Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1856-06-12

| coulu not nave distinguished one another with
50 small supply of names, that is first names,
as we have; but whom the Roman system Of
double or triple names was introduced, the
hrst or calling names became rapidly more
| numerous; so that now, in almost every
family, you find a Charles, a George, Rich
| ard, William, or a Robert; a Mary, Eliza
beth, Anne, Julia, or Charlotte, and few
more the number is very small In many
| families there are two or three of each some
times four, grandma, mother, and daughter.
all OF the same name, as if there was dearth
| OF words to distinguish them But the mod
| erns are fond Of namesakes, and all are con-
| servatlyes In respect 70 names, and Jealous Of
the introduction of new ones into the family
line. Even when John the Baptist was named,
his kinsman wondered at the name, because
none of his kindred was known by that name.
The practice is therefore very old, though we
| lind no traces Of IL In patriarchal times; and
| 1t has become more and more fixed and pop
ular practice by the lapse Of time.
Nevertheless, there are liberals, radicals,
| and innovators, in this as in all other depart
| ments of human fancy. There are men who
! delight in introducing entirely new names,
but choose historical and patriotic names or
who give surnames for Christian names by
way of change. A few even invent new
ones.
In either choosing or inventing, special care
| should be had to the music of the Christian
| never end with the same letter with which the
| other begins. Thus, for instance, Peter Rob
son would just be called Peter Hobson In Eng
land, and the two names would be cOnfound.
ed and Robert Taylor is just the same as
Robber Taylor; not that these two will ever
be confounded, but a name is cleaner and
purer when ii is we'll relieved, and when il
| does not blend its component parts into a pun
| or an equivoque. Certain letters blend more
| sweetly than others, therefore both names
should be tried together. This, we believe,
is very rarely done. The Christian name
alone is cOnsidered-Henry or William, or
Julia or Charlotte-without any reference TO
what follows, and then we have William Man
ming or Charlotte Ray, Ii. e. Charlotte Tray,
or some other unmusical combination which
might easily have been avoided. Robert
Manning is good, but William Manning is not
The first is we'll relieved, the other Is con-
fISed. The ear Of every person is able at
once TO perceive the superiority Of one TO the
other, but people don't think Of il. Simple
a the rule is, it seems to be almost univer-
sally unknown, and we often perceive the
want Of this little bit Of knowledge in the
lines OF poets and poetesses who send their
first and second attempts TO us, and who mar
the beauty Of their language by such unmusi-
cal combinations Of letters which never can
read sweetly.
Not long ago we read of gentleman yclept
Silas Stokes, Esq; what Kissing of esses
Ii would require a serpent almost to pronounce
such a name, and the title of Esq, does not
improve it. Surely that man parents either
had no musical ear, or they never thought of
the Stokes at all when they determined TO
give him the name Of SIas. 1t was the worst
name they could have chosen, worse than
Charles. Robert or William, or any name
without an would have been preferable; but
perhaps for the sake Of some old uncle, and
an expected inheritance, the child was hissed
sv,e1 L 4 IL - L
registration. Such name as Mark Stark is
very different from Silas's; but still it is &C.
centric, and somewhat ridiculous from tho
rhyme of il. 1t is impossible to pass by such
a name without notice. Moreover, il is easily
remembered. There may be some advantage
In having such distinction. 1t helps one 70
immortality. John Stark We should never
have remembered, nor do we remember Mark
personally, though we have seen him often
We only remember his name, it is difficult to
forget such a name, for one is apt to speak Of
it and fix il in the memory.
When one is born to a monosyllabe name,
II is better to give two or more syllabIes to
the Christian name for euphony. If Sir Chris
topher Wren had been merely Ben Wren, be
would not have seemed so dignifed person
age. Even q wig would not have magnifed
such tom-tit pair Of monosyllables into great
ness. Augustus or Adolphus, coupled with
Wren are like two spouses toddling along and
Wren was no doubt his schoolboy name, and
Benjamin Wren would have done as well as
Christopher, but we merely suppose that Ben
was the total when We regard its insignif-
cance. There is grandeur in sire, and il
is always we'll to have long name for state
occasions, like long tailed coat instead of a
jacket when invited TO dress party. What
NebuchadnezEar's pet name was when his
mother nursed him is difficult to discover
amid the ruins of Babylon; Neb mos proba-
bly,, but such a name for a great monarch
the founder Of civilization, would have been
ridiculous. But yMahar-shalIal- -bazz
would make no mangreat, even though clothed
In purple. Why, We cannot say, except that
the hash is ridiculous in English ears but it
may be a digniied syllable in the ears Of an
oriental German. Polish and Russian names
are TO Us undignifed; and Chinese Wings,
YOngs, Hongs and Kongs, are all ridiculous
No doubt our own are so TO them, and they
would laugh heartily if they were told that
one of our greatest philosophers was Lord
Hogsfesh, or Lord Pork, or Lord Bacon; it
matters not which when translated into Chi
nese. We get familiarized with awful names
to which nothing but long use and wont could
reconcile US, and why should not other na-
tions do the same? But there are generally
n few which get stigmatized amongst ourselves
for some unaccOuntable reason. Hogg and
Hoare are more respectable in England than
SnoOks, but why they should be SO is not SO
easily explained; nor is it easy to say why
Humphrey has never taken in England, eK-
cept that Hum and Humph are component
parts of it. But Geofrey's component parts
are good enough, and il has been desecrated
into old Jeffrey GrizEell is reasonably re-
jected, and Tabitha reminds one too strongly
of cat but there are numerous pretty names
which have not been brought into modern use
at all, and which have not been vulgarsed,
and it is surprising how very few we are con-
70 do f-o.l r
dening our memories with too long list We
seem TO relish the prestige of names, and pre-
fer those which have already found their pet
abbreviations familiarized as household words
in all family circles. 1t is SO also, we be-
lieve, in other countries. There are a few
favorte calling names which prevail even in
Eastern lands, and the distinctions are per-
ceived in the family names of the Western
world, which are numerous, and in addition
to the fathers name in the East. This no