There are several matters which I deem it advisable to mention to the reader before he turns his attention to the Index of Instances (pp. 514–612).

I. I have not, in the various chapters that form the body of this book, in all cases drawn particular attention when any name happens to belong to several distinct classes. In the Index, however, I have tried to remedy this by furnishing instances under the several heads to which they have been assigned in the text.

II. While ordinarily adhering to my plan of giving but two examples, I have set down three in some instances that seemed more interesting, and in exceptional cases even four. To the majority of the appended surnames more illustrations of course could have been added had it been expedient or necessary. There are several names, however, which, though evidently of familiar occurrence in early days, as they are now, are yet, so far as my own researches go, without any record. For instance, I cannot find any Arkwright or Runchiman previous to the sixteenth century. The origin is perfectly clear, but the registry is wanting. Of several others, again, I can light upon but one entry. Still, in a matter like this one must be thankful for small mercies, and it was with no small amount of rejoicing that in such a simple record as that of ‘John Sykelsmith’ I found the progenitor, or one of the progenitors, of our many ‘Sucksmiths,’ ‘Sixsmiths,’ ‘Shuxsmiths,’ etc.

III. There has been a difficulty with regard to Christian names also, which I have not attempted to overcome because it was impossible to do so. With the Normans every baptismal name, masculine or feminine as it might originally be, was the common property of the sexes. Thus by simply appending the feminine desinence, ‘Druett’ became ‘Druetta’ (v. Drewett), ‘Williamet’ became ‘Williametta’ (v. Williamot), ‘Aylbred’ became ‘Aylbreda’ (v. Allbright), ‘Raulin’ became ‘Raulina’ (v. Rawlings), and ‘Goscelin’ became ‘Goscelina’ (v. Gosling). Any of these surnames, Drewett, Willmott, Allbright, Rawlings, or Gosling, therefore, may be of feminine origin—nay, if the reader has studied my chapter on ‘Patronymic Surnames’ with any care, he will see that this is fully as probable as the opposite view. Leaving thus undecided what cannot be solved, I have placed both masculine and feminine forms under the one surname to which one or other has given rise.

IV. There has been another difficulty also in respect of Christian names. These, as has been shown in the chapter thereupon, were turned into pet forms, and these shortened forms commonly came to be the foundation of the surname. In all the more formal registers, however, these surnames were never so set down. ‘Hugh Thomasson,’ ‘William Thompson,’ and ‘Henry Tomson’ might come to have their names enrolled, and up to the beginning of the sixteenth century at least they would be set down alike as ‘Hugh fil. Thomas,’ ‘William fil. Thomas,’ and ‘Henry fil. Thomas.’ Thus, again, ‘Ralph Higginson’ or ‘John Higgins’ would be ‘Radulphus’ or ‘Johannes fil. Isaac.’ This has prevented me from giving so many instances of these curter forms of the patronymic class as I should have liked. When they are given, the reader will observe that they come from less punctilious and more irregular sources, such as for instance the Surtees’ Society’s collection of MediÆval Yorkshire Wills and Inventories. Where I have given such an instance as ‘Elekyn’ (v. Elkins) by itself, it must be understood that this is the Christian name, and that the owner when his or her name was registered did not boast a surname at all.

V. By way of interesting the reader I have occasionally given the Latin form of entry. Thus ‘Adam the Goldsmith’ is set down as ‘Adam Aurifaber’ (v. Aurifaber), ‘Henry the Butcher’ as ‘Henry Carnifex’ (v. Carnifex), and ‘Hugh the Tailor’ as ‘Hugh Cissor’ (v. Cissor). Latin, indeed, seems to have been the vehicle of ordinary indenture. Thus under ‘Littlejohn’ the reader will find extracted from the Hundred Rolls ‘Ricardus fil. Parvi-Johannis,’ and under ‘Linota,’ ‘Linota Vidua,’ i.e. ‘Linota the Widow.’ In the recording of local names, Norman-French and Saxon seem to have fought for the first place, and even in our most formal registers they had the precedence over Latin. Thus if the latter can boast the entry of ‘Isolda Beauchamp’ as ‘Isolda de Bello Campo’ (v. Beauchamp), still, if we come to such generic names as Briggs or Brook, we find the entry is all but invariably either ‘Henry Atte-brigg’ or ‘Roger del Brigge’ (v. Briggs), or ‘Alice de la Broke or ‘Ada ate Brok’ (v. Brook). As respects nicknames or names of occupation, the Norman-French tongue had them to itself. ‘Roger le Buck,’ ‘Philip le Criour,’ ‘Thomas le Cuchold,’ ‘Osbert le Curteys,’ or ‘Thomas le Cupper’—such is their continuous form of entry. Such a Saxon enrolment as ‘Robert the Brochere’ (v. Broker) is of the rarest occurrence—so rare, indeed, as to make one feel it was an undoubted freak on the part of the registrar, whoever he might be.

VI. In some few cases I have set down surnames which are not treated of in the text. I have done this either because the name seemed worthy of this casual notice, or because, though not itself mentioned, it happened to corroborate some statement I have made regarding a particular name belonging to the same class.

In conclusion, I will not say there is no mistake in the Index—that would be a bold thing to state; I will not say that I may not have given an instance that does not rightly belong to the surname under which it is set; but I can asseverate that I have honestly attempted to be correct, and I believe a careful examination will find but the most occasional error, if any at all, of this class.