at. jocosa, merry, has become confused
with Fr. Josse (Chapter I). Anstey, Antis, is from Anastasia,
Precious from Preciosa, and Royce from Rohesia.

DOUBTFUL CASES

It is often difficult to separate patronymics from metronymics. We
have already seen (Chapter VI) that names in Ed- may be from Eda or
from Edward, while names in Gil- must be shared between Julian,
Juliana, Guillaume, Gilbert, and Giles. There are many other cases
like Julian and Juliana, e.g. Custance is for Constance, but Cust may
also represent the masculine Constant, while among the derivatives of
Philip we must not forget the warlike Philippa. Or, to take pairs
which are unrelated, Kitson may be from Christopher or from Catherine,
and Mattison from Matthew or from Martha, which became Matty and
Patty, the derivatives of the latter coalescing with those of Patrick
(Chapter VI). It is obvious that the derivatives of Alice would be
confused with those of Allen, while names in El- may represent Elias
or Eleanor. Also names in Al- and El- are sometimes themselves
confused, e.g. the Anglo-Saxon AElfgod appears both as Allgood and
Elgood. More Nelsons are derived from Neil, i.e. Nigel, than from
Nell, the rimed dim. of Ellen. Emmett is a dim. of Emma, but Empson
may be a shortened Emerson from Emery (Chapter VIII). The rather
commonplace Tibbles stands for both Theobald and Isabella, and the
same is true of all names in Tib- and some in Teb-. Lastly, the
coalescence of John, the commonest English font-name, with Joan, the
earlier form of Jane, was inevitable, while the French forms Jean and
Jeanne would be undistinguishable in their derivatives. These names
between them have given an immense number of surnames, the masculine
or feminine interpretation of which must be left to the reader's
imagination.

CHAPTER XI. LOCAL SURNAMES

"Now as men have always first given names unto places, so hath it
afterwards grown usuall that men have taken their names from places"

(VERSTEGAN, Restitution of Decayed Intelligence).

There is an idea cherished by some people that the possession of a
surname which is that of a village or other locality points to
ancestral ownership of that region. This is a delusion. In the case
of quite small features of the landscape, e.g. Bridge, Hill, the name
was given from place of residence. But in the case of counties, towns
and villages, the name was usually acquired when the locality was
left. Thus John