In all ages and localities of the world names, implying some one or
more characteristics of person, feature, faith, place or event, were
conferred by people, especially by those of defective education and
rude, unpolished manners. The nations of antiquity appear to have set
the example, for the Hebrews had their “Adam,” which meant “red earth,”
their “Elizabeth,” “the oath of God,” and the Greeks their “Theophilus,”
“the friend of God.” Scriptural names, and those of a purely classical
character, have been studied with less difficulty. Every Hebrew name has
been fully discussed and examined by the best scholars, and the Greek
have received the same amount of careful consideration. Not so with the
Latin. While much of value and interest have been gleaned through patient
study and investigation, yet there is a great deal that must forever
remain doubtful and inexplicable.
Ripe German philologists have given full attention to the numerous race
of German appellations, the Scandinavian class having been most ably
treated in a series of articles to the _Norsk Maandeskrifts_ from the
pen of Prof. Munch, of Christiania. Turner, Kemble, Thierry, and others,
have studied, but not comparatively, Anglo-Saxon names, and thrown
considerable light upon the subject.
Keltic names have presented far greater difficulties. The changes through
which the name passes must be considered, and not merely the sound when
translated into English. Books of travels, histories, and popular tales,
are here indispensable aids to the dictionary, especially when writers
have been good enough to give with anything like tolerable accuracy the
genuine word rather than their Anglicised construction.
While surnames and local names have often been discussed, and that very
poorly in the large majority of cases, the Christian name has generally
been considered too fortuitous to merit notice. Camden did indeed review
the current ones of his day, giving many correct explanations, but
Verstegen, who followed him up, was more speculative, and, consequently,
less correct. Since his day, no English author seems to have given any
reliable information to the subject. It is true that a few lists of names
and meanings have appeared in magazines and popular works, but they have
generally been copies of Verstegen, with puerile and incorrect additions.
One paper, which was published a long time ago in Chamber’s Journal,
was the only truly valuable paper on English names _en masse_ that has
appeared since he wrote.
But little attention has been paid to the history of names. Why one
should be popular and another forgotten, why one should flourish
throughout an entire country, another in one section alone, and another
around some petty district, has not, it would seem, been of sufficient
importance to invite examination. History has answered some of these
questions, genealogy others, and the patient tracing of patron saints,
their relics, and their legends, many others. In this department of
investigation, philology owes a lasting debt of gratitude to Charlotte
M. Yonge, a well-known English authoress, who has had the time, the
patience, the ability, for so herculean a task. A careful perusal of her
work, while it shows a few defects, the results of preconceived notions
and false reasoning, brings to the light of knowledge much that is
valuable and important.
The writer’s interest in the subject began with his study of the Irish
language more than two decades ago. That interest has never wavered,
but has gathered strength and force with the advancing years. A desire
that his fellows should know something of the etymology and meanings
of names, for few people have any other idea than that names, family
names especially, are the results of chance, has led to the publication
of this work. In its preparation he has drawn his facts from primitive
sources. Few names, and these originally Christian in character, have
been taken at second hand, but in most instances even these have been
modified in derivation and meaning to adapt them to his conceptions of
what the genius of the languages, from which they were drawn, would
require. Bourke’s _Self-Instruction in Irish_, O’Reilly’s _Irish-English
Dictionary_, Foley’s _English-Irish Dictionary_, and _The Irish Echo_,
a monthly paper published in Boston, and devoted to Irish history and
genealogies, are the sources from which have been obtained the facts
for the Irish names. March’s _Comparative Grammar of the Anglo-Saxon
Language_, March’s _Anglo-Saxon Reader_, and Bosworth’s _Anglo-Saxon and
English Dictionary_ have been invaluable so far as the Anglo-Saxon are
concerned, and for the Anglo-Norman and Scotch considerable information
has been gleaned from the writings of Chaucer, edited by Wright, from
Percy’s _Reliques of Ancient English Poetry_, and from scores of other
sources.
It is not pretended that the list of names herein given is anything like
complete. Hundreds of others could have been included, but they would
only have augmented the size of the book beyond the author’s intention.
He has endeavored to select names presumably familiar to English-speaking
people, and to give their probable derivation and significance. The keen
eye of the critic may detect some faults, for a work of this kind cannot
necessarily be free from errors, either of judgment or wisdom, but it
is to be hoped that the value of the work, as a vehicle of truth and
information, may not materially be affected by reason of them.