I have to thank many of your readers who have favoured me with private
letters on this subject since the printing of the prospectus of my
_Dictionary of Surnames_ in your columns; and before troubling you with a
string of Queries, I would briefly refer to two or three points in the kind
communications under this head in "N. & Q." of May 1. E. H. Y. will find
the question, _sur_name or _sir_name, slightly touched upon in my _English
Surnames_ (3rd edit., vol. i. p. 13.), and argued at length in the
_Literary Gazette_ for Nov. 1842, in a correspondence originating out of a
notice of the first edition of my book. I think the balance of evidence is
in favour of _sur_name; that is, a name superadded to the personal or
baptismal appellation, which applies with equal propriety to the sobriquets
given to monarchs and distinguished men, and to the hereditary designations
of people of humble rank. Alexander _Mitchell_, your groom, is no other
than Alexander the Great; and Bill _Rowse_, your errand-boy, is the
namesake of the Red King who fell in the New Forest; the only difference
being, that the plebeians inherit their second name from their ancestors,
while the magnates enjoy theirs by exclusive right. I do not think,
therefore, that the distinction contended for by E. H. Y. is either
necessary or desirable: indeed I consider _sire_name as a mere play upon a
mis-spelt word. In saying this, I would by no means disparage your
excellent correspondent, whose communications I always read with pleasure I
might add, that the distinction of "nomen patris additum proprio,"
_sire_name, and "nomen supra nomen additum," surname, is by no means new.
I cannot quite agree with E. S.'s suggestion as to the desirableness of
omitting the names derived from Christian names, this being one of the most
interesting branches of my inquiry. I have already shown that from ten to
thirty family names are occasionally found to proceed from _one_ baptismal
appellation; and at least half a dozen of the names to which E. S. calls my
attention for explanation are so derived. To the termination _-cock_,
occurring in so many names, I have already given attention, and the result
may be seen in _Eng. Surn._, vol. i. pp. 160. to 165., both inclusive.
To the surnames derived from extinct or provincial words designating
employments, I am paying considerable attention; but although I am
tolerably well acquainted with our mediæval writers, and their glossarists,
there are many names ending in _er_ (generally having in old records the
prefix _le_), which have hitherto baffled my etymological skill.
W. L.'s remarks support the statements made in _Eng. Surn._, vol. i., p.
38. _et seq._, to show that family names have scarcely become hereditary,
in some parts of England, even now, in the middle of the nineteenth
century. Without occupying your valuable space unduly, I would now submit
the following Queries:--
1. What book gives any rational account of the origin of the Scottish
clans, and their distinctive or family names? I know Buchanan's work, but
it gives very little information of the kind desired. _Any_ authentic
particulars regarding Scottish names will be acceptable.
2. What is the real meaning of _worth_, which forms the final syllable of
so many surnames? I have seen no less than six explanations of it, which
cannot all be correct.
3. Are there any works (besides dictionaries) in the Dutch, German, and
Scandinavian languages which would throw light upon the family names of
this country?
4. What is the best compendious gazetteer or topographical dictionary of
Normandy extant?
5. Is anything known of a collection of surnames made by Mr. Cole, the
antiquary, in the last century? It is mentioned in Collet's _Relics of
Literature_, 1823. {510}
6. Can any reader of "N. & Q." explain the following surnames, which are
principally to be found so early as the reign of Edward I.?--Alfox, Colfox,
Astor, Fricher, Grix, Biber, Bakepuz, Le Chalouner, Le Cayser, Le Cacherel,
Trelfer, Metcalfe, Baird, Aird, Chagge, Le Carun, at Bight.