•3y6 613

Congress of Archieological Societies in Union with the
Society of .Antiquaries. Jnly nth, igoo.

Notes on the Systematic Study
OF
OUR ENGLISH PLACE-NAMES.
By J.' 'rioRACE ROUNp.,' M;A,

I HAD the honour, some years ago, of reading in this room
before the Society of .i^ntiquaries, a paper on the-Settle-
ment of the Saxons in Essex and Sussex, in which I dwelt on
the great value of the study of Place-names for our early
history, and urged " the practical impossibility of accom
plishing any scientific -work in this department of research-
until the place-names of England have been classified and
traced to their origin."'* I ventured then to express the hope
that we might see "this urgent work undertaken, county by
county, on much the same lines as those adopted by the
Government in France. It seems to me," I added, "to be
eminently a subject for discussion at the Annual Congress of
Archffiological Societies.'' Consequently, vphen Mr. Nevill
suggested that the time had uo\} come for the Congress to
take up some fresh work, I brought for-ft'ard this subject, and
it received at once the Committee's approval. Since then the
British Museum has rendered a great service to antiquaries by
the publication of an index to the place-names contained in
* This paper has since been 'priiited in my Cominime of London ami
Qth^r Siitdies (Archibald C(jn|table ^^6. Co.),

its rolls and charters, for which it is claimed that one of its
"chief points of interest and value lies in the evolution of
modern place-names from the early forms found in the oldest
documents." Here, then, we have the first steja that has been
taken in this country towards such an undertaking as I hope
to see carried out.
There are, two grounds on which the present time is
pecpliarly suitable, for putting it in hand. , The first is the
great increase, of late, in the available material, owing to the
publication of records by Government, by societies, and even
by individuals; the other is- the change that, in this generation,
is passing over the face of the country. I am confirmed by
the Deputy Keeper of the Records .in the belief that the new
edition of the Ordnance Survey omits ancient place-names
that were still to be found in its predecessor. Railways alone
have done much in shifting the balance of population, in
reducing the importance of old villages, and causing new ones
to spring up ; and agricultural depression is affecting the map
as surely as the conversion of arable into pasture in the
agricultural revolution of the i6th Century; the great towns,
again, are rapidly absorbing and effacing villages of which the
names may be found even in Domesday Book. As an expert
on this subject observed to me last week, antiquaries two
generations hence may be seeking the origin of a district's
name, which was really given by a speculative builder who
called it after one of his daughters. Some changes in
nomenclature are due to a subtler cause ; the too ingenious
antiquary has much, I fear, to answer for. In Worcestershire,
Ab (or Hab) Lench kept the name it possessed in Domesday
down to the other day, but has now become Abbot's Lench,
having never, to my knowledge, had anything to do with an
Abbot. In Northamptonshire, the' " Holewelle " of Domesday
remained undisturbed till, promoted to an ecclesiastical district,
it became Holy Well. In Essex, our Society, last year, visited
Stow Maries, which is known to have derived its name from
the family of Ma rice or Morice, and discovered it beginning'

to blossom out into Stowe St. Mary, the change, which began
on the Church bills, having already reached the sign posts.
As ecclesiastically-minded ladies would say, the new names are
much "nicer," but they breathe the spirit, I venture to think,
of Church restoration at its worst.
Now these examples have a real moral, a lesson that we
need to bear jn mind. . The influence on our place-names of
folk-etymology has been far greater, probably, than is supposed.
If such changes as these I have glanced at are possible even
at the present day, what could not be eff'ected when all spelling
was uncertain, and when maps were as yet unkndwn ? for folk-
etymology has been always with us, and the too ingenious
antiquary is no modern phenomenon. Even Henry of
Huntingdon could hardly mention a place without proceeding
to explain the meaning of- its name ; and Robert of Gloucester
explained that Colchester derived its name from King CoeL
Colchester proved itself worthy of the tale, and showed not
only his statue and his sword but even his " kitchen " and his
"pump." It is now proposing to place his Arms on its hew
Town Hall, having, I observe, obtained them for the purpose
from " Heralds' College, London."
It is on account of the influence of this folk-etymology that
I dispute the claim of the philologist to explain place-names
by his laws. His laws fail from the same cause as the laws of
political economy ; they ignore the human element. I have
observed that if you tell a philologist what a place-name
originally was, and what it is now, he will produce a law with
a Jong name which accounts for the change to perfection, but
if he is not supplied with that preliminary information, his laws
are by no means a sure -guide to the modern forms of an
ancient name. Let me cite, from a single county, two instances
as a. test. The name of Chaddesley Corbett, Worcestershire,
suggests that there must have been some other Chaddesley in
the county from which it had to be distinguished. , And
research will show that in the 12th Century there actually was
such a place, which appears as " Chaddesleia." But this latter

place has now become " Chaceley," while the other remains
" Chaddesley." So, again, the " Biselege " of Domesday has
become "Bisley,'' .in Gloucestershire, while in Worcestershire,
some ten miles off, it has become " Bushley," a fact which,
even now, proves confusing to students. It is obvious that
no philological " law " can account for name-developments so
different as these.
Cognate to the process of folk-etymology is that marked
tendency of our people to introduce the syllable "ing'' into
place-names which did not contain it. In the Paper to which
I have alluded I dwelt on the enormous importance attached
by such scholars as Kemble, Stubbs, Green, and Canon Taylor,
10 the existence of ing in place-names as evidence of clan-
settlement, and I pointed out that, even apart from other
possible criticisms, the scientific study of our place-names
would prove that in many cases the i?tg -was a mere corruption.
A curious instance came before me only the other day. The
City of Hereford appears in Domesday as "Hereford port,''
but a Worcestershire Hereford, by the addition of " tun,"
becomes Herefordtun, and in Domesday " Herferthun," and
finally by a process of corruption " Harvington." Nothing at
first sight could be less likely than the true derivation of the
name, and Kemble accepted its present form as proof that the
place was the home of the Harvings, or as he termed them the
Horfingas. By a no less strange corruption the " Widemonde-
fort" of Domesday, the " Withermundeford " of charters,
became our Essex Wormingford. The name, of course, was
claimed by Kemble as evidence of its settlement by a Worming
clan, but we have got beyond the clan now ; we have discovered
the totem, and we run hira for all he's worth. The AVormings,
therefore, are claimed as totemists, sons of the Worm, and as
you must never eat your totem, we discover that this interesting
clan cannot have lived on a diet of worms. You may think
that I am jesting, but Mr. Grant Allen, under the auspices
of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, included
Wormingford among the place-names leading to "the alrnost

irresistible inference that at some earlier period the Anglo-
Saxons had been totemists. "'''¦
I have tried to bring home to you, by actual instances, the
strange theories, historical and other, to which students have
been led by the change and corruption in place-names ; and
in the Paper to which I have referred I have shown how, largely
through the influence of Kemble, their erroneous derivation has
aff"ected our views on our early history. In doing this, it has
been my object to plead for their systematic treatment in the
belief that such treatment will not only save us from much
error but will enable students to arrive at conclusions of great
importance. They can hardly be expected at present to work
" out for themselves the history of every name with which they
are called upon to deal. So brilliant a scholar as Professor
Maitland has observed, for instance, in his great work on
Domesday Book and Beyond, that Amport, Hants, derives its
suffix from having been at some early date a port or market
town. Now it can be shown that this place was in Domesday
simply Anne, and derived its suffix "port" from the Norman
family of de Port, which then held it, and which was itself
named from Port-en-Bessin. There are many other interesting
cases of English names incorporating those of foreign families
or individuals. If our place-names had received scientific
treatment as in France, scholars would have ready to their
hands the whole material in a trustworthy form instead of being
driven, as now, to guesswork, or to virtually prohibitive toil.
The mere collection of local names on a scale as exhaustive
as possible, will prove that some of the oldest are now among
the least known. Manors of great antiquity have often vanished
from the map, while the names of others may only be preserved
by a farm, by a -«'Ood, or by a lane. The ancient names of
our Hundreds, often now obsolete, call for special attention,
representing as they sometimes do, the meeting place of
primitive settlers. And, to turn to a later tirae, the coming
¦* Anglo-Saxon Britain, p. 8i.

of alien loids is. recalled by the names of the castles they
erected at " Montacute " and at " Fleshy," at " Richmond "
and at " Belvoir."
As to the method of the treatment to be adopted, I do not
propose to deal with it in detail, but rather to ehcit from this
Congress an expression of opinion that the -work ought to be
taken in hand. Should it be pleased to fefer the subject to a
Special Committee, the whole matter could be carefully con
sidered and a scheme of work drawn up for uniform adoption
throughout the country. For that such work should be uniform,
I need scarcely say, is essential.
I referred at the outset to the lines adopted by the
Government in France as a guide to ourselves in the matter. •¦
French scholars are justly proud of the Dictionnaire Topo-
graphique de la France comprenant les noms de lieu anciens
et modernes. This great undertaking is printed at the national
expense, and describes itself as " published by order of the
Minister of Public Instruction and under the direction of the
Historical Works Commission." But the system is strictly a
local one in practice, inasmuch as it is carried out department
by department. Moreover, the assistance of a local society, if
one exists, is secured, and the volume produced under its
auspices by some quahfied Scholar. In this series an intro
duction to the volume deals with the geography, geology,
history, and ancient divisions, ecclesiastical and administrative
divisions, and so forth of the department. But the body of
the work consists of its place-names in alphabetical order.
Hamlets, manors, fiefs, farms, streams, hills, and similar
objects are included, but not mere field-names.'* The
essential feature, however, is that the date and the a,uthority
for each form of the name cited is given, as is done with all
words in our New English Dictionary. Alphabetical lists are
given, for reference, of all the sources of information employed,

-^ Genuinely ancient lield-names are often of great interest, but the
modern ones, of little or no value, now swamp them.

printed and manuscript, and formidable lists they are. A
" table des formes anciennes," that is, the Latinised forms, for
cross reference, completes the volume.
We should, I think, certainly retain the above essential
feature in any scheme we may adopt, but should add, when
well established, those peculiar local pronunciations which
are now rapidly being lost. And I would make the further
suggestion that certain selected sources of information'* should
be systematically read for the purpose by volunteer helpers, as
has been done to supply the material for the New English
Dictionary. Those v^ho are willing so to assist should inform
their local society, and might perhaps enlist others. We are
so rich in medieval records that we should not only illustrate
the origin and history of existing names, but bring, I believe,
to light many that are now forgotten. Lastly, I desire to make
it clear that the scheme I suggest will not comprise philological
speculation. It aims only at collecting the evidence in a trust
worthy and scientific form, a process which, in many cases, will
suffice to guide us to the origin of a name.
My own work has lain so largely among records of the
1 2th and nth centuries that the need of the work I am
advocating is continually brought home to me. The Deputy
Keeper of the Records, to whom I spoke lately on the subject,
told me that he thought the idea excellent, and I think we
might fairly reckon on the approval of the Public Record
Office, which is doing so much itself, by its noble series of
Calendars, to illustrate our local history and identify our
ancient place-names. 'In the striking words of Professor
Maitland : " The map of England is the most wonderful of all
paHmpsests, could we but decipher it," and it is because I
agree with him that much of our history that is still dark is
written in the names that our remote forefathers gave to their
English homes that I ask you, as a Congress, to express the
* Some printed works are not trustworthy for.tlie .purpose.

8
opinion that the scientific treatment of our place-names on a
uniform system throughout the country is a task that ought to,
be taken in hand, and that is likely to prove of high value for
the knowledge of our early history.

YALE UNIVERSITY

a39002 002929082b

YAIF
iRmSH HLSTORy
PRESERVMiON pncrcT
SUPPORTED :v f.irn

* ?
4* The conservation of this book -^
*«• was made possible by ^
**¦ N E H ?
4> ^ 4-
4. and 4.
4, 4.
4. MELLON FOUNDATION 4.
? 4-
4* 4-
4.4.4.4.4.4.44.4.4.4.4.4,4.4.4.4.4.4.

m

SsW