Waterbury evening Democrat., 1891-01-07
WHEN NAMES BEGAN.
HOW some OF Our Ancestors Received
Their Patronymics.

AA~" SOAAc "a Our ancestors Received
Their Patronymics.
Single names were most common a
thousand years ago. says the Davenport
Oemocrat-Gazette. As is the case with
our Bucks and Brights in the oxen line,
our Dams and Jerrys in the horse-stalls,
or our Jip and Tige In the kennels, so
then 1t was with man and woman kind
"a single name was all-suficient. In
the time OF King Henry l., about eight
hundred years ago, double names be-
came rather fashionable-so much so
that Robert, his natural son, objected to
marrying the wealthy heiress of a DOW
erful lord because she had but a single
name. From this time on the fashion
changed, and in the time of Edward L.
an act Of Parliament rendered it oblig-
atory to take on the double name-the
family name, or two names of some
sort Hence sprang up such names as
Henry Fitz Randolph (Henry, son of
Randolph), Hugh Fitz Henry, Henry
Fitz Henry, etc. With such as had no
clearly defined family ties location OF
occupation was used to help out, hence
John ate Wood John Atwood), WILL
lam ate Water (Atwater), Thomas of
the Woods, William atte Bachuse lat
Bakehouse now William Bakery, Mar.
garet bon Ceur (good heart, now Mar.
garet Bunker), Walter ate Shepyarde
(now Walter Shepherd), John Scott was
from Scotland, John Walsh was from
Wales, Thomas Moore was of Moorish
descent, and Peter Dane was from Den
mark, and so on, almost every name
being a revelation of its owners loca-
ton, condition or occupation.
Then were the Smiths Cthe smiters of
metals) most numerous; then sprang up
the Buffers (bottlers), the Hunters and
Porters, the Brewers, the Cooks and the
Clarks (clerics); but with all these
names and double names no triple or
double Christian names appeared for
hundreds of years 1ater-even until
America brought one forth in the per-
son of one Jonas Longford Redwood, of
Rhode Island, in 1706, and England SIP
Coplestone Warwick Barnfield in 1917.
John w. Bunyan or Christopher Z.
Columbus, John Thomas Calvin-such
names were happily unlznown-and the
bare idea of such added stuff seems as
outrageous as to now allude to the Hon.
Abraham Lincoln.
There is good reason in double names,
but the interposing and piling up and
spelling out your William Makepeace
Thackerays, Louise Chandler Moultons,
Charles Dudley Warmers seems to weak
en- instead Of strengthen the persons
name. Besides, bad habits are cumu-
lative, and already there appears upon
the literary horizon some quadrupedal
names-so to spealz-in imitation of
brute popularity. Is there no way of
stopping it? If British Parliament
could legislate up to tho dual nomen-
clature can not an American Congress
reduce this mAny-named craze to proper
standard? Long family names are
nuisance at best, but, come to tack on a
long Christian name and put lot more
long names between names, it becomes
a positive tribulation-putting the pen
slaves out Of all patience with their
overburdened owners. If the name
unit might be placed at John Smith, and
for every added syllable double tele-
graph and postal rate were lawfully
imposed, these preposterous, long
drawn signatures would soon be reduced
to the better shape Of Julius Caesar,
Pontius PLATE, Martin Luther and good
old Andrew ia ckson.