were no freak, but a necessity. We dare not attempt a category, but the surnames of to-day tell us much. Will was quite a distinct youth from Willot, Willot from Wilmot, Wilmot from Wilkin, and Wilkin from Wilcock. There might be half a dozen Johns about the farmstead, but it mattered little so long as one was called Jack, another Jenning, a third Jenkin, a fourth Jackcock (now Jacox as a surname), a fifth Brownjohn, and a sixth Micklejohn, or Littlejohn, or Properjohn (i. e. well built or handsome).

      The nick forms are still familiar in many instances, though almost entirely confined to such names as have descended from that day to the present. We still talk of Bob, and Tom, and Dick, and Jack. The introduction of Bible names at the Reformation did them much harm. But the Reformation, and the English Bible combined, utterly overwhelmed the pet desinences, and they succumbed. Emmot and Hamlet lived till the close of the seventeenth century, but only because they had ceased to be looked upon as altered forms of old favourite names, and were entered in vestry books on their own account as orthodox proper names.

II. Pet Forms

      These pet desinences were of four kinds.

(a) Kin

      The primary sense of kin seems to have been relationship: from thence family, or offspring. The phrases “from generation to generation,” or “from father to son,” in “Cursor Mundi” find a briefer expression:

      “This writte was gett fra kin to kin,

      That best it cuth to haf in min.”

      The next meaning acquired by kin was child, or “young one.” We still speak in a diminutive sense of a manikin, kilderkin, pipkin, lambkin, jerkin, minikin (little minion), or doitkin. Appended to baptismal names it became very familiar. “A litul soth Sermun” says —

      “Nor those prude yongemen

      That loveth Malekyn,

      And those prude maydenes

      That loveth Janekyn:

      ····

      Masses and matins

      Ne kepeth they nouht,

      For Wilekyn and Watekyn

      Be in their thouht.”

      Unquestionably the incomers from Brabant and Flanders, whether as troopers or artisans, gave a great impulse to the desinence. They tacked it on to everything:

      “Rutterkin can speke no Englyssh,

      His tongue runneth all on buttyred fyssh,

      Besmeared with grece abowte his dysshe

      Like a rutter hoyda.”

      They brought in Hankin, and Han-cock, from Johannes; not to say Baudkin, or Bodkin, from Baldwin. Baudechon le Bocher in the Hundred Rolls, and Simmerquin Waller, lieutenant of the Castle of Harcourt in “Wars of the English in France,” look delightfully Flemish.

      Hankin is found late:

      “Thus for her love and loss poor Hankin dies,

      His amorous soul down flies.”

“Musarum Deliciæ,” 1655.

      To furnish a list of English names ending in kin would be impossible. The great favourites were Hopkin (Robert),3 Lampkin and Lambkin (Lambert), Larkin (Lawrence), Tonkin (Antony), Dickin, Stepkin (Stephen),4 Dawkin (David), Adkin,5 now Atkin (Adam, not Arthur), Jeffkin (Jeffrey), Pipkin and Potkin (Philip), Simkin, Tipkin (Theobald), Tomkin, Wilkin, Watkin (Walter), Jenkin, Silkin (Sybil),6 Malkin (Mary), Perkin (Peter), Hankin (Hans), and Halkin or Hawkin (Henry). Pashkin or Paskin reminds us of Pask or Pash, the old baptismal name for children born at Easter. Judkin (now as a surname also Juckin) was the representative of Judd, that is, Jordan. George afterwards usurped the place. All these names would be entered in their orthodox baptismal style in all formal records. But here and there we get free and easy entries, as for instance:

      “Agnes Hobkin-wyf, iiiid.” – W. D. S.

      “Henry, son of Halekyn, for 17½ acres of land.” – “De Lacy Inquisition,” 1311.

      “Emma Watkyn-doghter, iiiid.” – W. D. S.

      “Thi beste cote, Hankyn,

      Hath manye moles and spottes,

      It moste ben y-wasshe.”

“Piers Plowman.”

      Malkin

Скачать книгу