SURNAMES.
The subject of surnames has more than once been referred to in the pages of "N. & Q.," and it may assist those of your readers who have investigated the question of their origin and use, to offer them the following examples of peculiar forms of personal designation which occur in certain of the more ancient public muniments of the city of Norwich.
It is the opinion of Camden, Du Cange, Pegge, Sharon Turner, and other writers, that the custom of appropriating a permanent appellation to particular families, became fully established in this country at the period (sooner or later) of the Norman Conquest. The instances, however, exhibited below, prove that such custom was not, at any rate, universally prevalent at that time amongst us. And, indeed, whatever might have been the case in reference to "the high men of the lond," it is very certain that surnames, properly so called, were not completely adopted by the mass of the people until the close of the fourteenth century.
But as the intention of this Note is simply to adduce original examples of individual designations, without inquiring into the circumstances attending their acquisition, or pointing to the causes, obvious enough for the most part, to which their various after-changes and modifications are to be attributed, the subject calls for no other general remark, except, perhaps, as to the prefixes "Le"[1] and "De," which, it may be noticed in passing, are, though not constantly, as is commonly asserted, attached to names in records of an older date than the time of Edward IV., when they began to fall into desuetude.
[1] This prefix was occasionally in Cheshire, and in the North with few exceptions, contracted into "A," as Thomas à Becket, Thomas à Dutton, &c.
With these introductory observations are now given, from the source above indicated,—
I. Examples of sons bearing a name different to that of their fathers:—
"1230. Will. fil. Silvestri, als. Will. Silvestre, fil. Silvestri Pudding de Holmestrete;
"1232. Joh. de Worthestede, Tannator, fil. Simonis le Spencer;
"1239. Sim. Pellipar (Pelter, or Skinner), fil. Ranulph. le Furmag. de N.;
"1242. Will. Pryse, fil. Clementis Mayne de N.;
"1249. Walt. de Swathingg de N. Aurifaber, fil. Joh. de Birlingham;
"1273. Rob. Leck, fil. Add. de Tifteshale;
"—— Rad. fil. Willi de Castelaire (Castleacre) qui vocatur Rads. de Lenn (Lynn);
"1333. Rycard de Byteringe, fil. Johis le Yunge (Ling), Ballior;
"1334. Joh. del Stonhous, fil. Ad. de Storston, Clici, C. N.
"1354. Willm. de Bernham, fil. Adam. del Sartyn defti."
Attention is requested to the last entry but one of this list; and it may be further mentioned, in reference to it, that sub ann. 1270 occurs this notice:
"Adam le Clerk de Stirston et Anger (?) ux. ej."
II. Examples of wives described by names other than those borne by their husbands:
"1255. Rob. de Wurthestede, et Basilia le Ro', ux. ej."
1288. Will. de Devenschyr, le Wayte, et Alicia de Wetinge, ux. ej.
1307. Johes Mengy de Besthorp, et Martha de Felmingham, ux. ej.
—— Thos. Toyth, et Juliana le Ropere, ux. ej.
1316. Agnes Richeman (Rickman), Relicta Ric. Holveston defti.
1318. Rob. de Poswyk, Taverner, et Alicia Godesman, ux. ej.
1352. Isabell. de Mundham fuit ux. Willi de Dunston, et nunc uxor Simonis Spencer."
It is also to be noticed that wives, if more than once married, are frequently described in old documents by the names, distinctly and united, of their several husbands.
III. Examples of changes in the form of particular designations:
Between 1332 and 1348 the name borne by the famous knight, Sir Rob. de Salle, commemorated by Froissart, and who was killed by the insurgents near Norwich in 1381, is severally written, de la Sale, de Salle, de Aula, de la S'aule, de Halle, Saul, and Halle.
In temps. Ed. II. and III. is the following name thus modified: Fitz Benedict, Benediscite, Bendiste, Bendish, Bennett.
The twenty-ninth bishop of Norwich (1446-1472) is styled Walter Lyhart, Le Hert, and Hart.
In 1337 we have "Jas. de Briseworth als. de Bliclingg;" and in 1368, "Johes. de Welburn (Frat. Thome de Welburn nuper defti), als. de Cobeslound de Welburne, Taverner."
Then, again, it were easy to produce innumerable examples of professional and business descriptions, which have originated many modern surnames, as Joh. le Lytester (Lister, Dyer), Regin, le Paumer (Palmer), Bateman le Espicer, (Spicer), &c.
But this Note has already somewhat unduly encroached upon your pages; and it is now brought to a conclusion with the single observation, that many of the causes of various readings and differences of form in the same original surname, as well as of a total change from one designation to another, are now in full force and daily practical operation in many isolated parts of the country, where, from the predominance of identical family and baptismal appellations, some method, such as is illustrated in the foregoing examples, must obviously be adopted, in order to distinguish one individual from another. In many of the remote valleys, indeed, of the North of England, a more comprehensive reply might be given than that which the unsuccessful gaberlunyie woman, mentioned by Sir W. Scott, received in a certain Scottish dale, when, in the bitterness of her disappointment, she exclaimed, "Are there no Christians here?" and was answered, "Christians! nae; we be a' Elliots and Armstrongs!" So—but certainly not under like circumstances—it might be replied, "We're a' Meccas (Ang. Metcalfes)!"
COWGILL.
Number of Surnames.
—Probably some of your numerous correspondents could give me some idea as to the number of surnames there are in this country used by British subjects. We have no good work on surnames, as those of Lower and others do not go sufficiently into the subject to satisfy the curiosity of those who wish to know the origin and date of the names in use among us. A work of some study and research, giving all the names in use at present in the country, and showing when they were first adopted or brought into the country, with the changes that have been made in them, would be very interesting, and as worthy, if not more so, than many that are brought before the public.
J. H.
P.S.—I would suggest that the names should be classed in the different periods of history, beginning with the Britons.