Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature

Maria had long been common in Italy, France, and Spain, as a second name, and still is, whether for a boy or girl, the child being thereby specially committed to the protection of the Virgin. The earliest instances in England, however, were directly given in honour of two royal godmothers, who happened to be Mary in one case, and Henrietta Maria in the other. Hence the seeming transference of the foreign second name Maria to our own shores. Thus introduced, Maria began to circulate in society generally as an allowed second name:

“1610, July 10. Baptized Charles Maria, sonne of Charles Chute, Esquire.” – St. Dunstan-in-the-West.

“1640, – . Died Gulielma Maria Posthuma Springett.” – Tablet, Ringmer, Lewes, Sussex.

This last was a bold procedure, three names being an unheard-of event. But the sponsor might reply that he was only placing together the two recognized second names, Maria and Posthuma. Later on, Maria is again found in the same family. In the year 1672, William Penn, the Quaker, married Gulielma Maria, daughter of Sir William Springett.

Posthuma (as in the above instance), or Posthumus, is still more remarkable. The idea of styling a child by this name, thus connecting its birth with the father’s antecedent death, seems to have touched a sympathetic chord, and the practice began widely to prevail. The first example I have seen stands as a single name. Thus, in the Canterbury Cathedral register, is recorded:

“1572, Feb. 10. Christened Posthumus, the sonne of Robert Pownoll.”

The following is the father’s entry of burial:

“1571, June 8. Buried Robert Pownoll.”

This is the earliest instance I have seen. Very soon it was deemed right to make it a second name:

“1632, Sept. 18. Baptized Henry Postumus, son of James Gamble.” – Doncaster.

Sir Thomas Posthumus Hoby, Knight, lord of the manor of Hackness, died in 1641. He bequeathed the greater portion of his estates to “his dearly beloved and esteemed cozen John Sydenham,” of Brimpton, Somerset, who, being baroneted in July, 1641, died in 1642, and was succeeded by his son Sir John Posthumus Sydenham. Posthumus, possibly, in this case was commemorative of Sir Thomas, and not of Sir John. William Ball, son of Sir Peter Ball, already mentioned, married Maria Posthuma Hussey. This must have occurred before the Commonwealth, but I have not the exact date.

The character of all these names is sufficient proof of their rarity. All belong, with one exception, to the higher ranks of society. All were called after the children in the royal nursery, or Maria or Posthuma was the second component. Several formed the double name with both. It seems certain that at first it was expected that, if people in high life were to give encouragement to the new fashion, they must do so within certain carefully defined limits. As for any lower class, it was never imagined that they would dream of aspiring to such a daring innovation. The earliest instance of this class, I find, still has Mary for its second component, and commemorates two English queens:

“1667, Jan. 12. Baptized Elizabeth Mary, being of the age of 18 and upwards, daughter to John Allen, and Emm his wife, both of them being pro-baptists.” – Cant. Cath.

Even to the close of the seventeenth century, if a middle-class man gave his child a double name, it must be to commemorate royalty:

“1696, June 4. Baptized William Henry, son of Mr. Jacob Janeway, and Francis his wife.” – Cant. Cath.

William III. was christened William Henry.

Speaking of Mary’s husband, we may add that two of the most familiar conjunctions of the present day among the middle and lower classes, that of Anna Maria or Mary Ann, arose similarly. In Italy and France the two went together a hundred years earlier, in connection with the Virgin and her mother. In England they are only found since 1700, being used as commemorative of the sisters Anne and Mary, both queens. Like William Henry, the combination has been popular ever since:

“1717, Feb. 15. Christened Anne-Mary, d. of James Hebert, mercer.

“1729, March 30. Christened Anna-Maria, d. of Thomas and Mary Hoare, pewterer.” – St. Dionis Backchurch.

The clerk of Finchley Church could not understand this conjunction – not to add that his education seems to have been slightly neglected:

“1715, Feb. 26. Baptized Anammeriah, d. of Thomas and Eliz. Biby.

“1716, Mch. 17. Baptized Anameriah, d. of Richard and Sarah Bell.”

These are the first double names to be found in this register.

The Latin form represents the then prevailing fashion. There was not a girl’s name in use that was not Latinized. Goldsmith took off the custom in his “Vicar of Wakefield,” in the names of Sophia, Olivia, and Carolina Wilhelmina Amelia Skeggs. The latter hit at the new rage for double and treble baptismal names also; for the day came when two names were not enough. In 1738 George III. was christened George William Frederic. Gilly Williams, writing to George Selwyn, December 12, 1764, says —

“Lord Downe’s child is to be christened this evening. The sponsors I know not, but his three names made me laugh not a little – John Christopher Burton. I wish to God, when he arrives at the years of puberty, he may marry Mary Josephina Antonietta Bentley.” – “Memoirs of George Selwyn,” by Jesse, quoted by Mr. Waters in “Parish Registers,” p. 31.

I need scarcely add that three do not nearly satisfy the craving of many people in the nineteenth century, nor did they everybody in the eighteenth:

“1781, April 29. Bapt. Charles Caractacus Ostorius Maximilian Gustavus Adolphus, son of Charles Stone, tailor.” – Burbage, Wilts.

In Beccles Church occurs the following:

“1804, Oct. 14. Bapt. Zaphnaphpaaneah Isaiah Obededom Nicodemus Francis Edward, son of Henry and Sarah Clarke.”

Only Francis Edward could be got in the ordinary place, so the rest had to be furnished in a note at the foot of the page.

“On Oct. 8th, 1876, in the revision of the parliamentary list at Preston, a claimant appeared bearing the name of Thomas Hill Joseph Napoleon Horatio Bonaparte Swindlehurst Nelson. The vote was allowed, and the revising barrister ordered the full name to be inserted on the register.” —Manchester Evening News, October 11, 1876.

II. Conjoined Names

Returning to the first half of the seventeenth century, we find strong testimony of the rarity of these double names, and a feeling that there was something akin to illegality in their use, from our registers, wherein an attempt was made to glue two names together as one, without a hyphen or a second capital letter. Take the following, all registered within a generation or two of Camden’s remark:

“1602, May 24. Baptized Fannasibilla, d. of Thomas Temple.” – Sibbesdon, Leicestershire.

Here is a palpable attempt to unite Francis (Fanny) and Sybil.

“1648, Jan. 25. Baptized Aberycusgentylis, son of Richard Balthropp, gent.” – Iver, Buckingham.

Here the father has been anxious to commemorate the great Oxford professor, the father of international law, Dr. Abericus Gentilis. He has avoided a breach of supposed national law by writing the two names in one.

“1614, Aprill 16. Buried Jockaminshaw Butler, wife of James Butler, potter, in Bishopsgate Street.” – St. Peter, Cornhill.

The surname of “Shaw” has done service hundreds of times since then as a second baptismal name.

“1640, May 7. Baptized Johnamaria, ye son of Frances Ansloe, and Clare his wife.” – Cant. Cath.

Here again is the inevitable Maria, but so inwoven with John, that Lord Coke’s legal maxim could not touch the case. It is the same in the following example: —

“1632, – . Married John Pell to Ithamaria, d. of Henry Reynolles, of London.” – Lower, “Worthies of Sussex,” p. 178.

One of the most strange samples of conjoined names is this:

“1595, April 3. Joane, whome we maye call Yorkkooppe, because she was ye basterd daughter, as yt is comonlye reported, of one John York and Anne Cooper.” – Landbeach.

Here is a double conjunction; John and Anne forming Jo-ane, and York and Cooper, Yorkkooppe. The first is neat, the second clumsy: but, doubtless, the clerk who wielded the goose-quill deemed both a masterpiece of ingenuity.

The following is interesting: —

“1616, July 13, being Satterday, about half an hour before 10 of the clocke in the forenoon, was born the Lady Georgi-Anna, daughter to the Right Hon. Lady Frances, Countess of Exeter; and the same Ladie Georgi-Anna was baptized 30th July, 1616, being Tuesday, Queen Anne and the Earl of Worcester, Lord Privie Seal, being witnesses: and the Lorde Bishop of London administered the baptism.” —Vide R. E. C. Waters, “Parish Registers.” 1870.

III. Hyphened Names

It will be noticed that so far the two names were both (saving in the case of Aberycusgentylis and Jockaminshaw) from the recognized list of baptismal names. About the reign of Anne the idea of a patronymic for a second name seems to have occurred. To meet the supposed legal exigencies the two names were simply hyphened. We will confine our instances to the register of Canterbury Cathedral:

“1721, Jan. 20. Baptized Howe-Lee, son of Lee Warner, Esquire, and Mary his wife.

“1728, July 4. Baptized Francis-Gunsby, son of Dr. William Ayerst, prebendary of this church.

“1746, Sep. 28. Baptized James-Smith, son of James Horne, and Mary his wife.”

I need not say that at first these children bore the name in common parlance of Howe-Lee, or Francis-Gunsby, or James-Smith. The two were never separated, but treated as one name. To this day traces of this eighteenth-century habit are to be found. I know an old gentleman and his wife, people of the old school, dwelling somewhat out of the world, who address a child invariably by all its baptismal titles. The effect is very quaint. In all formal and legal processes the two or three names have to be employed, and clergymen who only recite the first in the marriage service, as I have heard some do, are in reality guilty of misdemeanour.

How odd all these contrivances to modern eyes! We take up a directory, and every other registration we look on is made up of three names. The poorer classes are even more particular than the aristocracy upon the point. The lady-help, describing her own superior merit, says —

“Do not think that we resembleBetsy 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.”