or 1500.* This was not enough, for in common parlance it was not likely the full name would be used. Besides, there might be two, or even three, Johns in the same family. So late as March, 1545, the will of John Parnell de Gyrton runs: 66 'Alice, my wife, and Old John, my son, to occupy my farm together, till Olde John marries; Young John, my son, shall have Brenlay's land, plowed and sowed at Old John's cost." The register of Raby, Leicestershire, has this entry : "1559. Item: 29th day of August was John, and John Picke, the children of Xtopher and Anne, baptized. “Item: the 31st of August the same John and John were buried." Mr. Burns, who quotes these instances in his "History of Parish Registers," adds that at this *This is easily proved. In the wardrobe accounts for Edward IV., 1480, occur the following items :- "John Poyntmaker, for pointing of xl. dozen points of silk pointed with agelettes of laton. "John Carter, for cariage away of a grete loode of robeux that was left in the strete. "To a laborer called Rychard Gardyner working in the gardyne. "To Alice Shapster for making and washing of xxiiii. sherts, and xxiiii. stomachers." Shapster is a feminine form of Shapper or Shaper-one who shaped or cut out cloths for garments. All these several individuals, having no particular surname, took or received one from the occupation they temporarily followed.-"Privy Purse Expenses, Eliz. of York," p. 122. same time one John Barker had three sons named John Barker, and two daughters named Margaret Barker." * If the same family had but one name for the household, we may imagine the difficulty when this one name was also popular throughout the village. The difficulty was naturally solved by, firstly, the adoption of nick forms; secondly, the addition of pet desinences. Thus Emma became by the one practice simple Emm, by the other Emmott; and any number of boys in a small community might be entered in a register as Bartholomew, and yet preserve their individuality in work-a-day life by bearing such names as Bat, Bate, Batty, Bartle, Bartelot, Batcock, Batkin, and Tolly, or Tholy. In a word, these several forms of Bartholomew were treated as so many separate proper names. No one would think of describing Wat Tyler's— * Any number of such instances might be recorded. Mr. W. C. Leighton, in Notes and Queries, February 23, 1861, notices a deed dated 1347, wherein two John de Leightons, brothers, occur. Mr. Waters, in his interesting pamphlet, "Parish Registers (p. 30), says that Protector Somerset had three sons christened Edward, born respectively 1529, 1539, and 1548. All were living at the same time. He adds that John Leland, the antiquary, had a brother John, and that John White, Bishop of Winchester 1556-1560, was brother to Sir John White, Knight, Lord Mayor in 1563. we should now say Walter Tyler's-insurrection as Gowen does : "Watte vocat, cui Thoma venit, neque Symme retardat, Bat-que Gibbe simul, Hykke venire subent: Colle furit, quem Bobbe juvat, nocumenta parantes, Crigge rapit, dum Davie strepit, comes est quibus Hobbe, Hudde ferit, quem Judde terit, dum Tibbe juvatur These names, taken in order, are Walter, Thomas, Another instance will be evidence enough. The author of " Piers Plowman says "Then goeth Glutton in, and grete other after, Cesse, the sonteresse, sat on the bench : Watte, the warner, and his wife bothe: Tymme, the tynkere, and twayne of his prentices : Hikke, the hackney man, and Hugh, the pedlere, Clarice, of Cokkeslane, and the clerke of the churche : Taken in their order, these nick forms represent Cecilia, Walter, Timothy, Isaac, Clarice, and David. It will be seen at a glance that such appellatives are rare, by comparison, in the present day. Tricks of this kind were not to be played with Bible names at the Reformation, and the new names from that time were pronounced, with such exceptions as will be detailed hereafter, in their fulness. To speak of William and John is to speak of a race and rivalry 800 years old. In Domesday there were 68 Williams, 48 Roberts, 28 Walters, to 10 Johns. Robert Montensis asserts that in 1173, at a court feast of Henry II., Sir William St. John and Sir William Fitz-Hamon bade none but those who bore the name of William to appear. There were present 120 Williams, all knights. In Edward I.'s reign John came forward. In a Wiltshire document containing 588 names, 92 are William, 88 John, 55 Richard, 48 Robert, 23 Roger, Geoffrey, Ralph, and Peter 16. A century later John was first. In 1347, out of 133 common councilmen for London, first convened, 35 were John, 17 William, 15 Thomas, (St. Thomas of Canterbury was now an institution), 10 Richard, 8 Henry, 8 Robert. In 1385 the Guild of St. George at Norwich contained 377 names. Of these, John engrossed no less than 128, William 47, Thomas 41. The Reformation and the Puritan Commonwealth for a time darkened the fortunes of John and William, but the Protestant accession befriended the latter, and now, as 800 years ago, William is first and John second. But when we come to realize that nearly onethird of Englishmen were known either by the name of William or John about the year 1300, it will be seen that the pet name and nick form were no freak, but a necessity. We dare not attempt a category, but the surnames of to-day tell us much. Will was quite a distinct youth from Willot, Willot from Wilmot, Wilmot from Wilkin, and Wilkin from Wilcock. There might be half a dozen Johns about the farmstead, but it mattered little so long as one was called Jack, another Jenning, a third Jenkin, a fourth Jackcock (now Jacox as a surname), a fifth Brownjohn, and a sixth Micklejohn, or Littlejohn, or Properjohn (ie. well built or handsome). The nick forms are still familiar in many instances, though almost entirely confined to such names as have descended from that day to the present. We still talk of Bob, and Tom, and Dick, and Jack. The introduction of Bible names at the Reformation did them much harm. But the Reformation, and the English Bible combined, utterly overwhelmed the pet desinences, and they succumbed. Emmot and Hamlet lived till the close of the seventeenth century, but only because they had ceased to be looked upon as altered forms of old favourite names, and were |