My object in making this statement, is to solicit from the numerous and
learned correspondents of "N. & Q." contributions of surnames and
suggestions in furtherance of my undertaking; and from the Editor,
permission to query from time to time upon the origin, date, and history
of such surnames as I am unable satisfactorily to elucidate without
assistance. A field so large requires the co-operation of many
labourers. I have already secured the friendly aid of some of the most
competent antiquaries in England; and I confidently anticipate for the
forthcoming collection a degree of success proportioned to the amount of
labour and research bestowed upon it.
Of _local_ surnames few will be introduced; for, as nearly every landed
property has given a name to the family of its early proprietor, it
would be impossible to include all the names so derived. Only the more
remarkable ones of this class, which would appear at first sight to come
from a totally different source, will be admitted. Blennerhasset,
Polkinghom, Woodhead, Wisdom, Bodycoat, and Crawl, for example, are
names of places, and surnames have been derived from them, although few
except the persons resident in the particular localities are aware that
any such places exist. Most of the names that baffle all historical and
etymological acumen are probably of this class.
I wish it to be understood that my dictionary will only include family,
that is, _hereditary_ surnames. Merely personal sobriquets which died
with their first possessors (and which are found in large numbers in
ancient records) will be passed by, unless they should illustrate some
appellative which has descended to our times.
In conclusion, this work is by no means intended to supersede my
_English Surnames_, which contains much matter unsuited to dictionary
arrangement, and is intended to convey information on a neglected
subject in a popular form. The illustrations in the _Dictionary_ will
for the most part be new, with references to the _English Surnames_ for
others.
The foregoing announcement was intended to be sent to "N. & Q." some
weeks since. I am now induced to forward it without further delay,
because I see the subject of surnames introduced in to-day's number by
two different correspondents. COWGILL, the first of these, could, if so
disposed, render me efficient help. As to the remarks of J. H. on the
works of "Lower and others" (_what others?_), they clearly show that he
has never read what he so summarily condemns, or he would not now have
to ask for the supposed number of surnames in England, which is given in
my third edition, vol. i., preface, p. xiii. Though I am, perhaps, more
fully aware than any other person of the defects and demerits of my
_English Surnames_, I think the literary public will hardly deny me the
credit of "_some_ study and research," praise which has been awarded me
by better critics than J. H. It is not my practice to notice the
censures of anonymous writers, but I cannot forbear adverting to two
points in J. H.'s short communication. In the first place his desire for
a work giving _all_ the names used in England, and "showing when they
were first adopted or brought into this country," shows his entire want
of acquaintance with the existing state of the nomenclature of English
families. A glance at a few pages of so common a book as the _London
Directory_, will convince any competent observer that there are hundreds
upon hundreds of surnames that would baffle the most imaginative
etymologist. Secondly, J. H. proposes that an author treating on the
subject of family names, should begin "with the Britons." Does he really
suppose that the Celtic possessors of our island bore family names
according to the modern practice? If so, "Lower and (many) others" can
assure him that his antiquarian and historical knowledge must be of a
somewhat limited kind.