“Do not think that we resemble
Betsy Jane or Mary Ann,
Women born in lowly cottage,
Bred for broom or frying-pan.”
And yet, in forty-nine church registers out of fifty, throughout the length and breadth of England, there will not be found a single instance of a double christian name previous to the year 1700. Mr. Maskell has failed to find any instance in the register of All-Hallows, Barking, and the Harleian Society’s publication of the registers of St. Peter, Cornhill, and St. Dionis Backchurch only confirms the assertion I have made.
Many stories have arisen upon these double names. A Mr. Gray, bearing the once familiar Christian name of Anketil, wanted the certificate of his baptism. The register was carefully searched – in vain; the neighbouring registers were as thoroughly scanned – in vain. Again the first register was referred to, and upon a closer investigation he was found entered as Ann Kettle Gray.
Not very long ago a child was brought to the font for baptism. “What name?” asked the parson. “John,” was the reply. “Anything else?” “John honly,” said the godparent, putting in an “h” where it was not needed. “John Honly, I baptize thee,” etc., continued the clergyman, thus thrown off his guard. The child was entered with the double name.
In Gutch’s “Geste of Robin Hode” (vol. i. p. 342) there is a curious note anent Maid Marian, wherein some French writers are rebuked for supposing Marian to be composed of Mary and Ann, and the statement is made that it is from Mariamne, the wife of Herod! Marian or Marion, of course, is the diminutive of Mary, the other pet form being Mariot. Nevertheless the great commonness of the double christian name Mary Ann is consequent on the idea that Marian is compounded of both.
In the registers of marriages at Halifax parish church (December 1, 1878) is the name of a witness, Charity H – . He – it was a he– is the third child of his parents, two sisters, Faith and Hope, having preceded him. His full baptismal name is “And Charity,” and in his own marriage certificate his name is so written. In ordinary affairs he is content with Charity alone (Notes and Queries, August 16, 1879). This could not have happened previous to Queen Anne’s reign. Acts-Apostles Pegden’s will was administered upon in 1865. His four elder brothers bore the four Evangelists’ names. This, again, could not well have occurred before the eighteenth century was in. In Yorkshire directories one may see such entries as John Berry, and immediately below, Young John Berry. This represents a common pleasantry at the font among the “tykes,” but is necessarily modern. Nor could “Sir Isaac” or “Sir Robert,” as prænomens to “Newton” or “Peel,” have been originated at any distant period.
IV. The Decay of Single Patronymics in Baptism
The introduction of double baptismal names produced a revolution as immediate as it was unintentional. It put a stop to what bade fair to become a universal adoption of patronymics as single baptismal names. This practice took its rise about the year 1580. It became customary in highly placed families to christen the eldest son by the name of the landed estate to which he was heir. Especially was it common when the son succeeded to property through his mother; then the mother’s surname was his Christian name. With the introduction of second baptismal names, this custom ceased, and the boy or girl, as the case might be, after a first orthodox name of Robert or Cecilia, received as a second the patronymic that before was given alone. Instead of Neville Clarke the name would be Charles Neville Clarke. From the year 1700, say, this has been a growing custom, and half our present list of treble names are thus formed.62
The custom of giving patronymic names was, for a century at least, peculiar to England, and is still rare on the Continent. Camden notices the institution of the practice:
“Whereas in late yeares sirnames have beene given for christian names among us, and no where else in Christendome: although many dislike it, for that great inconvenience will ensue: neverthelesse it seemeth to procede from hearty goodwill and affection of the godfathers, to shew their love, or from a desire to continue and propagate their owne names to succeeding ages. And is in no wise to bee disliked, but rather approoved in those which, matching with heires generall of worshipfull ancient families, have given those names to their heires, with a mindefull and thankfull regard of them, as we have now Pickering, Wotton, Grevill, Varney, Bassingburne, Gawdy, Calthorpe, Parker, Pecsal, Brocas, Fitz-Raulfe, Chamberlanie, who are the heires of Pickering, etc.” – “Remaines,” 1614.
Fuller says —
“Reader, I am confident an instance can hardly be produced of a surname made christian in England, save since the Reformation… Since it hath been common.” – “Worthies,” i. 159, 160.
For two hundred years this custom had the widest popularity among the higher classes, and from some of our registers there are traces that the lower orders were about to adopt the practice. In the case of female heiresses the effect is odd. However, this was got over sometimes by giving a feminine termination:
“1660, Aug. 28. John Hendon, Knight, of Biddenden in Kent, and Northamtonia Haward, of Tandridge in Surrey, married.” – Streatham, Surrey.
“1711, Jan. 3. Buried Jermyna, d. of Mr. Edward Tyson, gent.” – St. Dionis Backchurch.
“1699, March 7. Nathaniel Parkhurst and Althamia Smith, of Kensington, married.”
Althamia was daughter of Altham Smyth, barrister, son of Sir Thomas Smyth, of Hill Hall, Essex (Chester’s “Westminster Abbey,” p. 173).
But more often they were without the feminine desinence:
“1639, Oct. 18. Buried Essex, daughter of Lord Paget.” – Drayton (Lyson’s “Middlesex,” p. 42).
Will of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, 1680 (Doctors’ Commons):
“Item: To my daughter Mallet, when shee shall have attained the like age of sixteen, the summe of foure thousand pounds.”
The Countess of Rochester was Elizabeth, daughter and heir of John Mallet, Esq., of Enmore, Somerset.
“1699. Petition of Windebank Coote, widow, to the Lords of the Treasury, showing that her husband Lambert Coote was a favourite servant of King Charles II., and left her with a great charge of children.” – “C. Treas. P.,” 1697-1702.
“Tamworth, daughter of Sir Roger Martin, of Long Melford, married Thomas Rookwood (who was born Aug. 18, 1658).” – “Collect. et Top.,” vol. ii. p. 145.
“1596, Nov. 21. Baptized Cartwright, daughter of Nicholas Porter.” – Aston-sub-Edge, Gloucester.
“1634, April 18. Baptized Steward, daughter of Sir Thomas Stanley, Knight.” – Stepney, London.
“1656, March 24. Douglas Sheffield, daughter of Sir John Sheffield.” – “Lunacy Commissions and Inquisitions,” Record Office.
“1709, Feb. 3. Tankerville Chamberlyne, spinster, daughter of Edward C.” – Ditto.
“1601, Feb. Buryed Handforth, d. Thomas Davenport, a soldier in Ireland.” – Stockport Parish Church.
“1610, July 24. Baptized Kenburrow, ye daughter of Dr. Masters, one of the worshipfull prebendaries.” – Cant. Cath.
“1688, March 29. Baptized Tufton, daughter of the Rev. Dr. James Jefferys, one of the prebendarys of this church.” – Cant. Cath.
Even down to the middle of last century the custom was not uncommonly practised:
“1763, Sep. 15. Thomas Steady, of Chartham, to Chesterton Harnett, of the precincts of this church, spinster, by licence.” – Cant. Cath.
“1759, June 12. Honourable Chatwynd Trumbull, widow.” – “Lunacy Commissions and Inquisitions.”
As to the male heirs, we need not furnish illustrations; they would require too much room:
“Sir Humphry Winch, Solicitor-General to Queen Elizabeth, married Cicely Onslowe. His eldest son was Onslowe Winch.” – “Collect. et Top.,” vol. iii. p. 86.
“Woodrove Foljambe, born Jan. 25, 1648, son of Peter Foljambe. His mother was Jane Woodrove, of Hope, Derbyshire.” – Ditto, p. 88.
How common the practice was becoming among the better-class families the Canterbury register shall show:
“1601, April 16. Baptized Nevile, the sonne of Edwarde Whitegrave.
“1614, Nov. 28. Baptized Tunstall, sonn of Mr. William Scott, the sonn-in-lawe to the worshipful Mr. Tunstall, prebendary of this church.
“1615, May 15. Baptized Dudly, sonn of Mr. Doctor Jacksonn.
“1619, Dec. 16. Baptized Dudley, sonne of Sir John Wiles.
“1624, July 26. Baptized Sydney, sonne of Sirre William Barnes, Kt.”
Dudley was, perhaps, the first surname that obtained a place among ordinary baptismal names:
“1614, Aug. 17. Christened Dudley, son of Thomas Styles.
“1684, April 17. Christened Dudley, son of Francis and Sarah Dylate.” – St. Dionis Backchurch.
The introduction of surnames at the font permitted private predilections full play. At Canterbury we naturally find:
“1727, Feb. 22. Buried Cranmer Herris, gent., in ye cloisters.” – Cant. Cath.
“1626, Oct. Baptized Bradford, sonne of Christopher Wilson, of Limehouse.” – Stepney.
Hanover Stirling was a scholar of Trinity College, Dublin, in 1729. A Scotch Jacobite in London showed some skill in the heat of the great crisis of 1715:
“1715, June 10. Christened Margaret Jacobina, d. of Mr. Archiball Johnson, merchant.” – St. Dionis Backchurch.63
This will be sufficient. The custom is by no means extinct; but, through the introduction of second baptismal names, the practice is now rare, and all but entirely confined to boys. Two hundred and fifty years ago, it was quite as popular with the other sex.
Both Dudley and Sydney, mentioned above, have been used so frequently that they have now taken a place in our ordinary list of baptismal names. So far as Sydney is concerned, the reason is easily explained. The Smith family have been so fond of commemorating the great Sydney, that it has spread to other families. Chauncey and Washington occupy the same position in the United States.
V. The Influence of Foundling Names upon Double Baptismal Names
One circumstance that contributed to the adoption of two baptismal names was the christening of foundlings. Having no father or mother to attest their parentage, being literally anonymous, there sprang up a custom, about the year 1500, of baptizing these children with a double title; only the second one was supposed to be the surname, and not a baptismal name at all. This second name was always a local name, betokening the precise spot, street, or parish where the child was found. Every old register has its numerous instances. The foundlings of St. Lawrence Jewry got the baptismal surname of Lawrence. At All-Hallows, Barking, the entries run:
“A child, out of Priest’s Alley, christened Thomas Barkin.
“Christened a child out of Seething Lane, named Charles Parish.
“A child found in Mark Lane, and christened Mark Lane.” – Maskell, “All-Hallows, Barking,” p. 62.
At St. Dunstan-in-the-West they are still more diversified:
“1597, Mch. 1. Renold Falcon, a childe borne in Falcon Court, bapt.
“1611, May 11. Harbotles Harte, a poor childe found at Hart’s dore in Fewter Lane, bapt.
“1614, March 26. Moses Dunstan, a foundlinge in St. Dunstan’s hall, bapt.
“1618, Jan. 18. Mary Porch, a foundeling, bapt.
“1625, Aug. 7. Roger Middlesex was baptized.
“1627, May 19. Katherine Whitefryers was baptized.”
“1610, Nov. Bapt. Elizabeth Christabell, d. of Alice Pennye, begotten in fornacacion.” – Stepney, London.
“1586, May 21. Christening of Peter Grace, sonne of Katherine Davis, an harlot.” – St. Peter, Cornhill.
“1592, Aug. 2. Christening of Roger Peeter, so named of our church; the mother a rogue, the childe was born the 22d July at Mr. Lecroft’s dore.” – Ditto.
The baptismal register of St. Dionis Backchurch teems with Dennis, or Dionys, as the name is entered:
“1623, Aug. 6. Joane Dennis, being laid at Mr. John Parke’s doore in Fanchurch Streete.
“1627, June 3. Denis the Bastard, who was laid in the parish.
“1691, Nov. 19. Ingram Dionis, a fondling taken up in Ingram’s Court.”64
We see in these registers the origin of the phrase, “It can’t be laid at my door.” Doubtless it was not always pleasant to have a little babe, however helpless, discovered on the doorstep. The gossips would have their “nods, and becks, and wreathed smiles,” if they said nothing upon the subject. It was a common dodge to leave it on a well-known man’s premises:
“1585, April 23. A man child was laid at Sir Edward Osbourne gate, and was named Dennis Philpot, and so brought to Christes Ospitall.”
The same practice prevails in America. A New York correspondent wrote to me the other day as follows: —
“One babe, who was found in the vestibule of the City Hall, in this city (New York), was called John City Hall; another, Thomas Fulton, was found in Fulton Street in an ash-box; and a third, a fine boy of about four months, was left in the porch of Christ Church Rectory in Brooklyn. He was baptized by the name of Parish Church, by the Rev. Dr. Canfeild, the then rector.”
The baptisms of “blackamoors” gave a double christian name, although the second was counted as a surname:
“Baptized, 1695, Mch. 27, John Wearmouth, a Tawny, taken captive, aged 20.” – Bishop Wearmouth (Burns).
“Baptized, 1602-3, March, Christian Ethiopia, borne a Blackmore.” – Stepney.
“Baptized, 1603, July, Charity Lucanoa, a Blackamor from Ratcliff.” – Ditto.
“1744, Sep. 27. Rum John Pritchard, a Indian and Mahomitan, baptized this day by self at Mr. Pritchard’s.” – Fleet Registers (Burns).
“1717, – . Baptized Charles Mustava, a black boy, servant to The Honble. Lord Hartford.” – Preshute, Wilts.
Our forefathers did not seem to perceive it, but in all these cases double baptismal names were given. It must, however, have had its unfelt influence in leading up to the new custom, and especially to patronymics as second names. We are all now familiarized to these double and treble names. The poorest and the most abject creatures that bring a child to the font will have their string of grand and high-sounding titles; sometimes such a mouthful, that the parson’s wonder is excited whence they accumulated them, till wonder is lost in apprehension lest he should fail to deliver himself of them correctly. The difficulty is increased when the name is pronounced as the fancy or education of the sponsor dictates. When one of three names is “Hugginy,” the minister may be excused if he fails to understand all at once that “Eugénie” is intended. Such an incident occurred about six years ago, and the flustered parson, on a second inquiry, was not helped by the woman’s rejoinder: “Yes, Hugginy; the way ladies does their ’air, you know.”
We must confess we are not anxious to see the new custom – for new it is in reality – spread; but we fear much it will do so. We have reached the stage when three baptismal names are almost as common as two; and we cannot but foresee, if this goes on, that, before the century is out, our present vestry-books will be compelled to have the space allotted to the font names enlarged. As it is, the parson is often at his wits’ end how to set it down.