A great deal of nonsense has been written upon one of the noblest family names in England—Howard. It is constantly said, and as constantly reiterated, that the sobriquet is one of occupation, being nothing more nor less than Hog-ward, or hog-herd, corresponding to Swinnart from swine-herd, Coward from cow-herd, Shepherd from sheep-herd, Calvert from calve-herd, and Stoddart and Stottard from stot-herd (i.e., stot, bullock). All these latter are without doubt what they seem to be, for old registers give them in their more manifest dress. But Howard is only another form of Harvard, or Hereward, or Heoruvard. Thus we find such an early entry as John Fitz-howard (that is, John, the son of Howard), clearly a baptismal surname. When Byron wished to hurl an invective at the head of his relative, the Earl of Carlisle, he quoted Pope,—
“What can ennoble knaves, or fools, or cowards?
Alas! not all the blood of all the Howards.”
The italics are Byron’s, and every one knows the family name of the Lords of Carlisle. As a quotation, it was apt; as applicable to the Earl, it was the opposite; but Byron in a rage meant Byron ungovernable either by courtesy or truth. However, my point is, that the ancestral house of the Howards are not descended from a hog-herd,—though it would be no disgrace if they were, for a shepherd once became a king and a poet,—but from one of those grand personal names which existed in England before the Norman Conquest was dreamt of. “Hereward, the Saxon” has been made familiar within the last few years by Charles Kingsley. This is but the same name in an earlier dress. It might have been considered a happy thought, if the author had dedicated his book to one of the Howards, and stereotyped their identity.
In my work on “English Surnames” I have given a somewhat exhaustive list of the various appellations formed from English baptismal names. So I will merely hint at a few and pass on. Walter, as Wat, gave us Watkins, Watts, Watson, and Watkinson. The old familiar form for Walter was Water, which explains Shakespear’s play upon the name in Henry VI.:—
“My name is Walter Whitmore.
How now! why start’st thou? What, doth death affright?Suffolk. Thy name affrights me, in whose sound is death.
A cunning man did calculate my birth,
And told me that by water I should die.”
Our Waters and Watersons are thus explained. Antony has bequeathed us Tonkin, Tonson, and Tounson; Philip, Phipps, Phillips, and Philpotts (i.e. Philipot, that is, little Philip, a pet name). A curious form of Philpot may be seen in the Directory in the shape of Fillpot. This reminds us that many a play has been made on the name. It was not so very long ago that Punch facetiously remarked upon the fact that the newly elected Bishop of Worcester was Philpott, the then Bishop of Exeter being the celebrated Philpotts,—
“‘A good appointment? No, it’s not,’
Said old beer-drinking Peter Watts;
‘At Worcester one but hears “Philpott,”
At generous Exeter “Philpotts.”’”
A large number of patronymics are to be seen in the surnames that come under the division “N” in the Directory. In the old song “Joan to the Maypole” it is said,—
“Nan, Noll, Kate, Moll,
Brave lasses, have lads to attend ’em:
Hodge, Nick, Tom, Dick,
Brave country dancers, who can amend ’em?”
“Nan” stands for Anna or Hannah, Noll for Olive or Oliver, in this case Olive, a girl’s name. In fact, every name that began with a vowel was turned into a pet form beginning with “N.” Edward became Ned, and Emma Nem. Thus in St. Peter’s, Cornhill, the register says,—