The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1873-07-03
Lord LyttOn on Names and their
Influences.

In the amusing opening of Lord Ly
toms posthumous novel, kenelm CHI
{ hngly, there are some admirable r
marks on the moral responsibilities
parents for the names they give the
children. Sir Peter Chillingly is ver
: hard on his own name, and ascribes b
mediocrity in great measure to it. "P,
ter" he says to the assembled famil
council, has been for many generation.
as you are aware, the baptismal TO whic
the eldest born of our family has bee
devoted. On the altar of that name
have been sacrificed. Never has Their
been Sir Peter Chillingly who has il
any way distinguished himself above hi
fellows. That name has been a dea,
weight on my intellectual energies.
In the catalogue of illustrious En-
glishmen there is, / think no lmmorta
Sir Peter, except Sir Peter Teazle, anc
he only exists on the comic stage :" anC
Sir Peter Chillingly might have added
that Sir Peter Teazle is immortal only
for the amusement he affords to others
not for any intrinsic capacity.
One of the family council, however
suggests Sir Peter Lely," in which Sin
Peter Chillingly replies with unanswer.
able force, that painter was not an En-,
glishman. He was born in Westphalia,
famous for hams. l confne my re-
marks to the children of our native land.
l am aware that in foreign countries the
name is not an extinguisher to the ge-
MUS of its owner. But why? In other
countries its sound is modified. Pierre
Corneille was great man but | put it
to you whether, had he been an English
man, he could have been the father of
European tragedy as Peter Crown" And
Sir Peter might have added that Peter
the Apostle got his weight from his He
brew name, Cephas. Cephas gives the
impression of a rock; Peter the impress
sion of commonplace responsibility, with
a wavering turn.
Now, Lord Lytton, in touching this
subject, touches one of the most real
grievances which children have against
rash parents, and he touches both sides
of it. He not only deprecates the names
which stamp a child with mediocrity, but
he deprecates those which stamp him
with an impress of absurd and indecent
A crusty cousin had suggest
ed that Sir Peters child should be called
Hannibal or Charlemagne, in order to
give him adventurous grandeus, on which
Sir Peter replies with great temper and
justice, Con the contrary, if you infict
on man the burden of one these names,
the glory of which he cannot reasonably
expect to eclipse or even to equal, you
crush him beneath the weight.
If poet were called John Milton or
Shakespeare, he would not dare
to publish even a sonnet. No, the choice
of name lies between the two extremes
Of ludicrous insignifcance and oppres-
sive renown."
This is very just, and should bring re-
morse to many parental heart. There
is no more indellible mischief done to |
child than either a grandiose or a mean |
name. The moral influence of names, |
however, must be admitted to depend in
4 very great degree on somewhat arbitra-
~ and subjective influences. We have
heard a man deplore having been called |
James" with the utmost pathos, assert |
ng that it had to some extent made
1unkey of his very soul against his will.
That man, of course, had been a student |
If Thackeray, and the subjective inhu-
ences which worked upon his mind were
If the Jeames de la PIuche order. Had
lie instead been STEPPED in Sir Walter
Scotts Lady of the Lake" and full of
he chivalric associations with the Knight
# Snowdon-"and Normans call me
lanes Fitz-James," he might have re-
,arded his name as injurioSs to him, if at
III, only through its too unreal, romantic
Lssciations.
But who could have idealized the nick
lame Jim? That is, if not so funkeyish
8 james, much more irredeemably de-
criptive of soul at the beck and call
# society. 1t is to "James, even under
is worst aspects, exactly what the foot
10Y is to the turnkey, and implies that
aspect or awe to the owner of such
ame is simply impossible. Any one who
lad taste for slipping good-naturedly |
through the world, and for being famil-
arly treated by everybody he met, might
ot object to be called Jim. 1t is an
onest sort of name, and passport, as
were, to kindly treatment. But it puts
ignity and power beyond the reach Of
he most sanguine hope. A man gener-
lily known among his acquaintance as
Jim" might be very popular, and have
reat influence of the coaxing kind, but
! is impossible that he could take up any
osition requiring observance and rever-
nce.-The Spectator.