Chapter II

CLUE TO SOME OF THE ANCIENT FORMS REPRESENTED IN ENGLISH NAMES.

So long as our surnames are treated as if each name were something standing apart by itself, very little progress can be made in their elucidation; it is by collation and comparison that, in this as in any other science, definite results are to be obtained. And a moderate amount of attention to the forms in which these names appear, and to the various endings prevalent among them, will enable many names, otherwise unrecognisable, to be brought within the pale of classification and of possible explanation. I am of course referring to that portion of our surnames--a much larger one according to my judgment than is generally acknowledged--which dates back to Anglo-Saxon times, and so forms a part of the general system by which Teutonic names are governed.

I shall have, in the course of this work, frequently to refer to the Teutonic system, and to names which do, or do not, according to my judgment, enter into it. And I will therefore, before going further, endeavour to explain what I mean by the Teutonic system. There is, then, a class of words which, at a time of remote antiquity, have been adopted as stems upon which, in some cases by a sort of phonetic accretion, in some cases by the addition of a diminutive ending, in some cases by forming a patronymic, in some cases by taking in another word as a compound, a number of other names have been formed. Thus, when we find such a group of names as _Dill_, _Dilly_, _Dillow_, _Dillen_, _Dilling_, _Dilke_, _Dilwyn_, or as _Budd_, _Budden_, _Buddle_, _Budding_, _Buddrich_, _Budmore_, we may take it that these are all ancient names, of which _Dill_ and _Budd_ are respectively the stems. And whenever we find a group of names with endings such as it is my object in the present chapter to explain, and in compounds such as will be dealt with in a succeeding chapter, we shall be warranted in assuming the antiquity of the group.

The endings in _a_, _ay_, _ah_, _ey_, _ie_, _o_, _oe_, _ow_.

And in the first place, let us take the endings in _a_, _i_, and _o_, of which the above are nothing more than arbitrary variations of spelling. Now ancient Teutonic names formed of one single word had commonly, though not invariably (and the same thing applies also to ancient Celtic names), a vowel-ending in _a_, _i_, or _o_; this ending is in our names sometimes dropped and at other times retained. (It is to be observed, however, that even in Anglo-Saxon times it is not an unfrequent thing to find the same name variously with and without a vowel-ending, of which some instances may be noted in Chapter V.) Thus we have _Abbe_, _Abba_, and _Abbey_, we have _Bell_, _Belly_, and _Bellow_, we have _Earl_ and _Early_, we have _Dand_, _Dandy_, and _Dando_, we have _Brand_ and _Brandy_, we have _Todd_ and _Toddy_, we have _Dane_ and _Dana_, we have _Marr_, _Marry_, and _Marrow_. These are all ancient names, variously with and without the vowel-ending, and it will be readily seen how apt the addition is to disguise the name, and to give it the appearance of something else.

The question now to consider is--What is the value and meaning of this vowel-ending, which was only given to simple names and never to compounds? It might be, in some cases, used simply as a sort of euphonic rounding-off of a name which might seem meagre and insignificant without something of the sort. We ourselves appear to use _s_ in the same manner in the case of some very short names, such as Wills and Epps, in which the final _s_ may perform the same service that was rendered by the vowel-ending. But there is also another principle which I think obtains, and which, indeed, may be the guiding principle in such cases. In Anglo-Saxon (and the same principle applied to other Teutonic dialects), the addition of _a_ to a word implied connection with it. Thus, from _scip_, a ship, is formed _scipa_, one connected with a ship, a sailor. Now, going back to the remote origin of names, there were many cases in which a man took a name from an abstraction, such as war, peace, glory, victory, or from a weapon, as the sword or the spear, and it is obvious that in such cases he required something to connect his name with it, and this is, as it seems to me, what was effected by the ending in question. And the principle is still a living one among us, and we form names daily in accordance with it, though we no longer use the ending in _a_, which has been superseded by that in _i_.[8] A connection with anything whatever is expressed by this ending, as when a stupid person is called "Duncey," one with a remarkable nose "Nosey," or one with a halting gait "Stumpy." The French seem to have retained their old ending, and, when they form names of this sort, to do it with the ending in _o_ (_eau_) which appears to be in accordance with the genius of their language, as that in _i_ (_ey_) is with that of ours.

Of these three endings, that in _a_ is the one which was in use among the Goths, in such names as Cniva, Totila, Ulfila. And the same was also the case among the Saxons, a branch of the same Low German stock, in such names as Anna, Ella, Penda, Dodda. The ending in _i_ was also common among the Old Saxons, and, if we may judge by the _Liber Vitae_ of Durham (which might naturally be supposed to contain a large proportion of Northern names), was also prevalent in the ancient Northumbria. We have in that record the names Alli, Arni, Bynni, Betti, Cyni, Diori, Elsi, Paelli, Tidi, Tilli, Terri, all of which are found in our present names _Alley_, _Arney_, _Binney_, _Betty_, _Kinney_, _Deary_, _Elsey_, _Paley_, _Tidy_, _Tilley_, _Terry_. The ending in _o_ was that which was in favour among the Franks and the High Germans generally, the oldest instance on record being probably that of Cotiso, p. 20. This is the usual ending in French names (so far as they are of Old Frankish origin, and come under this head), the form being generally _eau_, as in _Baudeau_, _Godeau_, _Fredeau_, representing the ancient names Baldo, Godo, Fredo. Hence our names ending in _o_ may be taken to be, to some extent, names of Old Frankish origin come to us through the Normans. But the number of such names is larger than could reasonably be accounted for in such a way, and in point of fact, we meet occasionally with such names at a much earlier period. The Frisians certainly seem to have had names in this form, and it is a question whether such names may not be partly due to them. It must be observed, then, that names with these three various endings represent the stem just the same as those that are without it.

The ending in _an_, _en_, _in_, or _on_.

This ending runs through the whole range of Teutonic names, and is common in English surnames. Hence we have _Doran_, _Lingen_, _Bolden_, _Hannen_, _Farren_, the names on which they are formed being represented in _Dore_, _Ling_, _Bold_, _Hann_, _Farre_. As to the value and meaning of this ending, we have nothing more to guide us than its parallel use in the languages most nearly concerned, where it is what may be called formative. That is to say, it is a form of speech which is used to form the endings of words, not adding anything to the meaning, but forming a kind of euphonic rounding-off of the word. Thus from A.S. _wearda_ is formed _warden_, from _geard_ (inclosure) is formed _garden_, from _Brytta_ is formed Briton, from _maegd_, maid, is formed _maiden_. Cf. also the old word _ratten_ for _rat_, still used in provincial speech. In many cases in Teutonic names we have words thus formed, and also the simpler forms on which they have been founded, _e.g._ we have _bero_, bear, and also _berin_, we have _aro_, eagle, and also _arin_ (=A.S. _earn_), both forming the stems on which a number of other names have been built. I take the ending in _en_, then, to be most probably a kind of phonetic accretion, adding nothing to the sense, but sometimes representing a secondary word, and starting a stem on its own account.

The ending in _ing_.

This is the Anglo-Saxon and ancient German patronymic, as in _Browning_, "son of Brown," _Dunning_, "son of Dunn," _Winning_, "son of Winn." It must have been superseded during, or very soon after, Anglo-Saxon times, by the patronymic in _son_, inasmuch as no names of Scriptural origin appear to be formed with it. Hence we have such names as _Bulling_, _Burning_, _Canning_, _Gambling_, _Halling_, _Harding_, _Hopping_, _Loving_, _Manning_, _Swearing_, _Telling_, _Walking_, _Willing_, some of which have been popularly supposed to be from the present participle. All of the above except two, _Swearing_ and _Gambling_, are found in the list of early Saxon settlers, and of these two (which are found in after Anglo-Saxon times) _Swearing_, which corresponds with an Old German Suaring, finds its stem in an Anglo-Saxon name Sweor, signifying important, honourable; and _Gambling_ (properly Gamling) is the patronymic of an A.S. and O.N. name, Gamol, signifying "old," probably in the honorific sense of old descent. From this origin, I take it, are also our names _Farthing_ and _Shilling_, the former from the stem _fard_, or _farth_, signifying "travel," found in several ancient names, and which I rather take to be the same as _ford_, found in the Fordingas among the early settlers. And _Shilling_, which corresponds with a present German _Schilling_, is probably the same as the Scilling in the "Traveller's Song," a supposed contraction of Scilding, from A.S. _scyld_, shield, in which case our name _Shield_ would be the parent of _Shilling_. I have referred at the beginning of this book to the curious-looking name _Winfarthing_ (quoted from Lower) as perhaps a corruption of an A.S. Winfrithing, though it is a case in which I do not feel much certainty, finding one or two other such names as _Turnpenny_, which may have been sobriquets.

The ending in _el_ or _il_.

This ending in Teutonic names may be taken, as a general rule, to be a diminutive, though in a few cases it may be more probably, like that in _en_, formative. Thus in the list of early A.S. settlers we have Bryd(ingas) and we have Brydl(ingas), representing the words _bride_ and _bridle_. Now, as German writers have taken the word _brid_ in ancient names to mean "bridle," comparing it with French _bride_, it would seem probable that, in the above A.S. name, Brydl is not a diminutive, but the extended word "bridle." However, as a general rule, it may be presumed to be a diminutive, and in such sense I take the following, premising that this, as well as all other diminutives, except _kin_, _lin_, and _et_, is subject to a vowel-ending just the same as simple forms. We have _Bable_, corresponding with an A.S. Babel, and an O.G. Babilo; _Ansell_ and _Anslow_ (Ansilo), corresponding with an O.G. Ansila; _Mundell_ and _Mundella_, with a Gothic Mundila;[9] _Costall_, _Costello_, and _Costly_, with an O.G. Costila. _Costly_ is properly Costili, with the ending in _i_, as also _Brightly_ is Brightili, and some other names with an adverbial look may be similarly explained.

The ending in _ec_ or _ic_.

This ending, with rare exceptions, may also be taken to be a diminutive. The oldest instance on record is stated by Stark as that of the Vandal general Stilicho in the fourth century, though, as found on Roman pottery (in the names Bassico and Bennicus), it may be still older. It seems rather singular that, though, according to Grimm, this ending was more particularly in favour among the Saxons, not a single instance of it occurs among the names of our early settlers, nor indeed any other form of diminutive except that in _el_, though the form in question is not uncommon in after Anglo-Saxon times. This diminutive is still in living use among us, at least in Scotland, where a "mile and a bittock" (little bit) has proved a snare to many a tourist. We have _Willock_, _Wilkie_, and _Wilke_, corresponding with an O.G. Willico, and an A.S. Uillech; _Lovick_ and _Lubbock_, corresponding with O.G. Liuvicho; _Jellicoe_, corresponding with O.G. Geliko, Jeliko, and an A.S. Geleca, some of these examples being with, and some without, the vowel-ending.

The ending in _lin_.

This ending, which is also a diminutive, is probably formed from that in _el_, by the addition of _en_. It is found in Foerstemann's list as early as the fifth century, but, as found on Roman pottery, must probably be still older. We have _Bucklin_, corresponding with a Buccellin, general of the Alemanni in the sixth century, and with a Buccellan on Roman pottery. Also _Tomlin_, corresponding with an O.G. Domlin; _Applin_, with an O.G. Abbilin; _Franklin_, with an O.G. Francolin; _Papillon_, with an O.G. Babolen, &c. This form of diminutive never takes a vowel-ending.

The ending in _kin_.

This diminutive ending is formed from that in _ec_ by the addition of _en_. It is the youngest-born of all, not being found, unless in rare cases, before the tenth century. And it is one that is still in living use both in England and in Germany, in the latter country more especially. We have _Wilkin_, corresponding with an O.G. Williken, and an O.N. Vilkinr; _Godkin_, with an O.G. Gotichin; _Hipkin_, with an O.G. Ibikin or Ipcin; and _Hodgkin_, with an A.S. Hogcin.

The ending in _et_.

There is an ending in _d_ or _t_ in O.G. names, which may be taken, though perhaps not with anything like certainty, to have the force of a diminutive. Hence might be such a name as _Ibbett_, corresponding with O.G. names Ibed and Ibet, from an unexplained stem _ib_; also our names _Huggett_, _Howitt_, and _Hewitt_, corresponding with an Anglo-Saxon Hocget, and an O.G. Huetus, from the stem _hog_, _hug_, signifying study or thought. But some other endings are so liable to intermix, and particularly the common one _had_, war, that there is very seldom anything like certainty.

The ending in _es_ or _is_.

I take this ending also to be diminutive, and to be possibly akin to our _ish_, as in blue-_ish_, which, as signifying a "little blue," seems to have the force of a diminutive. Hence we have _Riches_, corresponding with an O.G. Richizo, and a present French _Richez_; and _Willis_, corresponding with an O.G. Willizo. Then we have _Godsoe_, corresponding with an O.G. Godizo, of which Cotiso, mentioned in Horace (p. 20), is a High German form; and _Abbiss_, corresponding with the name, Abissa, of the son of Hengest, from, as supposed, Gothic _aba_, man. And we have _Prentiss_, corresponding with an A.S. Prentsa (=Prentisa), respecting which I have elsewhere suggested that the name should be properly Pentsa. Another name which I take to be from this ending is _Daisy_. There is an A.S. Daegsa, which as Dagsi, with the alternative ending in _i_, would give us _Daisy_. We have another name, _Gipsy_, which I take to be from Gibb or Gipp (A.S. _geban_, to give) with this ending. This ending in _is_ is naturally very apt to be corrupted into _ish_, and it is from this source, I take it, that we have such names as _Radish_, _Reddish_, _Varnish_, _Burnish_, and _Parish_, the two last of which we have also in their proper form as _Burness_, and _Parez_ or _Paris_.

The ending in _cock_.

This ending is not one that enters into the Teutonic system, unless so far as it may turn out to be a corruption of something else. I have not met with it earlier than A.D. 1400, nor do I know of anything to make me think that it is much older. There has been at different times a good deal of discussion as to its origin in _Notes and Queries_ and elsewhere. Mr. Lower has supposed it to be a diminutive, for which I do not think that any etymological sanction can be found, unless indeed we can suppose it to be a corruption of the diminutive _eck_ or _ock_ before referred to, which seems not impossible. But on the whole I am disposed to agree with the suggestion of a writer in _Notes and Queries_ that _cock_ is a corruption of _cot_,--not, however, in the sense which I suppose him to entertain, of _cot_ as a local word, but of _cot_ as an ancient ending, the High German form of _gaud_ or _got_, signifying, as supposed, "Goth." So far as the phonetic relationship between the two words _cock_ and _cot_ is concerned, we have an instance, among others, in our word _apricot_, which was originally _apricock_.

I am influenced very much in coming to the above conclusion by finding _coq_ as a not unfrequent ending in French names, as in _Balcoq_ and _Billecoq_, also in _Aucoq_, _Lecoq_, _Videcocq_, _Vilcocq_, which latter seem to be names corresponding with our _Alcock_, _Laycock_, _Woodcock_, and _Willcock_. They might all be formed on Teutonic stems, if we suppose _Lecoq_ and _Laycock_ to have lost a _d_, like _Lewis_ and _Lucas_, from _leod_, people. Now, that the ending _gaud_, with its alternative forms _got_, _caud_, _cot_, is present in French names as well as in English will be clearly seen from the following. From the Old German Faregaud we have _Faragut_, and the French have _Farcot_; from the O.G. Benigaud they have _Penicaud_, and we have _Pennycad_; from the O.G. Ermingaud they have _Armingaud_, and from Megingaud they have _Maingot_; from the O.G. Aringaud we have _Heringaud_, from Wulfegaud we have _Woolcot_, from Adogoto we have _Addicott_, and from Madalgaud we have _Medlicott_. I am also disposed on the same principle to take _Northcott_, notwithstanding its local appearance, to represent the O.G. name Nordgaud, and in this case we have also the name _Norcock_ to compare.

Presuming the above derivation to be the correct one, the question then arises,--Has this ending come to us through the French, or has the corruption proceeded simultaneously in both countries? That the latter has been the case, the French _Videcocq_, as compared with our _Woodcock_, goes some way to show, the one having the High German form _vid_ or _wid_, and the other the Saxon form _wud_. I may also mention, as being, so far as it goes, in accordance with the above theory, that we have a number of names both in the form of _cot_ and _cock_, as _Adcock_ and _Addicott_, _Alcock_ and _Alcott_, _Norcott_ and _Norcock_, _Jeffcock_ and _Jeffcott_. I do not, however, desire to come to a definite conclusion, though, as far as I am able to carry it, the inquiry seems in favour of the view which I have advocated. But the whole subject will bear some further elucidation.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] How or when this change took place is a question that awaits solving, but I observe that, in 1265, the Countess of Montford, giving names (or sobriquets) to her servants, calls one of her messengers Treubodi (trusty messenger), and not Treuboda, as the Anglo-Saxon form would have been.

[9] This name appears as [Greek: Moundilas] in Procopius, but, judging by the present pronunciation of Greek, it would sound as Mundila.