In this work, to the justly high character of which I need scarcely refer,
the "General Remarks" relating to the periods under consideration are full
of information of the most interesting kind, as they often contain
illustrations of manners and customs not to be met with elsewhere.
In a portion of the "Remarks" illustrative of the thirteenth century,
showing the difficulty and insecurity of travelling at that time (pp.
120-122.), there is, however, an incorrect rendering of an extract from an
original document; and this error seriously affects the "illustration"
afforded by it. As I am in some degree personally involved in the matter,
having supplied the material in its original shape, I may perhaps be
permitted fully to explain and correct the passage. My only regret is, that
I had not the opportunity of calling my friend's attention to the subject
before the sheets were finally struck off. The extract is from an Account
of the Chamberlain of Chester, 29-30 Edw. I., showing how the sum of 1000l.
was transmitted from Chester to London. After referring to the convoy for
the treasure:
"It was not sufficient, however," says the late Mr. Turner, "that the
money should be protected; in the absence of hostels, except in towns,
it was necessary to secure the guards from hunger. _Therefore they were
accompanied by two cooks_, who provided 'a safe lodging' daily for the
money; and, as a matter of course, _provided for the culinary
necessities of its conductors_."
It will be seen that upon the word rendered "cooks" depends the whole value
of this passage, {279} as evidence of the road-side necessities of the
period. That word, however, does not bear such a construction; although, at
first sight, nothing would be more natural than to render it so. It is
written in the original "cok'," contracted; and to those conversant with
mediæval Latin, it is known to express "cokinus--coquinus," _Gallicè_
"coquin:" a word derived from "coquus," and _not_ that word itself. It
occurs commonly enough in the Royal Wardrobe Accounts, and means simply "a
messenger."[1] For those who have not the opportunity of referring to
original documents, there is a very good account of the persons so
designated supplied by the _Liber quotidianus Contrarotulatoris Garderobæ,
anno 28 Edw. I._, edited by John Topham, Esq., in 1787, from the original
in the library of the Society of Antiquaries. It is referred to in the note
to the Post Office Report as containing the words Cokinus, Nuncius, and
Garcio, used apparently in one sense. At p. 280. is an account of payments
under the heading "Titulus de expens' nuncior' et cok' Regis Edwardi," &c.,
and in the glossary this explanation of the word is given:
"COKINUS, COQUINUS.--'Homo vilissimus nec nisi infimis conquinæ
ministeriis natus,' says Ducange. Charpentier adds _beggar_. Here it
means the lowest kind of messengers or errand-boys, like _sculls_ or
_scullions_ in colleges."
But this is too low an estimate of the class.
Having disposed of this passage, I wish now to draw the attention of your
readers who have taken part or interest in the late discussion in your
pages upon certain surnames, to the bearing which this extract, and others
expressive of the individuals there referred to, has upon that numerous
series of names ending in "cock;" about which so many, and, for these
regenerate days, some singular suggestions have been made. The discussion
was, I believe, commenced in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for May, 1837; and,
in the number for the same month in the following year, J. G. N. suggested
that many of those names might be referred to forms of "Coc, koc, le coq,
which occur in records as abbreviations of coquus, cocus--cook."
How cavalierly the suggestions thus afforded by Mr. Urban's pages were
treated by Mr. Lower, your readers will see who refer to the pages of that
gentleman's work upon _English Surnames_, indicated in the author's last
communication to you ("N. &. Q.," Vol. v., p. 509.). But their faith in the
improvement "N. & Q." has so greatly contributed to effect in such matters,
will not however let them be deterred by the terms there used from pursuing
the subject. It will be seen that my present contribution will modify the
view taken by J. G. N., but also, to a considerable extent, support it.
I am not aware that any attempt has been made to show how early these names
were used. I can refer to several instances of the names "Wilcoc" or
"Willecok," and "Badecok," two complete examples of the kind, in the
documents of the reign of Edward I.
Those of your readers who are members of the Camden Society have now before
them a copy of a document in which the first of those names occurs several
times. I refer to the small Household Roll of John of Brabant while at the
English court, which is printed in the last volume of the Camden Society's
_Miscellany_.
No one doubts that by far the greater part of the names in question were
originally corrupted forms of Christian names, with a suffix. Mr. Lower has
done good service in showing thus much. And any one who refers to the list
in the Royal Wardrobe Account of 28 Edw. I., and especially those who can
also consult other similar manuscripts, will admit that it would be quite
possible that any Christian name might have been so used; so numerous must
have been the class of persons called "cokini." I will not further trespass
upon your space with specimens of names so manufactured, as they can be
formed with ease upon the first name "Wilcoc" from "Wille le cok,"--the
contracting mark being dropped. The final letter "k" is of importance, as
distinguishing the derivative from the parent word "coquus;" from what
period, and _why_, is doubtful. That there is but little early documentary
evidence of the names in their complete state, might be attributed to the
inferior class of the individuals so designated.
Mr. Lower's sole explanation of the terminal in question is, that it is a
diminutive like "kin;" and in justice to that view, I must not pass over
the evidence afforded by the Brabant Roll of a case where the two names
seem to be interchanged. One of Prince John's pages is named on the roll
"Hankin" (p. 7. line 3.); while, on the Wardrobe Account three years
previous, where the servants are specified by name, "Hancock" is there, who
is most likely the same person. It will also be seen, that whereas in the
Wardrobe Account the armourer's name is "Giles," and the barber's "Walter"
(see notes to the Brabant Roll), the foreign scribe of the account dubs
them "Gilkin" {280} and "Woterkin." In following up his argument upon this
subject, Mr. Lower speaks of a person being called "Little Wilcock," as an
instance of complete tautology: if, however, it is meant by this (as it
seems to be), that a diminutive name was only applied to a diminutive in
person, or only expressed such a one, I am sure he will find very many
differ from him, as affection or familiarity was at least as likely to have
originated its use. Thus, Peter de Gaveston would surely not be deprived of
his knightly fame because he was called by Prince Edward "Perot" (Pierrote
_a_ Pierre). Thus also came "Amyot" from Amy, "Launcelot" from Laurence,
"Gillot" from Giles. And "kin" has as much right to be so considered. But
there being already these two diminutives in ordinary use as to names of
persons, there surely was no occasion to apply to the same purpose a
syllable which (with a mark of contraction) certainly had a direct meaning,
and expressed a vocation; and which has very rarely been otherwise used in
a diminutive sense.
My object is not so much to advocate any particular solution as regards
these names, as to submit evidence bearing upon the subject, with such
explanations as have occurred to me.