2 See Note on Prof. Wilson’s Article, by Ted Robinson, American Speech, April, 1939, p. 155.
3 Many of these names come from Ewen’s History of Surnames of the British Isles, pp. 344–45; Titles and Forms of Address; London, 1929, pp. 15–27; Broadcast English, Vol. VII, by A. Lloyd James; London, 1939; and These Names are Difficult, London News Chronicle, Nov. 28, 1936. For others see AL4, p. 503.
4 But Anstruther, with the u as in but, and the th as in there, is also heard.
5 In the United States the accent is commonly put on the second syllable. The Maryland county, Anne Arundel, is Ann-rán’l to many of its citizens.
6 The given-name of Champ Clark (1850–1921), Speaker of the House of Representatives, 1911–19, was originally Beauchamp. The last syllable must have been pronounced Champ to get the abbreviation.
7 But sometimes it is pronounced as spelled, with the th as in there.
8 Letter from Hector Bolitho in Wild Names I Have Met, by Alfred H. Holt; Williamstown (Mass.), n.d., p. 7: “My name is Cornish, and it is pronounced: bo as in low, li as in pie, tho as in low. The accent is on the middle syllable.” Ewen says it is from the Gaelic bol ithing, the great belly, i.e., hill.
9 Mr. P. R. Coleman-Norton writes under date of Sept. 20, 1937: “This was current during Horatio Bottomley’s palmy days, some fifteen years ago.” He was sent to prison for wholesale frauds in 1922. It is possible that Bumly was suggested by the disrepute of bum in England. See AL4, p. 156.
1 With the ow as in how. In America it is commonly Boo-ie.
2 Camel is apparently not in use.
3 This is used by the Marquess of Salisbury, whose family name it is. But the Marquess of Exeter, another Cecil, uses Sessel.
4 But the Earl of Wemyss, a Charteris, pronounces it as spelled.
5 The usual spelling in America is Coughlin, with Coughlan as a variant. There are eight times as many names in Cough- in the Manhattan telephone directory as names in Cogh-. In origin all are identical. Coughlin is sometimes pronounced Coglan, sometimes Coklan, sometimes Cooglin, and sometimes Cofflìn. I am indebted here to Dr. George McCracken, of Otterbein College.
6 But the name of the poet, William C., is often pronounced as spelled.
7 This is also the pronunciation of Creighton.
8 Black says that, in Scotland, “some of the name call themselves Dalyell, some Dalzell, and some Dal-zeel.” He gives Dalyell, Dalyiel, Diyell, Deill, Daliel, De Yell, Deyell, Dalyhel, Dalyyelle, Dyell, Dalzel, Dalzelle, Dyayell and Deell as variant spellings. The name is traced to 1259.
9 The first part as in Delaware.
10 Titles and Forms of Address, p. 18, gives no variants, but Broadcast English offers Fanshaw, Feesonhay and Feerstonhaw. Writing in the New Yorker, June 25, 1938, Duane Featherstonhaugh, of Schenectady, said Fan-shaw is favored in Canada and Featherstonhaw in the United States. In England, he added, the lower classes sometimes make it Freeze-ting-haze and sportive persons of higher elegance Festonhog.
1 With th as in there.
2 The pronunciation of this name seems to be unsettled in England, as it is in America. When Alanson B. Houghton (1863–1941) was appointed ambassador to Germany, in 1922, he announced that he preferred Howtun. One of the Houghtons in Who’s Who in America, 1946–47, prefers Hotun and another Hot’n. Holt says in Wild Names I Have Met that even within the board of Houghton Mifflin, the Boston publishers, two pronunciations are used – Hoton and Howton. Elsewhere in New England it is often Hooton. The people of Houghton, Mich., call it Hoton. Says Holt: “Anything will do – except Huffton.”
3 This is also the New York pronunciation. In the Texas city it is Hyooston.
4 Broadcast English, Vol. VII, gives Jaymisson and Jammisson as variants.
5 Also used for Mahan.
6 Broadcast English, Vol. VII, prefers Mingiss, but also gives Mengiz. It says that Menziz is used in Australia. The name is Scottish. Black says that it was originally de Meyners, which has become Manners in England. It is traced to 1214. There have been many variants in spelling, including Megnies, Mainzeis, Mengues, Menyas, Menzheis, Mennes and Menzas. Said a writer in the Sydney (Australia) Bulletin, Jan. 1, 1936: “Mingies in England merely represent the attempts of Southerners to imitate the Scottish pronunciation, for no Scot ever called it that. The modern spelling is the result of a confusion by the early Scottish printers of the letters y and z, their tails making them look alike. The correct spelling is Menyies, which is nearer the correct pronunciation, though the Scotch say it with a twang it is impossible to reproduce in writing.”
7 A touchy English Montgomery is said to send the following letter to persons who make the first syllable of his name Mont: “During our conversation today I noticed with regret that you were finding some difficulty in correctly pronouncing my name. As Montgomery is one of the many words in which the letter o is pronounced as a u, I think perhaps it might help you if I were to remind you of some of the other words in this large category: ‘London company’s governor’s accomplished comedy mother coming to Tonbridge Monday. One son working constable, other brother recovering.’ You will agree that if these words were pronounced as spelt they would sound horrible. That is precisely what happens when I hear people mispronouncing Montgomery.”
1 This is the pronunciation given by Broadcast English, but William Hickey says in the London Daily Express, Sept. 7, 1945, that Munian is often heard.
2 Titles and Forms of Address says that Peeps is used by living members of the clan, but that Peppiz was used formerly. Broadcast English says that the Earl of Cottenham, whose family name it is, sticks to Peppiss.
3 The Reader’s Digest, Nov., 1935, said that this pronunciation has now been given up, and the name is pronounced as it is spelled.
4 The th as in there.
5 But sometimes it is pronounced as spelled and sometimes it is Strahn Strachey is always Straytchy.
6 i.e., almost walk up.
1 The Maryland Historical Magazine, Sept., 1944, p. 177, n. 1, says that this name is pronounced Win-der in England and Wine-der in the United States. Brig.-Gen. William Henry Winder (1775–1824) was in command of the American troops at Bladensburg, Aug. 24, 1814, and got a famous licking.
2 Ffoulkes, like Ffrench, Ffarington, Fford, Ffennell, Ffinch, etc., is Welsh, but the form has been imitated in England and Ireland. The initial Ff is sometimes written ff, but this is an error. Says Trevor Davenport-Ffoulkes in Two Little f’s, London Sunday Times, April 22, 1934: “Actually there exists no such thing as two little f’s. The Welsh alphabet provides by its ninth letter the double f in the same way as the English alphabet provides the double u (w). The pronunciation of the Welsh single f is v. as in ever, Eva, etc.; the double f provides for the sound of the English f.… If families holding such names were to use the Welsh single f the pronunciation would be Vookes, Vrench, Varington, Vinch, and in my own case, Voulkes.” This indicates that Mr. Davenport-Ffoulkes sounds the l in his second name. I am indebted here to Mrs. Delia H. Biddle Pugh, of New York.
3 See W. E. Henley’s note in The Letters of Robert Louis Stevenson; New York, 1923, Vol. II, p. 305. Black gives Cunygam, Cuninggame, Conighame and Cumynghame as early spellings.
4 Memoirs of My Times, Including Personal Reminiscences of Eminent Men, by George Hodder; London, 1870, reprinted in Personal Reminiscences of Barham, Harness and Hodder, by Richard Henry Stoddard; New York, 1875, p. 321.
1 For Pierce see A Word-List From Hampstead, S. E. New Hampshire, by Joseph William Carr, Dialect Notes, Vol. III, Part III, 1907, p. 196, and Colloquial Expressions From Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, by Jason Almus Russell, American Speech, June, 1930, p. 420. Carr says that Ordway is commonly pronounced Orderway in New Hampshire. For Hawthorne see Salem With a Guide, by George Arvedson; Salem (Mass.), 1926, p. 38, n. 4. I am indebted here to Mr. Alexander Kadison.
2 The Life and Public Services of Hon. Henry Wilson, by Thomas Russell and Elias Nason; Boston, 1872, pp. 19–20.
3 Private
communication.
4 The literature of surnames is very large. There are lists of books, pamphlets and articles on the subject down to the end of 1922 in Kennedy’s Bibliography, pp. 57–58, 149–50, 187 and 328–37, and others are noted in AL4, Chapter X, Section 1, and in the preceding pages. In The Theory of Proper Names; Oxford, 1940, Alan H. Gardiner says, p. 43: “A proper name is a word or group of words recognized as indicating or tending to indicate the object or objects to which it refers by virtue of its distinctive sound alone, without regard to any meaning possessed by that sound from the start, or acquired by it through association with the said object or objects.… The purest of proper names are those of which the sounds strike us as wholly arbitrary, yet perfectly distinctive, and about which we should feel, if ignorant of their bearers, no trace of meaning or significance.” The following may be useful to the inquirer desirous of pursuing the subject: The Story of Surnames, by William Dodgson Bowman; New York, 1931; The Ancestry of Family Names, by Howard F. Barker, Atlantic Monthly, Aug., 1935; Family Names, by Jerome C. Hixson, Words, Feb. and March, 1937; These Names of Ours: A Book of Surnames, by Augustus Wilfrid Dellquest; New York, 1938; What’s Your Name?, by Lewis H. Chrisman, Journal of Education, May, 1944; Surnames and the Chronology of the English Vocabulary, by Ernest Weekley, in Adjectives – and Other Words; London, 1930; Personal Names, by George H. McKnight, in English Words and Their Backgrounds; New York. 1923; Irish Gaelic Clan Names and Family Names Abundant in America, by J. N. Enos, Americana, July, 1927; Middle English Surnames of Occupation, 1100–1350, With an Excursus on Toponymical Surnames, by G. Fransson; Lund (Sweden), 1935; Scottish Clans and Families Represented in America, by J. N. Enos, Americana, July, 1923; Early Anglo-Norman, English, Welsh and Scottish Families in Ireland Now Represented in the United States, Americana, July, 1926; What’s the Name, Please? A Guide to the Correct Pronunciation of Current Prominent Names, by Charles Earle Funk; New York, 1936; revised edition, 1938; and The Founders of New England, by Howard F. Barker, American Historical Review, July, 1933.
2. GIVEN NAMES1
When, in 1920, Simon Newton undertook a survey of the given-names of American males2 he found that John led all the rest, with William, James, Charles, George, Thomas, Henry, Robert, Joseph and Edward following in order. In 1938 Daniel Francis Clancy unearthed evidence which led him to believe that William had displaced John, with John, Charles, George, James, Frank, Henry, Robert, Arthur and Edward following,3 but his sample was by no means as large as Newton’s and other investigations tend to show that John is still in the lead.1 If so, it has held its place in the English-speaking lands for a long, long while, for the roster of the first Common Council of London, held in 1347, showed 34 Johns, 17 Williams, 15 Thomases, 10 Richards and 8 Roberts in a total enrolment of 133.2 In the interval there have been passing fashions for other given-names, but not one of them has forced its way into the top bracket.3 That, of course, is not saying that John’s frequency continues to be absolute as well as relative. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that it is slowly losing ground in the United States, along with all the other ancient saints’ names.4 They continue, however, to be almost unchallenged on the Continent of Europe, and have been so for a thousand years, for in the Catholic areas Canon 761 of the Canon Law ordains that such a name must be given to every child at baptism, and even in the Protestant areas they are still dominant. Canon 761, which is a reaffirmation of ancient legislation, was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV on May 22, 1917, and reads as follows:
Curent parochi ut ei qui baptizatur christianum imponatur nomen, quod si id consequi non poterunt, nomini a parentibus imposito addant nomen alicuius Sancti et in libro baptizatorum utrumque nomen perscribant.1
This may be Englished thus:
Let pastors take care that a Christian name be given to the one baptized; and, if they cannot accomplish this, let them add to the name given by the parents the name of some saint, and inscribe both names in the book of baptisms.
Even in such strongholds of Protestantism as Prussia, Denmark and Sweden, where the Canon Law has no authority, Canon 761 is generally followed.2 It is also followed, of course, by Catholics in the United States, if not by parents then at least by priests. In case a child is presented for baptism by a mother or father who insists upon giving it some non-canonical name the priest is required to add a saint’s name. He may do it sotto voce, but do it he must, and the saint’s name goes on the records of the parish.3 Sometimes this causes difficulties later on, as when a boy named, say, Woodrow applies for a birth certificate, and discovers to his astonishment that he is really Joseph Woodrow or Woodrow Joseph. There has been some murmuring against Canon 761 among American Catholics in recent years, especially in the Middle West, for it works against the fanciful names that are in vogue there, and many priests have seen fit to lean as far backward as possible in their interpretation of it. In one of the current treatises on moral theology it is watered down to the following:
Parents should choose suitable names for their children, avoiding such as are obscene, ridiculous, or impious. It is advisable that the name of a saint or of some other person distinguished for holiness be chosen, for this will be of a spiritual advantage to the child and an edification to others.1
Not a few of the common saints’ names, of course, are of heathen origin – for example, the Greek George, the Latin Paul and the Germanic Charles – but that fact has been long forgotten; all that the Canon Law now demands is that saints on the Calendar or prophets of an earlier day once bore them. Thus, in an official list of permissible baptismal names published in 1935 by authority of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, then Archbishop of New York,2 both Adolf and Benito appear, though the former is an ancient Teutonic name signifying “like a wolf” and the latter is a pet-name derived from Benedetto. They qualify because Adolf was the name of an Osnabrück saint of the Thirteenth Century, remembered for his devotion to the poor, and because Benito, like Benedetto itself, is an accepted form, in Italy, of the name of Benedictus (signifying blessed), the great founder of Western monasticism who passes in England and the United States as Benedict, in France and Belgium as Bénédict or Benoît, in the German lands as Benedikt, and in Spain and Portugal as Benedicto.
The official list just mentioned sanctions some far from dignified distortions of prophets’ and saints’ names, e.g., Abe, Abie, Aggie, Al, Aleck, Alex, Alf, Alick, Allie, Andy, Annabelle, Archy and Atty (from Attracta, the name of an Irish saint of the Fifth Century), to go no further than the A’s. It also permits Dolores, which is not a given-name at all, but comes from one of the titles of the Virgin Mary – Mater Dolorosa (Sorrowful Mother). Virginia, which is likewise permitted, gets in by much the same route. Such American favorites as Homer, Horace and Ulysses are banned, for they are the names of invincible heathen, but Caesar is admitted on the ground that there was a saintly Archbishop of Arles of that name in the Sixth Century, and Virgil because it was borne by an Irish missionary saint of the Eighth Century who helped to convert the heathen Germans and became Bishop of Salzburg. Even in Italy, I gather, there is some encroachment of non-canonical names. Consider, for example, the case of Monsignor Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Archbishop of Laodicea in partibus infidelium, who became Apostolic Delegate to the United States in 1933. His Excellency was not only a high Roman dignitary; he was also a former professor of Canon Law and the author of a standard treatise on the subject;1 yet the first of his two given names was the Italian form of the old Danish Amleth or Hamleth, the appellation of a probably fabulous heathen prince of the Second Century who has been immortalized by Shakespeare as Hamlet.2
It was the English Puritans who, toward the end of the Sixteenth Century, staged the first revolt against saints’ names in Europe. They were opposed to honoring any of those on the Roman calendar who had lived since apostolic times,3 and so turned to the Old Testament for names for their children.4 It was then that Abraham, Moses, Daniel, Samuel, Joshua and their like began to have a vogue,1 though they had b
een permissible names to Catholics all the while. Unhappily, that vogue extended to the unsaved,2 and, as Bardsley says,3
the sterner Puritan found a list of Bible names that he would gladly have monopolized, shared in by half the English population.4 That a father should style his child Nehemiah, or Abacuck, or Tabitha, or Dorcas, he discovered with dismay, did not prove that that particular parent was under any deep conviction of sin. This began to trouble the minds and consciences of the elect. Fresh limits must be created. As Richard and Roger had given way to Nathaniel and Zerrubabel, so Nathaniel and Zerrubabel must now give way to Learn-wisdom and Hate-evil.5
The more extreme Puritans made names of various other pious hopes and admonitions, e.g., Fear-not, Faint-not, Stand-fast, Increase, More-trial, Joy-again, From-above, Free-gifts, Be-faithful, More-fruit, Hope-still, Sin-deny, Dust, The-Lord-is-near, Fly-fornication, and Praise-God,6 and many of these, along with the Old Testament names, were brought to America by immigrants to New England. Most such inventions were so clumsy that they had to be abandoned,7 but a number survived into the Eighteenth Century, e.g., Increase and Preserved, and a few are occasionally encountered even today. The Old Testament names that preceded and accompanied them are now apparently more popular in the South than in New England, though even in the South they are going out. There must have been a revolt against them at the time New England Puritanism began to fade into Unitarianism, for it is recorded that Noah Webster, the lexicographer, disliked his given-name1 and refused to let it be given to any of his male descendants. The Puritan names for girls, e.g., Grace, Charity, Hope, Constance, Mercy and Faith, were nearly all permissible for Catholics, for they had been borne by female martyrs in the early days of Christianity, but the Puritans gave them a new lease of life, and most of them are still much more frequent in the United States than anywhere else.
American Language Supplement 2 Page 67