Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1856-06-18
Names Of Children and Adults.

7 OF consideration very often. for some names bt
come stale and even ludicrous, and we do nc
like to perpetuate them in the family tree /
Puritan times there was vigorous effort mad
II to introduce the Scripture names, and the worl
in England was for one or two generations in
habited by Isaiahs, Jeremiahs, Nathaniels an
\ Obadiahs but they did not take; and now the
are associated with cant and hypocrisy. On th
stage they represent the Praise God -Barebone
of dramatic entertainments. A few have resist
ed the tide of popular opposition; but even q
gainst many of those who have survived, tn
tide is very strong. Peter is almost driven out
and it is a curious fact, that no Pope has eve
chosen to 60 by the name of Peter, although
each prides himself in being his successor, ant
invariably chooses his own reigning name at hi
election. Few Peters now have moral courag
to call their children Peter. ......,.....,.
I The press too has been running muck o
gaint John for while, and it will succeed. Il
first fastens itself on fOotinan, groom, or 4
pot-boy, and, by thus vulgarising it. lowers it in
reputation. There is perhaps no real intention
of prosecuting name in so doing; it is merel,
convenience to have few characteristic
names for menials, in literature, just as there
are characteristic names for heroes and heroines
and every novel-reader knows by instinct that
when John and Bertrand are introduced into
tale, the Bertrand is more likely to be. the
hero than the John. James is also now pretty
thoroughly assaulted, and especially by trans
forming the name into Jeames, that ridiculous
mode of pronouncing it so prevalent in Scotland
and the north of England, where they still con.
tnue to murder English with most outstretched
conscience, though perhaps not more outrageous
| ly than they do it in some southern provinces,
where it is almost foreign language. f.g
Peter, James and John-only think of it it
| is worth your serious consideration There is o
dead set against these three names, though once
on q time they stood foremost in Christendom.
And Gothic names, the names of tho northern
barbarians who desolated the empire of the
Roman world, are now in the asccndant-the
names of those Sturdy brute-force men, who
carried boars' heads and griffins' heads on their
crests, and prided themselves in having their
shields supported by brute beasts. These are
the men of name and repute; and to this day
the gentlemen Of Christendom rejoice in the fe-
rocious heads, the daggers, and the bloody hands
Of the crest and the shield rs the proudest evil
dence of rank and family. ,, ....,, i9
A few old Bible names are still in repute, as
David and Daniel, and Mary and Elizabeth, in
olden times it was Elisheba, (Aarons wife, and
Anne still holds as good place as if it were
gothic or barbarian but Mary surpasseS all 9th
er names in universality it belongs not only to
women throughout Christendom, but even to
men, who bear it as a second name. Thus, for
instance, the Queen of Spain's name is Mary her
husbands name is Mary, her mothers name is
Mary, and even her sisters name is Mary; her
uncle and all her cousins children are Marys, in
fact all the royal family of Spain, males and fe-
males are Marys with scarcely an exception
This arises from the great devotion of that Bour-
bon race to the Virgin, a devotion which has
gone to such Oh excess of fanaticism as even to
confound the sex of her name by applying it to
males and females indiscriminately The males,
however, have the decency to hide their female
names ashamed perhaps to expose themselves
publicly to the world in petticoats. lr
It is difficult to discover the reason why
names should 90 out of the fashion. Peter, for
instance-why should that be SO exceptionable ?
it is musical. well-sounding name. There is no.
thing equivocal about it !; it has two syllables !;
its meaning is good. In fact it has almost every
attribute that name requires to give it currency
and popularity. Judging from these alone, with
out reference to certain indescribable associa-
tions, of which it is difficult to form definite
idea, one would naturally conclude that Peter is
first-rate name; and yet, somehow or other, it
has lost its credit and is going out, like Caesar
and Pompey, once names OF renown. Has it
been too much used we do not think so. Nei-
ther amongst the popes nor amongst kings has
it ever been favorite. In Spain, Portugal and
Russia it has attained to sovereignty, but Papal
French and English royalties have religiousy
abstaihed from it; nor can we discover any rea-
son why, for Pietro and Pierro, the Italian and
French for Peter are not more like stone in these
languages than in Spanish, while in English
Peter conveys no idea of stone, and is not equi-
vocal nor associated with anything offensive.
We can easily see reason why no>woman
should be called Jezebel, for it is name of Of
fence, and would be really misfortune to a
young girl; or why no man should be called
Cain, which is ever exclusively associated with
the idea of murder and no man perhaps would
like the raillery attached to the name of Jonah,
although the name is really beautiful, and has
been borne by Sir Jonah Darlington but one Of
the finest of all names, Lucifer, once borne by q
bishop, and signifying the Light bringer, the
Bright and Morning Star, is now universally
dsused, chiefly, we suspect because mothers
believe that it Is the DEVILS name which it real
" is not 1t is one of the greatest compliments
you can pay any man to call him Lucifer, for it
is really the brightest Of all names, and they on
ly are worthy of bearing it who bring light into
the world. 1t is a popular error entirely that
has excluded it from the baptsmal font. The
name has now been degraded by being applied
to phosphoric matches, which certainly deserve
it, but it was pity to lose 1t as q Christian
name of men, and 1t Is not at all improbable that
it will soon be revived.
But we should not wonder if many cleXgymen
would refuse to baptise child by the name Of
Lucifer, and yet they could use no scriptural or
theological reason for refusing. Not long ago a
child was taken to the Lincoln union to be bap-
tised, and the clergyman, an lrishman, refused
to baptise her by the name OF Ellsamon, because
he said it was not name, and he baptlsed her
Charlotte on his own responsibility. a piece OF
assurance on his part, and which he could only
have practiced OH poor parents; but what would
suoh man have said If a boy were taken to be
baptised Lucifer, which is pame, and name
which belongs to no evil spirit, as IS generaiiy
supposed, and one by which bishop OF the
Christian church was baptised, ordained and
consecrated Lucifer, Bishop of Oagllari.. Elsa
mon is certainly not good name for girl II
has not feminine look; but it Is as good for q
girl as Mary for man, and though parents
ought to be advised in respect to chlldren's
names, they have right to invent new names
if they choose to do so. Not long ago child
was baptised by the name OF Forever. The
clergyman no doubt paused and wondered, but
he did not refuse. 1t was new and strange, but
there is nothing illegal or impious in tit was
only eccentric.
It is well, however, to avoid an eccentricty
in names i; many suffer severely for lie, owing
to the silly and thoughtless humor OF parents III
this respect and in the last and private cen,
turies, when wit was low,and humor coarse ana
boyish, many ridiculous names were gwen 70
fonndl;nos which have now become established
amongst Ms. It was cruel to bestow such names
on moor children. 1t is cruelty that is perpetua-
ted from generation to generation. To infiict a
.nansiont nain ON single person is really trife