NAMES, PROPER, are words by which single objects are denoted, as countries, rivers, towns, men, &c.
But when we speak of proper names, we mean, more usually, the names of men ; and on this subject, to which little attention has hitherto been paid, and especially such proper names as appear among ourselves, it is our intention to offer a few observations.
In the primitive state of society, as soon as men were so far advanced as to find the convenience of having a verbal denotation of the indi viduals who composed a tribe, the rule would undoubtedly be, "one man, one word : ' we see this to be the case in the uncivilised tribes ; and as man is presented to us in very early historic periods, we still see the same system prevailing. In the Hebrew genealogies, we find a single word, as Terah, Abraham, Reuben, Aaron, David, Solomon, the only designation of the -persons whom those words call up before us ; and if in any instance there is any deviation from the rule, it is for some special reason, and we see it to be an exception to what was the usual practice.
In the other nations, the fathers of European civilisation, it was the same, Egypt, Syria, Persia, and Greece ; one person, one word : and so in the earliest periods to which we can ascend in the history of the Latin nation, we have rarely more than one word to denote one indi vidual, or if there is a second word employed, it bespeaks an origin in something which is apart from the simple, colloquial, and usual desig nation of him.
In the Celtic and German nations it appears to have been the same; Arminius, Ariovigus, and the like : and in Britain, Caractacus, or earadoe. The Saxons were a nation in whom this, the primitive system, was still prevalent, not only when they first established a colony in Britain, but during the whole period that they held the supreme authority in this island. Persons do, to be sure, present them selves in the pages of historians with such additions as Harefoot, Iron. side, but it may be reasonably doubted whether these terms can be properly regarded as names; and if it is admitted that they may be such, still these are only exceptions, the great mass of the Saxon population, of whatever rank, having but one single word by which the individual was denoted, such as Edunn, Alfred , Garth, Ulf, Tosti , Harold, and the like.
As nations advanced in refinement, the names of the individuals comprising them became more complex. Amongst the Romans, for instance, we have Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, °alas Julius arsar, Publius Ouidius Naso ; and names of this class formed the rule, at least in families which were free. The slaves probably remained with the single word only.
We have not room to enter into an examination of the principle on which this new form of personal denomination was constructed. A uniform principle, like that very valuable one on which our own personal nomenclature is at present constructed, perhaps did not exist, so that our present system is rather to be regarded as the invention of modern nations, than as borrowed by them from any of the nations of more ancient civilisation.
The principle of the modern system of personal nomenclature in our own nation is this : to have one name for the individual, joined to a second name, which is common to some particular stirps in the great English family to which he belongs. We call the two the name and the surname. We think iu these days much more of the latter than of the former. But in the more solemn acts of our lives, we find the proper consequence given to that which is indeed the name ; in baptism, in elementary Christian instruction, at when the name is the thing in question, it is that which is the name, and not the surname, which is pronounced; John, Richard, Anne. We may find in books, even down to the close of the 17th century, that catalogues and indexes are sometimes so constructed, that the names, and not the surnames, are iu alphabetical order. Philips's Theatruni Poeta.rum ' presents a late instance.