English Surnames by Charles Wareing Bardsley

412 Pages·2021·3.68 MB·English

Project Gutenberg's English Surnames, by Charles Wareing Endell Bardsley

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.

Title: English Surnames
Their Sources and Significations

Author: Charles Wareing Endell Bardsley

Release Date: July 21, 2019 [EBook #59959]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENGLISH SURNAMES ***

Produced by MWS, Barry Abrahamsen, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

I

ENGLISH SURNAMES.

LONDON: PRINTED BY

SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE

AND PARLIAMENT STREET

II

ENGLISH SURNAMES:

THEIR

SOURCES AND SIGNIFICATIONS.

BY

CHARLES WAREING BARDSLEY, M.A.

SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED

London:

CHATTO AND WINDUS, PICCADILLY.

1875.

TO

MY FATHER.

PREFACE

TO

THE SECOND EDITION.

I accept the early demand for a new edition of my book, not so much as proof of the value of my individual work, as of
the increased interest which is being taken in this too much neglected subject. In deference to the wholesome advice of
many reviewers, both in the London and Provincial press, especially that of the ‘Times’ and the ‘Athenæum,’ I have re-
arranged the whole of the chapters on ‘Patronymics’ and ‘Nicknames,’ subdividing the same under convenient heads.
By so doing the names which bear any particular relationship to one another will be found more closely allied than they
were under their former more general treatment.

My book has met with much criticism, partly favourable, partly adverse, from different quarters. To my reviewers in

general I offer my best thanks for their comments. The ‘Saturday Review’—and I say it the more readily as they will
see that I have not been insensible to the value of their criticism—has not, I think, sufficiently understood the nature of
my work. I am well aware that praise is due to them for having for some length of time strenuously advocated the claim
of our language to be English through all its varying stages. I do not see that in the general character of my book I have
lost sight of this fact. An ‘English Directory’ is not an ‘English Dictionary.’ The influences that have been at work on our
language are not the same as those upon our nomenclature. Every social casualty had an effect upon our names which it
could not have upon our words. The names found in Domesday Book, casting aside the new importation, were, in the
great majority of cases, obsolete by the end of the twelfth century, and of those which have survived and descended to
us as surnames, well-nigh all are devoid of diminutive or patronymic desinences—a clear proof that they were utterly
out of fashion as personal names during the era of surname formation. The Norman invasion was not a conquest of our
language, but it was of our nomenclature. The ‘Saturday Review’ may still demand that we shall view all as English, and
obliterate the distinctive terms of Saxon and Norman, but in doing so let us not forget facts. The language which
preceded the Norman Conquest is still the vehicle of ordinary converse. The nomenclature of that period went down
like Pharaoh’s chariot, and like Pharaoh’s chariot, which for all I know lies where it did, was never recovered.

A review in the ‘Guardian’ demands a brief notice on account of the mischief it may do. The end kept in view by the

reviewer is as transparent as his inability to reach it. Surely the day is past for any further attempt to make out that we
have no metronymic surnames. The writer is evidently unaware of the fact that the use of ‘ie’ and ‘y,’ as in ‘Teddy’ or
‘Johnnie,’ in the nineteenth century, does not prevail to as great an extent as that of ‘ot’ and ‘et’ from the twelfth to the
fifteenth. As ‘Philip’ became ‘Philipot,’ now ‘Philpott’; as ‘William,’ ‘Williamot,’ now ‘Wilmott’; as ‘Hew’ (or Hugh),
‘Hewet’ and ‘Hewetson’; as ‘Ellis’ (or Elias), ‘Elliot’ and ‘Elliotson’; so ‘Till’ (Matilda) became ‘Tillot’ and ‘Tillotson’;
‘Emme’ (Emma), ‘Emmott,’ ‘Emmett,’ and ‘Emmotson’; ‘Ibbe’ (Isabella), ‘Ibbott,’ ‘Ibbett,’ and ‘Ibbotson’; ‘Mary,’
‘Mariot’ and ‘Marriott’; and ‘Siss’ (Cecilia), ‘Sissot’ and ‘Sissotson.’ ‘Emmot,’ the writer says, is a form of ‘Amyas,’ I
suppose because he saw ‘Amyot’ in Miss Yonge’s glossary. According to him, therefore, Emmot is a masculine name.
How comes it to pass, then, that Emmot is always Latinised as Emmota, or that in our old marriage licences ‘Richard
de Akerode’ gets a dispensation to marry ‘Emmotte de Greenwood’ (Test. Ebor. iii. 317), or ‘Roger Prestwick’ to
marry ‘Emmote Crossley’ (ditto, 338)? How is it we meet with such entries as ‘Cissota West,’ (Index) or ‘Syssot that
was wife of Patrick’ (69)? How is it again that Mariot is registered as ‘Mariota in le Lane,’ or ‘John fil. Mariotæ,’ and
Ibbot or Ibbet as ‘Ibbota fil. Adæ,’ or ‘Robert fil. Ibotæ,’ (Index)? The fact is, we have a large class of metronymics
many of which doubtless arose from posthumous birth, or from adoption, or the more important character of the
mother in the eyes of the neighbours than the father, others too from illegitimacy.

Amongst other errors for which I have been called to account, the oddest is that of attributing to Miss Muloch the

authorship of Miss Yonge’s most useful and laborious work on Christian names. I do not know to which lady I owe the
deepest apology—whether to Miss Yonge for robbing her literary crown of one of its brightest jewels, or to Miss
Muloch for appearing to insinuate that hers was incomplete. This and several other mistakes of less moment I have
rectified in the present edition.

I have to thank the authoress of ‘Mistress Margery,’ etc., for the names in the index marked QQ., RR. 1, RR. 2,

and RR. 3. Such entries from the registry of St. James’s, Piccadilly (QQ.), as ‘Repentance Tompson’ (1688), ‘Loving
Bell’ (1693), ‘Nazareth Rudde’ (1695), ‘Obedience Clerk’ (1697), or ‘Unity Thornton’ (1703), may be set beside the
instances recorded on pp. 102–104. To these I would take this opportunity of adding ‘Comfort Starre,’ ‘Hopestill
Foster,’ ‘Love Brewster,’ ‘Fear Brewster,’ ‘Patience Brewster,’ ‘Remembrance Tibbott,’ ‘Remember Allerton,’
‘Desire Minter,’ ‘Original Lewis,’ and ‘Thankes Sheppard,’ all being names of emigrants from England in the 17th
century. (Vide Hotten’s ‘Original Lists of Persons of Quality.’)

February 1875.

vii

viii

ix

x

xi

PREFACE

TO

THE FIRST EDITION.

As prefaces are very little read, I will make this as brief as possible. It is strange how little has been written upon the
sources and significations of our English surnames. Of books of Peerage, of Baronetage, and of Landed Gentry, thanks
to Sir Bernard Burke, Mr. Walford, and others, we are not without a sufficiency; but of books purporting to treat of the
ordinary surnames that greet our eye as we scan our shop-fronts, or look down a list of contributions, or glance over
the ‘hatches, matches, and despatches’ of our newspapers—of these there are but few. Indeed, putting aside Mr.
Lower’s able and laborious researches, we may say none. Tracts, pamphlets, short treatises, articles in magazines, have
at various times appeared, but they have been necessarily confined and limited in their treatment of the subject.[1] And
yet what can be more natural than that we should desire to know something relating to the origin of our surname, when
it arose, who first got it, and how? Of the feebleness of my own attempt to solve all this I am conscious that I need not
to be reminded. Still, I think the ordinary reader will find in a perusal of this book some slight increase of information,
and if not this, that he has whiled away, not unpleasantly, some of his less busy hours.

During the last seven years I have devoted the whole of my spare time to the preparation of a ‘Dictionary of English

Surnames.’ But about two years ago it struck me that perhaps a smaller work dealing with the subject in a less formal
and more familiar style might not be unacceptable to many, as a kind of rudimentary treatise. In the course of my
labours I have come under obligations to several writers and several Societies. To long-departed men, whose works
do follow after them, I must give a passing allusion. Camden was the first to draw attention to this subject, and though
he wrote little, and that little not of the most correct kind, still he has afforded the groundwork for all future students.
Verstegan, who came next with his ‘Restitution of Decayed Intelligence,’ wrote quaintly, amusingly and incorrectly;
and, with respect to surnames, his definitions rather teach what they do not than what they do mean. Passing over
several archæological papers, and with a wide gap in regard to time, we come to Mr. Lower’s studies. He was the first
to give a real compendium of English nomenclature. Of his earlier efforts I will say nothing, for the ‘Patronymica
Britannica’ is that upon which his fame must rest. The fault of that work is that the author has confined his researches all
but entirely to the Hundred Rolls. These Rolls are undoubtedly the best for such reference; but there are many others,
as my index will show, which not merely contain a large mass of examples not to be met with there, but which, by
varieties of spelling in the case of such names as they share in common with the other, afford comparisons the use of
which would have made him certain where he has only guessed, and would have enabled him also to avoid many false
conclusions. This I would say with all respect, as one who has benefited very considerably by Mr. Lower’s labours.
Others I must thank more briefly, though none the less heartily. To Mr. Halliwell I am under deep obligation, for to his
‘Dictionary of Archaisms’ I have gone freely by way of quotation. To Mr. Way’s notes to his valuable edition of the
‘Promptorium Parvulorum’ I am also indebted for much interesting information regarding mediæval life and its
surroundings. Miss Yonge’s ‘History of Christian Names’ contains a large store of help to students of this kind of lore,
and of this I have availed myself in several instances. In conclusion, I have to acknowledge much valuable aid received
from the publications of the Surtees Society, the Early English Text Society, the Camden Society, and the Chetham
Society. It is in the rooms belonging to the latter that I have had the opportunity of consulting most of the records and
archives, a list of which prefaces my index, as well as other books of a more incidentally helpful character, and I cannot
allow this opportunity to pass without tendering my hearty thanks to Thomas Jones, Esq., B.A., F.S.A., for his courtesy
in permitting me access to all parts of the library, and to Mr. Richard Hanby, the under-librarian, for his constant
attention and readiness to supply me with whatever books I required.

Manchester:

December 1873.

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

PREFACE

TO THE

INDEX OF INSTANCES.

There are several matters which I deem it advisable to mention to the reader before he turns his attention to the Index
of Instances (pp. 514–612).

I. I have not, in the various chapters that form the body of this book, in all cases drawn particular attention when any

name happens to belong to several distinct classes. In the Index, however, I have tried to remedy this by furnishing
instances under the several heads to which they have been assigned in the text.

II. While ordinarily adhering to my plan of giving but two examples, I have set down three in some instances that

seemed more interesting, and in exceptional cases even four. To the majority of the appended surnames more
illustrations of course could have been added had it been expedient or necessary. There are several names, however,
which, though evidently of familiar occurrence in early days, as they are now, are yet, so far as my own researches go,
without any record. For instance, I cannot find any Arkwright or Runchiman previous to the sixteenth century. The
origin is perfectly clear, but the registry is wanting. Of several others, again, I can light upon but one entry. Still, in a
matter like this one must be thankful for small mercies, and it was with no small amount of rejoicing that in such a simple
record as that of ‘John Sykelsmith’ I found the progenitor, or one of the progenitors, of our many ‘Sucksmiths,’
‘Sixsmiths,’ ‘Shuxsmiths,’ etc.

III. There has been a difficulty with regard to Christian names also, which I have not attempted to overcome because

it was impossible to do so. With the Normans every baptismal name, masculine or feminine as it might originally be,
was the common property of the sexes. Thus by simply appending the feminine desinence, ‘Druett’ became ‘Druetta’
(v. Drewett), ‘Williamet’ became ‘Williametta’ (v. Williamot), ‘Aylbred’ became ‘Aylbreda’ ( v. Allbright), ‘Raulin’
became ‘Raulina’ (v. Rawlings), and ‘Goscelin’ became ‘Goscelina’ (v. Gosling). Any of these surnames, Drewett,
Willmott, Allbright, Rawlings, or Gosling, therefore, may be of feminine origin—nay, if the reader has studied my
chapter on ‘Patronymic Surnames’ with any care, he will see that this is fully as probable as the opposite view. Leaving
thus undecided what cannot be solved, I have placed both masculine and feminine forms under the one surname to
which one or other has given rise.

IV. There has been another difficulty also in respect of Christian names. These, as has been shown in the chapter

thereupon, were turned into pet forms, and these shortened forms commonly came to be the foundation of the surname.
In all the more formal registers, however, these surnames were never so set down. ‘Hugh Thomasson,’ ‘William
Thompson,’ and ‘Henry Tomson’ might come to have their names enrolled, and up to the beginning of the sixteenth
century at least they would be set down alike as ‘Hugh fil. Thomas,’ ‘William fil. Thomas,’ and ‘Henry fil. Thomas.’
Thus, again, ‘Ralph Higginson’ or ‘John Higgins’ would be ‘Radulphus’ or ‘Johannes fil. Isaac.’ This has prevented me
from giving so many instances of these curter forms of the patronymic class as I should have liked. When they are
given, the reader will observe that they come from less punctilious and more irregular sources, such as for instance the
Surtees’ Society’s collection of Mediæval Yorkshire Wills and Inventories. Where I have given such an instance as
‘Elekyn’ (v. Elkins) by itself, it must be understood that this is the Christian name, and that the owner when his or her
name was registered did not boast a surname at all.

V. By way of interesting the reader I have occasionally given the Latin form of entry. Thus ‘Adam the Goldsmith’ is

set down as ‘Adam Aurifaber’ (v. Aurifaber), ‘Henry the Butcher’ as ‘Henry Carnifex’ (v. Carnifex), and ‘Hugh the
Tailor’ as ‘Hugh Cissor’ (v. Cissor). Latin, indeed, seems to have been the vehicle of ordinary indenture. Thus under
‘Littlejohn’ the reader will find extracted from the Hundred Rolls ‘Ricardus fil. Parvi-Johannis,’ and under ‘Linota,’
‘Linota Vidua,’ i.e. ‘Linota the Widow.’ In the recording of local names, Norman-French and Saxon seem to have
fought for the first place, and even in our most formal registers they had the precedence over Latin. Thus if the latter can
boast the entry of ‘Isolda Beauchamp’ as ‘Isolda de Bello Campo’ (v. Beauchamp), still, if we come to such generic
names as Briggs or Brook, we find the entry is all but invariably either ‘Henry Atte-brigg’ or ‘Roger del Brigge’ (v.
Briggs), or ‘Alice de la Broke or ‘Ada ate Brok’ (v. Brook). As respects nicknames or names of occupation, the
Norman-French tongue had them to itself. ‘Roger le Buck,’ ‘Philip le Criour,’ ‘Thomas le Cuchold,’ ‘Osbert le
Curteys,’ or ‘Thomas le Cupper’—such is their continuous form of entry. Such a Saxon enrolment as ‘Robert the
Brochere’ (v. Broker) is of the rarest occurrence—so rare, indeed, as to make one feel it was an undoubted freak on
the part of the registrar, whoever he might be.

VI. In some few cases I have set down surnames which are not treated of in the text. I have done this either because

the name seemed worthy of this casual notice, or because, though not itself mentioned, it happened to corroborate
some statement I have made regarding a particular name belonging to the same class.

In conclusion, I will not say there is no mistake in the Index—that would be a bold thing to state; I will not say that I

may not have given an instance that does not rightly belong to the surname under which it is set; but I can asseverate
that I have honestly attempted to be correct, and I believe a careful examination will find but the most occasional error,
if any at all, of this class.

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

CONTENTS.

PAGE

Preface to the Second Edition
vii

Preface to the First Edition
xiii

Preface to the Index of Instances
xvii

Introductory Chapter
1

CHAPTER I.

Patronymic Surnames
9

CHAPTER II.

Local Surnames
107

CHAPTER III.

Surnames of Office
172

CHAPTER IV.

Surnames of Occupation (Country)
243

CHAPTER V.

Surnames of Occupation (Town)
317

Appendix to Chapters IV. and V.
415

CHAPTER VI.

Nicknames
423

Index of Instances
515

Footnotes
711

xxiii

ENGLISH SURNAMES.

1