FEMALE NAMES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5608, 14 February 1879, Page 7

FEMALE NAMES.

(IVem Ito Graphic) The oft-quoted remark of Shakespeare’s recurs to our mind in connection with names. “What’s in a name P " he asks, or rather makes Juliet ask j and the world has over and over again answered the question that there is a great deal in it. Shakespeare him* self would seem to hare considered there was something, to judge from the pretty-sounding names of hu favourite characters. But it is difficult to say whether sound or association has most to do with our opinions of names. Association must do much, to judge from the various changes in fashion. Elisabeth, Mary, and Anne wen once considered to be queen-like names, and have been borne by queensregnant and quoeae-oonsoit of England. But in these days we should not hesitate to rail our domestic servants by such appellatives, though we should scarcely address our housemaid as Sybil, or our Cook as Mabel i names which are much in fashion just now. Whether Sybil or Mabel, and many other such names as are in vogue with lady novelists, will ever become common enough to do for our servants, or whether servants will achieve such an independence that they wiil insist on being addressed by their baptismal name, we cannot guess. At present the race of domestic servants have to put up With suchnames as their mistresses think approjpritte, no matter whit their godfathers and godmothers did for them at baptism.,,' One old lady of our acquaintance, of an easy and amiable disposition, who keep three maidens to wait upon her, declares she would not do anything so wicked as rob a girl of the name that was given to her at the time when she “ was made a member of Christ, a Child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven." Therefore she calls her maidens by what she supposes to be their baptismal names j and it u to be feared that these maidens rather take advantage of the amiable old lady and re-ohristen themselves on entering her service; for at present Belinda presides in the kitchen, Kosalie attends to the housework, and Seraphim waits at table.

If we look back to the time of our grand* mothers and groat aunts, we find that besides Elizabeth, Mary, and Anne, there were Margaret, Emma,' Caroline, Sarah, Jane, Martha, Sophia, Susan, Maria, Matilda, Louisa, Rebecca, Phoebe, Ruth, Lydia, Charlotte, and other names. Bridget, Dorothea, Chloe, Cicely, Tshitha, belong perhaps to even an earlier generation. But some 30 years ago such names were voted to be common} and Constance, Florence, Beatrice, Blanche, Alice, Adeline, Maud, Mabel, Sybil, Muriel, Grace, Isabel, Millicent, Gertrude, became the fashion. It was not the custom for English people to hare more than one Christian name before the reign of George the Third. Two or more names were first used by the Court, and the fashion soon spread all over the country, though at first it was considered presumptuous for a person of low degree to confer more than one name on his child. The conjunction of Anna with Maria was once considered aristocratic, but it is no longer so. Mary Anne also was a novelty, bnt is now common in the extreme} and ladies who have been so christened prefer to write Marian or Mariane. Some ladies even affect the French form of Mary, and insist on being called Marie. There is a tendency to tnm v into ie in all names; even the pretty homely Fanny expects to be Fannie now. The combination of 1 Anne with other names was very usual at one time, there being Frances Anne, Sarah Anne, Margaret Anne, and Julia Anne, this last having often in the pronunciation an r inserted for cockney euphony; as also did Jemima Ann, a name by no means unCOznmoZU THa ImvAP./dftAA .Weigh are fond of 'saasiy fanciful names. On one occasion, wuen driving in a by-way in North Wales, we have had to poll up suddenly, that a little urchin, moving mud pies in the road, who was shrieked at as Victoria Jemima, might be pulled out of the way. This induced us to inquire concerning female names in the Principality, and wo found in the very family in which we inquired three girls named respectively Averina Christina, Euphemia Angelina, and Estella Lavinia. Alas! their cognomen was only Jones. History and literature supply us with the names that have been in use in England in, all ages. It is perhaps the inferior authors who give us the best idea of the particular names that are in fashion at the time they write. They endeavour to create an interest in their characters by giving them fine names; whereas a good writer will create a character that will give a halo to the name chosen for it. When Chaucer wrote—“ Up rose the sun and up rose Emily,” he made for us a picture that we for ever connect with the name of Emily. We imagine an Emily must be a bright happy, and industrious girL We can only think of Rosalind as Shakespeare’s saucy, witty, courageous, true hearted girl, in doublet and hose; of Miranda as the innocent, modest creature who was not ashamed to show her love j of Portia as the rather strong minded young lady who wanted to prove her husband’s love; of Juliet as the sentimental girL , Ben Johnson brought the pretty classical name Earine into English use. But this name looses its beauty when it is mispronounced, as it often is by those unacquainted with the classics. It should bo in four syllables, with the accent on the second. But that it is turned into two syllables by educated people is evident; for when it was adopted by ft late novelist for one of his heroines, it was denounced by a reviewer in a paper supposed to have been written for the upper classes as “ savouring of a barber’s ungueofc.” Bicbardflon’fl names, Clarissa and Pamela, remind us of Watteau shepherdesses. But from an autograph letter of Richardson, in ] the possession |of |Mra Charles Kingsley, Jt would seem that the romance of Richardson s youth was connected with a lady named Clarissa. Fielding is content with the very plainest names. When be wrote “Joseph Andrews ” j as a parody on “ Pamela,” and to counteract the effect of Richardson’s style, he no doubt purposely made the names plain m contrast to Richardson’s. Miss Bumey was fond of long sounding names, and calls one of her novels “ Evelina,” _ Mi«« Austen made use of Emma, Jane, Susan, Harriet, Elizabeth, Charlotte,and such names. Coleridge made the pretty name of Chris label familiar to ns. . .. Charles Lamb wrote some amusing Unes concerning the name of Frances, in an “hum . of a lady of that name. After remarking that the name suits either man or woman, ne says:— She who this twin title decks. Combines what's good I? either sex . Unites— bow very mo the case is i MmumUtut sense to female graces j And quitting not her proper Is both is otio * The female novelists of the present day have exhausted almost every form of femai appellation; and the worse the Enter, more far-fetched and high-flown are . names. This win probably cause a reaction in favour of plain names again. The names of the Royal in favour, but it is curious that the y,ueen first name, Alexandrine, has never been muon used 5 especially as she was in hw ° * hood known by it. . That of the Princess of Wales was very quickly adopted. , But whether names pretty or .?f^’ re common or ianoifoL how iew laaw»t who are not called by some pet stately Elizabeth or a Frances are perhaps addressed in the fwoUyoir y names that are not m any way *«n those given at their Baptism, such as or pAp, » £%

•ewet pet name by Which she is known to her lover P Coleridge wrote i I aiifcod xny fair one luppy day. * »■' What X should call her iu my lay » By what twest namp from Borne or Greece j Lalaite, Newra, Chlorls. * Sappho, Lethia. or Bom, Arethusa, or Luoreoe. Ah I replied my gentle fair, Bolpved 1 what are names bat air f Choose thou whatever suit* the line s Call me Sappho, cell me Ohloris, Call me Laloge or Doris, Only, only call mo thine. And this would doubtless be the answer of many a young lady under the circumstances.