St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-06-08
NAMES OF WOMEN.
They Change with Othre Fashions
and Quite Often, Too.

and Quite Often, Too.
Boston Transcript.
It-would not be at all surprising if, in
the centuries to come the students of
the social life of the nineteenth century
should classify this great cosmic century
into shorter periods according to the
fashions of given names among women.
Fashions in mems names change some
what, but not as WOmen'S. John,
Charles, George aud William reign in
1890 as they did in 1890. But the fash
ion in women's names change every
ten or fifteen years. 1t is possible that
the sociological New Zealander will find
that the feminine key names of this
century, so to speak, are about as many
liz number as the decades. just what
was the favorite Women'S name at the
very opening of the century is hard to
guess off hand, but the listener may
venture-to say that the Nancy epoch
was about the first worthy OF the word
in the century. Among the octogenr-
ian ladies of the Listeners ACC uaint-
ance the name of Nancy seems to have
very prominent place. Further on
down the century came the fashion of
double names-possibiy an old fashion
revived-and we find Martha Anna.
Mary James and Ann ELIAS in nearly
every family. Perhaps this epoch would
be best discarded as the Mary Jane
epoch of our feminine nomenclature.
1t is little hard to locate these things
in years, but the listener would say, at
a guess, that the Lucy epoch began
about the year 1885 and was closely fol-
lowed by the Helen epoch, which left
the name of the beautiful daughter Of
Leda scattered broadcast over the coun-
try. Somewhat after the reign of
| Helen come the most singular, unac-
countable epoch of all, the Ella epoch.
The use of the name Ella goes back,
as closely as the Listener can locate it,
| to about the year 1850, though there may
| have been earlier examples. Where the
name ELLA" came from is mystery.
| The authorities put it down as acorrup-
| ton of the name of Eleanor, which in
| it's turn was corrupted from Helen. 1t
appears to have no recognized place
either in history or fiction. though evil
IDENTIFY it was borrowed from a fourth
rate popular novel. 1t is, at any rate,
without meaning, without associations
| in the past, without any other reason
| for existence at its beginning except
| that it pleased many peoples fancy.
| Now it no doubt has recognized exist
| ence, since beautiful and good women
! have borne it, and, like all other names
| that women ever bore, it is Sanctlfled
with that other name of mother. The
real Ella epoch did not set in as early as
! 1850: probably it was at its height about
| the year 1860. People thought it SO
pretty! But it is sadly out of fashion
now.
There was an Ida epoch that came in
somewhere along there, probably just
after the Ella epoch, though the two
names ran pretty closely togather. The
| name of Ida is good and ancient one,
though most of the people who took it
UP doubtless thought they had hit upon
something quite new. Most of the ldas
| of the time about 1869 were named for
a character in popular story, or for one
another. But following the Ella and
Ida period there came another girl name
which attained a extraordinary rage;
| the Edith epoch, indeed, survives al
most to the present day. Between 1865
and 1875 about half of the girl babies
were christened Edith, and the crop is
| ripening fast now, as matter of course
| Look at the high school catalogues anc
see how they brlstle with Ediths. All
ancient Saxon name, and pretty one
disused for centuries and revived all a
once-a happy revival if it had not beer
oyerdone. Then came the Maud-and
Mabel epoch; these names hav tt
be hyphenated, because neither eyer'
seemed able to stand up without tn
other. They were great rage III thel
turn. The main crop of Maud and Mabel
will hardly mature before another nv
years, though the earlier soWings ar