atte Field.” In fact, the early forms of Eleanor are innumerable. The favourite Sibilla became Sibot:
“Johannes de Estwode, et Sibota uxor ejus, iiiid.
“Willelmus Howeson, et Sibbota uxor ejus, iiiid.” – W. D. S.
Mary not merely became Marion, but Mariot, and from our surnames it would appear the latter was the favourite:
“Isabella serviens Mariota Gulle, iiiid.” – W. D. S.
“Mariota in le Lane.” – Hundred Rolls.
Eve became Evot, Adam and Eve being popular names. In the will of William de Kirkby, dated 1391, are bequests to “Evæ uxori Johannes Parvying” and “Willielmo de Rowlay,” and later on he refers to them again as the aforementioned “Evotam et dictum Willielmum Rowlay” (“Test. Ebor.,” i. 145. Surtees Society).
But the girl-name that made most mark was originally a boy’s name, Theobald. Tibbe was the nick form, and Tibbot the pet name. Very speedily it became the property of the female sex, such entries as Tibot Fitz-piers ending in favour of Tibota Foliot. After the year 1300 Tib, or Tibet, is invariably feminine. In “Gammer Gurton’s Needle,” Gammer says to her maid —
“How now, Tib? quick! let’s hear what news thou hast brought hither.” – Act. i. sc. 5.
In “Ralph Roister Doister,” the pet name is used in the song, evidently older than the play:
“Pipe, merry Annot, etc.,
Trilla, Trilla, Trillary.
Work, Tibet; work, Annot; work, Margery;
Sew, Tibet; knit, Annot; spin, Margery;
Let us see who will win the victory.”
Gib, from Gilbert, and Tib became the common name for a male and female cat. Scarcely any other terms were employed from 1350 to 1550:
“For right no more than Gibbe, our cat,
That awaiteth mice and rattes to killen,
Ne entend I but to beguilen.”
Hence both Tibet and Gibbet were also used for the same; as in the old phrase “flitter-gibbett,” for one of wanton character. Tom in tom-cat came into ordinary parlance later. All our modern Tibbots, Tibbetts, Tibbitts, Tippitts, Tebbutts, and their endless other forms, are descended from Tibbe.
Coming to boys’ names, all our Wyatts in the Directory hail from Guiot,10 the diminutive of Guy, just as Wilmot from William:
“Adam, son of Wyot, held an oxgang of land.” – “De Lacy Inquisition.”
“Ibbote Wylymot, iiiid.” – W. D. S.
Payn is met in the form of Paynot and Paynet, Warin as Warinot, Drew as Drewet, Philip as Philpot, though this is feminine sometimes:
“Johannes Schikyn, et Philipot uxor ejus, iiiid.” – W. D. S.
Thomas is found as Thomaset, Higg (Isaac) as Higgot, Jack as Jackett, Hal (Henry) as Hallet (Harriot or Harriet is now feminine), and Hugh or Hew as Hewet:
“Dionisia Howet-doghter, iiiid.” – W. D. S.
The most interesting, perhaps, of these examples is Hamnet, or Hamlet. Hamon, or Hamond, was introduced from Normandy:
“Hamme, son of Adcock, held 29 acres of land.” – “De Lacy Inquisition,” 1311.
It became a favourite among high and low, and took to itself the forms of Hamonet and Hamelot:
“The wife of Richard, son of Hamelot.” – “De Lacy Inquisition,” 1311.
These were quickly abbreviated into Hamnet and Hamlet. They ran side by side for several centuries, and at last, like Emmot, defied the English Bible, the Reformation, and even the Puritan period, and lived unto the eighteenth century. Hamlet Winstanley, the painter, was born in 1700, at Warrington, and died in 1756. In Kent’s London Directory for 1736 several Hamnets occur as baptismal names. Shakespeare’s little son was Hamnet, or Hamlet, after his godfather Hamnet Sadler. I find several instances where both forms are entered as the name of the same boy:
“Nov. 13, 1502. Item: the same day to Hamlet Clegge, for money by him layed out … to the keper of Dachet Ferrey in rewarde for conveying the Quenes grace over Thamys there, iiis. iiiid.”
Compare this with —
“June 13, 1502. Item: the same day to Hampnet Clegge, for mone by him delivered to the Quene for hir offring to Saint Edward at Westm., vis. viiid.” – “Privy Purse Expenses, Eliz. of York,” pp. 21 and 62.
Speaking of Hamelot, we must not forget that ot and et sometimes became elot or elet. As a diminutive it is found in such dictionary words as bracelet, tartlet, gimblet, poplet (for poppet). The old ruff or high collar worn alike by men and women was styled a partlet:
“Jan. 1544. Item: from Mr. Braye ii. high collar partletts, iiis. ixd.” – “Privy Purse Expenses, Princess Mary.”
Hence partlet, a hen, on account of the ruffled feathers, a term used alike by Chaucer and Shakespeare.
In our nomenclature we have but few traces of it. In France it was very commonly used. But Hughelot or Huelot, from Hugh, was popular, as our Hewletts can testify. Richelot for Richard, Hobelot and Robelot for Robert, Crestolot for Christopher, Cesselot for Cecilia, and Barbelot for Barbara, are found also, and prove that the desinence had made its mark.
Returning, however, to ot and et: Eliot or Elliot, from Ellis (Elias), had a great run. In the north it is sometimes found as Aliot:
“Alyott de Symondeston held half an oxgang of land, xixd.” – “De Lacy Inquisition,” 1311.
The feminine form was Elisot or Elicot, although this was used also for boys. The will of William de Aldeburgh, written in 1319, runs —
“Item: do et lego Elisotæ domicellæ meæ 40s.” – “Test. Ebor.,” i. 151.
The will of Patrick de Barton, administered in the same year, says —
“Item: lego Elisotæ, uxori Ricardi Bustard unam vaccam, et 10s.” – “Test. Ebor.,” i. 155.
“Eliseus Carpenter, cartwyth, et Elesot uxor ejus, vid.” – W. D. S.
As Ellis became Ellisot, so Ellice became Ellicot, whence the present surname. Bartholomew became Bartelot, now Bartlett, and from the pet form Toll, or Tolly, came Tollett and Tollitt.
It is curious to notice why Emmot and Hamlet, or Hamnet, survived the crises that overwhelmed the others. Both became baptismal names in their own right. People forgot in course of time that they were diminutives of Emma and Hamond, and separated them from their parents. This did not come about till the close of Elizabeth’s reign, so they have still the credit of having won a victory against terrible odds, the Hebrew army. Hamnet Shakespeare was so baptized. Hamon or Hamond would have been the regular form.
Looking back, it is hard to realize that a custom equally affected by prince and peasant, as popular in country as town, as familiar in Yorkshire and Lancashire as in London and Winchester, should have been so completely uprooted, that ninety-nine out of the hundred are now unaware that it ever existed. This was unmistakably the result of some disturbing element of English social life. At the commencement of the sixteenth century there was no appearance of this confusion. In France the practice went on without let or hindrance. We can again but attribute it to the Reformation, and the English Bible, which swept away a large batch of the old names, and pronounced the new without addition or diminution. When some of the old names were restored, it was too late to fall back upon the familiarities that had been taken with them in the earlier period.
In spite of the enormous popularity