Population, mutation, linguistics and the number of surnames
|
|
Topics (Brief Coverage) |
If
you came to this page directly, then please access
Modern British
Surnames
|
Preface: |
The plethora of surnames in the early Middle Ages
"Although the national population was far lower in the middle ages than it is today, England had a much wider range of surnames at the period of their formation than it had in subsequent centuries"
(Source -David Hey: Family Names and Family History)
Many historians currently believe that the population of England reached 5 or 6 million by the year 1300. However, the effect of the Black Death of 1348-50 and later pestilences meant that it had fallen back to the region of 2.2 to 3 million by 1380. This downward trend continued for another 100 years until the population bottomed out at about 2 million. Recovery was slow, and appreciable increase did not show until the 1530's and 1540s. (David Hey: ibid)
|
|
The Black Death Maximum estimates
|
How
did the ravages of the Black Death affect the stock of surnames? The general
population levels may have gradually recovered, but surnames were more
vulnerable to erasure. How many were wiped out completely? Which categorary of
surnames was effected the most? What was the effect on individual counties?
Impossible questions to answer, though intriguing ones. I do wonder if a trace
of the Black Death can be discerned in the current surname density levels of
individual counties (Comparing Derbyshire with Staffordshire, for instance)-
though one would need to know the surname compostions of each county prior to
the Black Death. Again, highly unlikely to unearth. Just day-dreaming....
Population drop was not the only reason for the surname pool to decrease. Sturges and Hackett modelled the rate of surname extinction over 23 generations. They chose a start date of 1350 to enable them to neglect the effects of the plague. Even without accounting for pestilence, 30% of male lines would fail in the first generation according to their model.
The drop in the number of surnames due to these two reasons must
have been phenomenal.
The following might be a reflection of this. A recent study of the surnames of
Nidderdale has shown that there were no outstanding common names among the
taxpayers of 1379 . However, localised established surnames had certainly
achieved dominance by the time of the Lay Subsidy of 1546, for they reached a
peak after the Dissolution. This peak continued in Nidderdale for as long as
conditions were favourable, but received a setback after the Restoration, when
family size declined and the national population growth fell to zero. The
dominance of certain names came to an end in the mid eighteenth century. (Turner:
Distribution and Persistence of Surnames in a Yorkshire Dale, 1500-1750).
Earlier,
Richard McKinley in The Surnames of Lancashire had drawn attention to the fact
that although some names had ramified considerably by the 16th and 17th
centuries, no name was preponderant in the Lancashire Poll Tax returns of
1377-81.
|
The evident
stability of the class of leading names over the last 100 years should not be
extrapolated back to the beginning of surname formation. Intriguingly,
perhaps the surname Smith took an equal billing with currently rare surnames
in 1300? |
The number of recorded surnames -in England- did increase post 1540, but mainly due to surname corruption and mutation
Reaney wrote:-
"The modern form of very many of our surnames is due to the spelling of some sixteenth or seventeenth century parson or clerk, or even to one of a later date. It is not a matter of illiteracy in our sense of the word. These parsons who kept the parish registers were men of some education. Their ability to read cannot be questioned, but they had no guide to the spelling of names. It was the printing-press which gradually established a recognised system of spelling. That of Tudor and Stuart England was very different from ours, and the spelling of many of our words is not earlier than Dr Johnson's Dictionary. But there was no recognised spelling for names. A great part of the population was illiterate. Their names were only written at birth or marriage or death, or if they happened to come within the clutches of the law. Then they gave their names orally and the clerk put them into writing as best he could. He wrote them down phonetically, using his own system of spelling, sometimes spelling the same name in different ways at different times"
For
example, here is how the surname Partridge was
recorded in two sources for Suffolk
|
1524 Subsidy Roll |
Partriche, Parterych,
Patrick, Pattrik, Patryk |
|
1674 Hearth Tax |
Pattridge, Pattrige,
Pateridge, Pattarage, Pattrage, Putteridge |
One
name generating 11 mutations in just 2 sources. Dugdale is said to have found
130 mutations for the name Mainwaring.
George Redmonds has commented "..the number of variant
spellings of any given name throughout its history, is infinitely greater than
the surviving variants. Moreover, this tendency towards uniformity now is
probably greater than the move towards individuality"
There must have been numerous factors in the creation of new surname forms . Here are a few possibilities:-
- Pronunciation changes over time
- The cultural background of the clerk
- Misinterpretation of regional dialects
- Lack of standardised spelling and/or changes
in spelling conventions
- Name change through peer pressure
The
pronunciation of surnames at the time of their creation is entirely different
to that of today. Indeed, pronunciation changed markedly between the time of
Chaucer and that of Shakespeare, but subsequently only in small ways.
|
A distinction that
should be made here is between a root language change (affecting how all the
names in a region were pronounced) and individual name changes - what might
be termed surname
corruption. David
Crystal (2004) has highlighted the distribution of surname forms beginning in
w- wh- and qw- in East Anglia at
the time of the lay subsidies (in his examples, between 1296 and 1334. The OE
spelling for modern White was Hwit,
a voiceless w. Perhaps
as a result of Norman influence, the initial h in the consonant cluster was gradually
dropped (a process reflected in many other words; hnutu becoming in turn nut). This process did
not occur uniformly, so that surnames commencing with the the initial wh- consonant cluster - White, Whitbread, Whyting- exist alongside
shortened variants - Wyting,
Wyteman. The
relative proportion changed markedly from one eastern county to another.
Moreover, the cluster of spellings with a q-
in Norfolk in these Lay Subsidy Rolls, suggests that clerks were interpreting
local pronunciation for White as chwite and consequently representing it as Quite in the Rolls.
|
Overall,
the biggest changes were in the vowel-system; and the main changes are referred
to as the Great Vowel Shift.
|
|
The GVS was a massive
sound change that affected the long vowels of English. In the process, these
were now pronounced higher and the tongue moved more to the front of the
mouth. This complex phenomenon proceeded at different rates in different
dialects. It did not happen overnight, but started in the fifteen century,
and was not fully complete till the end of the eighteenth century. At any
given time, people of different ages and from different regions would have
different pronunciations of the same word. True to say that even today, one
can say a word like route
to rhyme with either boot
or out.
However, sociolinguists suspect that especially in the sixteenth century, the
opposing methods of pronunciation were class-based. Some
regional speech still reflects pronunciation pre-GVS. And because of dialectical variation, in some specific words the long vowels did not undergo the GVS e.g. break, great, steak, and yea |
|
|||||
|
as in ...far |
as in ...bad |
as in ...French faire |
German Zehn |
tree |
dipthonged- |
|
> |
by 1600 > |
>by 16th C |
|
>by 1500 |
>by early 15th C. |
|
|
|
as in saw |
as in French chose |
as in goose |
dipthonged |
|
|
|
|
>by 16/17th C |
>by 1500 |
>by early 15th C. |
|
||
|
Initial k |
e.g. knee, knight |
Sounded up to c 1600 |
|
Initial g |
e.g. gnat |
Sounded up to c 1600 |
|
Initial w |
e.g. write |
Sounded up to c 1600 |
|
||
|
Modern word |
Chaucerian
pronunciation |
Shakespearian
pronunciation |
|
tide |
as in tree - teed |
as in admit -tah'd |
|
green |
as in German zehn - grehn |
as in tree- green |
|
meat |
as in French faire - may-t |
as in German zehn - meh't |
|
house |
as in goose - hoose |
as in go -ho'se |
|
knee |
as in German zehn - k'nay |
as in tree - k'nee |
|
Note: I would like to
use phonetic symbols, but am prevented by the lack of standardisation |
||
The situation was slightly more complicated than this, and anyone wanting to take this further should consult the standard texts.
Did the GVS affect surnames? Certainly
in how they were pronounced; but not necessarily in how they were spelt. The
Present-Day English spelling reflects Middle English pronunciation : the
pronunciation of English before the GVS.
|
Although the
present-day name, and its variants, |
The
surname 'Dance'
was often recorded as 'Daunce'
or 'Dawnce'
prior to 1600. It seems to have been pronounced as if to rhyme with haunts. Words like dance, aunt and chance have origins in
borrowings into Middle English from French. "They
entered English with an au
spelling which, according to Dobson
(1968 II:786), corresponded to a dipthong that was later monophthongised into a
short a in some
areas and a long a in
other areas". After 1600, the au
spelling falls away, as if to reflect that the vowel has been shortened, even
in the south where the name is predominantly found. This echoes the fact that
there was a sporadic shortening of vowels in words of one syllable (especially
if they ended in a single consonant). Often short and long variants would be in
circulation simultaneously.
Anthea Fraser Gupta 'Baths and Becks' English
Today 81(Jan 2005) quoting Dobson
I have concentrated on the GVS because I think it is instructive to
learn how our surnames were actually pronounced at different times in the past. However,
I would like to emphasise that it is not clear what effect the GVS had (if any)
on the recording of surnames. Surname changes were occurring well before the
GVS, as the following examples recorded by Reaney reveal :-
|
adding an s |
Scripps for
Cripps; Sturgess for
Turgoose |
|
losing an s |
Stallworthy becomes
Tolworthy |
|
s becomes sh |
Saxby becomes
Shakesby |
|
loss of r |
Sartin becomes Sattin |
|
Initial p and b
interchange |
Peasegood=Bisgood:
Bumphrey=Pumfrey |
|
Initial t and d
interchange |
Dunstall=Tunstall;
Tizard=Dysart |
|
-son may become -som |
Paul's son becoming Poulsom |
|
Initial h
added/omitted at whim |
Adkins, Hadkins:
Oldham, Holdham |
Further Reading:-
Charles
Barber The English
Language : a Historical Introduction (Cambridge University Press,
1993)
H C Wyld A History of
Modern Colloquial English (T Fisher Unwin Ltd, 1920)
P H Reaney The Origin of
English Surnames (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967)
Until the end of the 16th century, the standard of education of the average clergyman was low. Inadequate remuneration failed to attract an educated clergy. But by the 1630's the majority of parishes had an resident, graduate clergy. Is this change in education/cultural background evidenced in the recodring of surnames in parish registers?
Moreover, the new graduate clergy would have been heavily influenced by Latin. In the 16th century, Latin influence caused words to be remodelled according to their real or supposed Latin etymology. Thus b was introduced into debt (originally dette), p into receipt, and c into indict. Not only spellings, but also pronunciation of individual words altered under Latin influence e.g. aventure (= at a venture) became adventure; verdict from verdit; perfect from parfit.
One is left wondering whether the same happened with surnames? The clergy are usually seen as the honest interpreters of a surname, but could they have been consciously/unconsciously transmuting names?
There is an intriguing reference in Pounds A History of the English Parish p166
A priest at St Ewe (Cornw) moved to another living because he could not understand
the Cornish language, and there are other instances of inability to cope with the local patois
This example came from the 14th century, and a study of the geographical mobility of priests (through locative surnames) at that time reveals that the majority remained in the same diocese, and not infrequently only moved a short distance from their place of birth. However, a significant minority (25%?) had a surprising degree of mobility - e.g. from the deanery of the East Riding of Yorkshire to Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire, Surrey, Kent ,as examples of the furthest interchanges.
Are
there any studies of the geographical mobility of parochial clergy in later
centuries, and the difficulties they had in understanding?
George Redmonds also gives examples in Surnames and Genealogy of the
local clergy humorously altering surnames; deliberately misspelling as a kind
of private joke. Wonderful.....
Another source for the creation of temporary variants could be due to hearing loss of an individual cleric. We tend to naturally assume that those recording events had perfect hearing. Not necessarily so. Although it could be argued that this particular defect was corrected through lip-reading. If it is a possibility, then research has been conducted into those consonants that become progressively confused due to hearing impairment. For example, the consonants d,g,b or v,th,z are indistinguishable to those with even a slight hearing loss.
Misinterpretation of regional dialects
Migration is often cited as the single most important cause of surname corruption.
"My
MOWBRAY name has variants such as:
MOWBERRY...this was from a Leicester family that went to Northants in the early
1700s. The parish clerk, never having had a MOWBRAY family in his region
before, heard the name and wrote what he thought the man had said. The
offspring migrated to Lincolnshire, which is prime MOWBRAY territory, and some
maintained the variant whereas others reverted to the original. In medieval
times, an offspring of the baronial line went to Scotland and founded a
dynasty. They adopted the spelling MOUBRAY which has persisted. One can hear
the Scottish accent in this variant. In Yorkshire the variant MAWBRAY crops up,
this time reflecting the Yorkshire drawl." (Source: David Mowbray
email to the Guild Forum)
"In fact this change in the way the name is written down is quite easy to map, and SW of a line drawn between Kidderminster and Redditch it is ROWBERRY and NE of that line it is RUBERY. This is most neatly demonstrated by a 19th Century Ag Lab family who moved backwards and forwards over that line. In the one area their children's births were registered as ROWBERRYs but in the other as RUBERYs." (Source: Polly Rubery email to the Guild Forum)
In the above examples it clearly is. However, how typical are its migration patterns?
Mobility - Mediaeval
There
have been several useful studies of mediaeval migration, and all indicate a
high level of mobility.
|
Nottinghamshire |
Distance travelled |
up to 5 miles |
...10 miles |
...20 miles |
...150 miles |
|
Early 14th Century |
(cumulative percentage) |
40% |
60% |
75% |
100% |
|
Source: Peter McClure:
Patterns of migration in the late Middle Ages : The evidence of English
Place-Name Surnames |
|||||
. Twenty
Five percent were moving over 20 miles, and a few up to 150 miles. It would be
useful to correlate this with points at which dialect certainly changes. The
distance for dialect changes is greater for lowland than upland regions: but I
hazard a guess at 70 miles (lowland) and 40 miles (upland). Someone more
knowledgeable, enlighten me please.
And a higher percentage of the the names that moved would be more distinctive
than later, and therefore a higher percentage subject to change.
Post-medieval mobility
David Hey writes that most migration was within a radius of 25 miles; often centring on the local market-town : subsistence migration declining rapidly with the passing of the 1662 Settlement Acts.
For further information, read Ian Whyte 'Migration and Society in Britain, 1550-1830'
It
is commonly accepted that for the printed
word, the spelling system became standardised by the end of the
seventeenth century. Powerful influences had been the introduction of the
printing press (with spelling conventions set by the printers) and the
publication of dictionaries.
This standardisation was not echoed in the recording of surnames. Famously,
Shakespeare had 5 other variants of his name, in his lifetime. Indeed,
standardisation did not arrive until the advent of mass literacy in the
twentieth century. In my initial analysis of the 1900 Portsmouth Burgess Rolls,
I am struck by the lack of name standardisation. And this in a section of the
populace that one would expect to have a higher incidence of literacy.
Common
spelling changes
|
Added e or es suffix |
losse, frende or
motheres |
|
Doubling or singling
consonants |
allways, shoppe,
ffawkes |
|
Doubling or singling
vowels |
shep, thret, gode
(sheep/treat/good) |
|
Interchangeable vowel
sounds |
could/cold,
first/fyrst/fierst |
|
J written as I |
Ianuary |
|
U written as V |
Maior |
Spelling
changes in names
|
F and Ph |
Fair, Phair;
Fazackerley, Phizackerly |
|
C replaced by S or K |
Cely, Seeley; Curtler,
Kirtler |
|
ks replaced by x |
Dickson, Dixon; Wicks,
Wix |
|
i and y |
Sime, Syme |
|
-er as a final
syllable |
Bowrer, Bowra; Vanner,
Vannah |
|
Doubling consonants |
Dannce, Dansse |
In surname studies, there is a complicated relationship between pronunciation, orthography and -presumably- the influence of the standardisation conventions of printed text.
As
mentioned, Surnames have resisted -or have been placed outside- the drive for
spelling standardisation. (In contrast to forenames, where variance is allowed,
but is very constricted e.g. Catherine, Katherine, Kathryn)
This is perhaps due to the perceived need for surnames to be differentiated
from common nouns, in a way other than capitalisation. This process seems to
apply particularly to succinct names, and is achieved through a process of
padding. This padding is found in 3 forms:-
- The addition of a superfluous letter 'e'
- Consonant doubling
- The substitution of the letter 'y' for 'i'
- In some cases, this trend has become fixed. The surname
'Taylor' is a notable example : this form has superceded the original
'Tailor'.
- In others, both the original noun-form and a spelling variation exist side by side e.g. 'Da