We are often perplexed to decide how the names of some of our eminent
men ought to be written; and we find that they are even now written
diversely. The truth is, that our orthography was so long unsettled
among us, that it appears by various documents of the times which I have
seen, that persons were at a loss how to write their own names, and most
certainly have written them variously. I have sometimes suspected that
estates may have been lost, and descents confounded, by such uncertain
and disagreeing signatures of the same person. In a late suit respecting
the Duchess of Norfolk's estate, one of the ancestors has his name
printed _Higford_, while in the genealogy it appears _Hickford_. I think
I have seen Ben _Jonson's_ name written by himself with an _h_; and
_Dryden_ made use of an _i_. I have seen an injunction to printers with
the sign-manual of Charles II., not to print Samuel _Boteler_ esquire's
book or poem called Hudibras, without his consent; but I do not know
whether Butler thus wrote his name. As late as in 1660, a Dr. _Crovne_
was at such a loss to have his name pronounced rightly, that he tried
six different ways of writing it, as appears by printed books; Cron,
Croon, Crovn, Crone, Croone, and Crovne; all of which appear under his
own hand, as he wrote it differently at different periods of his life.
In the subscription book of the Royal Society he writes _W. Croone_, but
in his will at the Commons he signs _W. Crovne_. _Ray_ the naturalist
informs us that he first wrote his name _Wray_, but afterwards omitted
the _W_. Dr. _Whitby_, in books published by himself, writes his name
sometimes _Whiteby_. And among the Harleian Manuscripts there is a large
collection of letters, to which I have often referred, written between
1620 and 1630, by Joseph _Mead_; and yet in all his printed letters, and
his works, even within that period, it is spelt _Mede_; by which
signature we recognise the name of a learned man better known to us: it
was long before I discovered the letter-writer to have been this
scholar. Oldys, in some curious manuscript memoirs of his family, has
traced the family name through a great variety of changes, and sometimes
it is at such variance that the person indicated will not always appear
to have belonged to the family. We saw recently an advertisement in the
newspapers offering five thousand pounds to prove a marriage in the
family of the Knevetts, which occurred about 1633. What most
disconcerted the inquirers is their discovery that the family name was
written in six or seven different ways: a circumstance which I have no
doubt will be found in most family names in England. Fuller mentions
that the name of _Villers_ was spelt _fourteen_ different ways in the
deeds of that family.
I shall illustrate this subject by the history of the _names_ of two of
our most illustrious countrymen, Shakspeare and Rawleigh.
We all remember the day when a violent literary controversy was opened,
nor is it yet closed, respecting the spelling of our poet's name. One
great editor persisted in his triumphant discovery, by printing
_Shakspere_, while another would only partially yield, _Shakspeare_; but
all parties seemed willing to drop the usual and natural derivation of
his name, in which we are surely warranted from a passage in a
contemporary writer, who alludes by the name to a conceit of his own, of
the _martial_ spirit of the poet.[118] The truth seems to be, then, that
personal names were written by the ear, since the persons themselves did
not attend to the accurate writing of their own names, which they
changed sometimes capriciously, and sometimes with anxious nicety. Our
great poet's name appears _Shakspere_ in the register of Stratford
church; it is _Shakspeare_ in the body of his will, but that very
instrument is indorsed Mr. _Shackspere's_ will. He himself has written
his name in two different ways, _Shakspeare_ and _Shakspere_. Mr. Colman
says, the poet's name in his own county is pronounced with the first _a_
short, which accounts for this mode of writing the name, and proves that
the orthoëpy rather than the orthography of a person's name was most
attended to; a very questionable and uncertain standard.[119]
Another remarkable instance of this sort is the name of Sir Walter
_Rawley_, which I am myself uncertain how to write; although I have
discovered a fact which proves how it should be pronounced.
Rawley's name was spelt by himself and by his contemporaries in all
sorts of ways. We find it Ralegh, Raleigh, Rawleigh, Raweley, and Rawly;
the last of which at least preserves its pronunciation. This great man,
when young, subscribed his name "Walter _Raweley_ of the Middle Temple"
to a copy of verses, prefixed to a satire called the Steel-Glass, in
George Gascoigne's Works, 1576. Sir Walter was then a young student, and
these verses, both by their spirit and signature, cannot fail to be his;
however, this matter is doubtful, for the critics have not met elsewhere
with his name thus written. The orthoëpy of the name of this great man I
can establish by the following fact. When Sir Walter was first
introduced to James the First, on the King's arrival in England, with
whom, being united with an opposition party, he was no favourite, the
Scottish monarch gave him this broad reception: "Rawly! Rawly! true
enough, for I think of thee very _Rawly_, mon!" There is also an enigma
contained in a distich written by a lady of the times, which preserves
the real pronunciation of the name of this extraordinary man.
What's bad for the stomach, and the word of dishonour,
Is the name of the man, whom the king will not honour.
Thus our ancient personal names were written down by the ear at a period
when we had no settled orthography; and even at a later period, not
distant from our own times, some persons, it might be shown, have been
equally puzzled how to write their names; witness the Thomsons,
Thompsons; the Wartons, Whartons, &c.