policy was to wait and watch, if by any means he might save the Republic. He bore the personal attacks to which he was frequently subjected with much calmness, only demanding a Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the Delegation at Tours and Bordeaux, and delivering his vindication once for all before that body. It need hardly be said that, while he may have committed blunders and faults, even his adversaries were obliged to acknowledge that his integrity and patriotism were beyond challenge. He perceived, how ever, that for the time the work of the Republican cause was not to be done in the Assembly so much as in the beaureau and on the platform; and his main efforts were directed-and very successfully to securing the cohesion of the Republicans within the house and creating a powerful public opinion in favor of the Republic outside. He showed himself, according to universal admission, a singularly good party manager, and convinced M. Thiers that he was not the fou furieux he had taken him to be. During the parliamentary vacations of 1871, 1872, and 1873 he delivered a series of speeches in various provincial centres, which carried his Republican evangel through the length and breadth of the land, and contributed immensely to win the minds of the peasantry to the Republic. In one of his speeches M. Gambetta took up a sneer which was cast at him, and said that he believed it not imperfectly described his position; he was indeed the commercial traveller of the Republic, who labored to make known its excellencies, to extend its connections, to establish its good will in the minds of all France." In the first beginnings of a business the commercial traveller has perhaps a more important work to do than the manager. That is the kind of work M. Gambetta has hitherto been doing for the Republic, and he seems still to feel that the time has not yet come when he can serve it better by any other.

The speeches M. Gambetta delivered in the years now mentioned present us with a very good view of his political programme. To remove the prejudices and fears of the peasantry, he is at pains to show what the democratic Republic he preached to them did not mean.

In

the first place it was no socialist utopia; it was the enemy of such. The French Revolution had given a new sanction to individual property, and the form of government which was to complete the revolution would confirm that sanction and not weaken it. He said, moreover, "There is no social panacea, for there is no social question. There is a series of questions, but they differ in different places even in the same country, and must be solved each for itself, and not by any single formula." If he quelled the fears of the peasantry by these assurances, he satisfied the aspirations of the laboring classes-the dreaded proletariate-by others. For while he said that the French Revolution consecrates the principle of individual property, he said at the same time that it made property "a moral as well as a material condition of the liberty and dignity of the citizen," and that it was therefore essential that there should be a wider distribution. of capital and the instruments of labor among the masses of the people. this is to be secured he has not declared.

66

How

He sought to remove a second misunderstanding. He said at Belleville, in 1873. "Democracy to-day says no longer 'All or nothing.' It says no longer If this government does not give us all we want, we will overturn it.' It says, 'Let us proceed gradually, and not make any tabula rasa, or take up all questions at once. He said, The ideal was the end, and not the beginning, of their work," that the better might be the enemy of the good, and that the true policy was a policy of results" or of opportunism. This was his second broad divergence from the Republicanism of the men of 1848, and it involved greater moderation of method, as the first involved greater moderation of doctrine. There was, he fully owned, a great work to do, but it must needs be done bit by bit, as the country was able to bear it. The Republic, he said, is not the end, but only a means; it is not the solution, but only a very essential prerequisite to the solution of the social and political problem of France. "The work before France is to leaven legislation and manners with the ideas and doctrines of 1789, and especially with that greatest and highest idea of civil and political equality." And what is

This is a work, however, which it will take, in his opinion, several generations to accomplish, and all that can be done now is to lay the foundation. For the present there are various minor necessities, such as securing the loyalty of civil functionaries to the Republic, and various general necessities, such as promoting material prosperity by economy, by public works, and in every possible way; but the two special requirements of the time are that every man in France be armed, and every man in France be educated. Those who have to do the work of citizens and patriots ought to begin by being soldiers and scholars. Without such training you cannot, in his opinion, create a truly free, brave, independent, and just people; and that is what the Republic must aim to do; but with it there is no limit to the possibilities in store for a race with such admirable capacities as the French.

Education is the theme to which he devotes his strength in these speeches. The country must at all hazards be saved from ignorance the double ignorance which is peculiar to France" -the absolute ignorance of its peasantry, and the more dangerous "halfignorance" of the towns. Ignorance, he declares, has been the cause of all their social crises; it has given all its strength to the Napoleonic legend; it has exposed the land to " constant alter nations of despotism and demagogy.' Primary education must be obligatory, gratuitous, laic; and secondary education is even more necessary than primary, and, like it, ought to be open to all. Books, libraries, academies, institutes, ought to be scattered everywhere. Science must descend to the humblest locality, and descend in its best. Let all truth, let the highest truth, be taught in schools and colleges; for the highest NEW SERIES.-Vol. XXXIV., No. 3

truths, he says, are those which young minds taken in most readily.

He

For this laicity is essential, for education on a modern democracy must be imbued with the modern spirit. "With all my soul," he said at St. Quentin in 1871, "I wish to separate not only the Churches from the State, but the schools from the Church. That is for me a necessity of political order, and I will add of social order." The Pope had, in 1864, condemned all modern liberties, and it was, therefore, simply dangerous to the public safety to leave the education of the electors of the next generation in the hands of men who would train them in an aversion to the principles of the political system under which they dwelt, and over which they were ultimate masters. Gambetta's antipathy to the superior clergy has only increased with time, for he has found them constantly interfering at elections, and using the ecclesiastical organization in the interests of anti-Republican factions. has denounced them not merely as being un-democratic, but un-French, wearing a Romish costume, and taking their orders from a foreign power. On May 4, 1877, he proposed a question in the Chamber as to breaking off relations between France and the Vatican, and finished his speech by quoting a remark of his friend Peyrat, "Le Cléricalisme, voilà l'ennemi.' And at Rome, on September 18th of the same year, he made a speech, in which he said, "I have the right to say, pointing to those clericals served by 400,000 regular, beside all the secular clergy, those masters in the art of making dupes, and who speak of social peril, Le péril social, le voilà!" In this speech, he explained, however, that what he meant by clericalism was the spirit and power of the higher clergy, and that he had no thought in the world of attacking the inferior clergy, most of whom," he said, "groaned under the yoke of clericals of high rank." This distinction is one of considerable importance for the understanding of Gambetta's policy. He knows that to attack the lower clergy would be to forfeit the support of the peasantry, among whom they live, and by whom their services are valued; but he believes likewise that it is possible to weld the lower clergy into complete

23

Two other singular Puritan names may be mentioned-namely, Stand-fast-onhigh Stringer of Crowhurst, and Searchthe Scriptures Moreton of Salehurst. But we must leave this interesting branch of our subject, merely remarking that, although as we have said this grotesque Puritan nomenclature has died out, there are still some curious names to be occasionally met with. As Mr. Edward Peacock has recently noted, such names as Original, Philadelphia, Pleasant, and Eden are by no means as yet extinct.

There are a great many popular errors with regard to the etymological derivation of names. Not long ago a writer in Notes and Queries took the opportunity of correcting some of these. For example, Anna-belle is not Anna-bella, or Fair Anna, but it is the feminine of Hannibal, meaning gift or grace of Bel. Arabella is not Ara-bella, or beautiful altar, but Arabilia, a praying woman. It appears that in its Anglicized form of Orabel, it was much more common in the thirteenth century than it is at present. Maurice has nothing whatever to do with Mauritius, or a Moor, but comes from Amalric-himmelreich-the kingdom of heaven. The very common name of Ellen is the feminine of Alain, Alan, or Allan, and has no possible connection with Helen, which comes from a different language, and is older by some thousand years at least. Amy is not from aimée, but from amie. Avice, or Avis, does not exactly mean advice, as many seem to think. It comes from Aed-wis, and means happy wisdom, so that our masculine readers had better secure for their helpmeet (providing they do not already possess one) a lady bearing the name of Avice. Eliza bears no relation to Elizabeth; it is the sister of Louisa, and both are the daughters of Héloïse, which is hiddenwisdom. There is, indeed, it is pointed out, another form of Louisa, or rather Louise, which is the feminine of Louis, but this was scarcely heard of before the sixteenth century. The older Héloïse, from the form of name, Aloisa, Aloisia, or Aloysia, was adapted into mediæval English, as Alesia—a name which our old genealogists always confuse with Alice. Emily and Amelia are not different forms of one name. Emily

is from ÆEmylia, the name of an Etruscan gens. Amelia comes from the Gothic amala, heavenly. Reginald is not derived from Regina, and has nothing to do with a queen. It is Rein-alt, exalted purity. Alice, Adelais, Adelaide, Alisa, Alix, Adeline, are all forms of one name, the root of which is adel, noble. Anne was never used as identical with Annis, or Agnes (of which last the old Scottish Annas is a variety), nor was Elizabeth ever synonymous with

Isabel.

Coming now to surnames, we are astonished at their heterogeneous whimsicality. As a genial essayist has observed, the whole of Europe suffered from the deeds of Buonaparte, whose name really means Good-part or Goodside. When the Hollanders were compelled to receive the Prince of Benevento, that august personage must greatly have belied his name with the Dutch, seeing that it signifies "welcome.'

Fortune seems to have intended, by her whimsical distribution of names, sometimes to show the nothingness of a bad name to great men, and sometimes the nothingness of a good name to men of indifferent character." In feudal times men were named from their estates, and in still more ancient days from some peculiar feature in their mental character or personal appearance, and both these methods had some show of reason in them. The appellations could not then be regarded as inconsistent; but among nations the Greeks were preeminently fond of anticipating the greatness of their offspring by giving them high-sounding names. In some cases their choice proved sublimely ridiculous, and, in still more, exceedingly unfortunate and malapropos. nate and malapropos. "With the word love especially they made sad work. Their lovers of horses (Philippoi), who never cared for a horse; their brotherlylovers (Philadelphoi), who cut the throats of their family; and their lovers-of-thepeople (Philolaoi), who oppressed the whole community, deserved their appellations quite as much as the great majority of their lovers of wisdom (Philosophoi), who disputed so fiercely about the nonentity of pain or the lawfulness of eating beans. The Athenian populace must have been grievously annoyed to see the philosopher Heavenborn (for

MONTAIGNE has observed that in the genealogy of princes there seems to be certain names peculiarly affected-as the Ptolemies of Egypt, the Henries of England, the Charleses of France, the Baldwins of Flanders, and the Williams of Aquitaine. This hereditary partiality for certain Christian names would form an interesting subject of inquiry of itself, though it is one which we do not propose at present to pursue. One remarkable fact, however, may be cited in support of this partiality-namely, that when Henry, Duke of Normandy, son of Henry the Second, King of England, made a great feast in France, the concourse of nobility and gentry was SO great that, for diversion's sake, the guests were divided into groups cording to their names. It was found that in the first group, which consisted of those only bearing the name of William, there were no fewer than one hundred and ten knights, without reckoning the ordinary gentlemen and their servants. Now many families, not content with good, short, and easily pronounceable names, such as John, Alfred, William, Charles, etc., must perforce rake up Methuselahs, Ezekiels, Habakkuks, Malachis, and the like, which only result in being a torment to their friends.

ac

There never was a more pronounced movement in nomenclature than that of the Puritans. They resolved to throw off all semblance of the world, or acquaintance with worldly things. So they rushed to the other extreme, and although many of them were very brave and noble men, they exposed themselves to ridicule by their fantastic choice of names. Such names as Mr. Praise God Barebones, Sergeant Zerubbabel Grace, and Swear-not-at-all Ireton, were calculated to excite the risible faculties of the Cavaliers; while there was something even still more ludicrous in such long sounding typical titles as Hew - Agag - in - pieces -before-the-Lord Robinson, Glory-be-to-God Pennyman, and Obadiah-bind-their-kings-in-chainsand their nobles - with - links - of-iron Needham. The Rev. Charles W. Bardsley recently published an amusing

work on the Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature, citing some very singular examples thereof. For instance, we find that one Mr. Hopkinson, of Salehurst, christened three of his daughters Persis, Renewed, and Safe-on-high, respectively; while Mr. Thomas Heley, preacher of Warbleton, gave to four of his own offspring the names of Muchemercye, Increased, Sin - denie, and Fear-not.

"For half a century Warble

66

ton was, in the names of its parishioners, a complete exegesis of justification by faith without the deeds of the law. Sorry-for-sin Coupard was a peripatetic exhortation to repentance, and Nomerit Vynall was a standing denunciation of works." Coming to grace names, Mr. Bardsley notes that Sir Thomas Carew, Speaker of the House of Commons in James's and Charles's reigns, had a wife Temperance, and four daughters, Patience, Temperance, Silence, and Prudence. In the year 1758, the death of the Rev. Experience Mayhew is recorded, and the baptism of more than one Diligence, Obedience, Perseverance, Confidence, and Victory. Humiliation was a favorite Christianname with some families, though its bearers were probably not always so humble as some who have borne the surname of Pride. Preserved was another favorite name, and it is stated that a boy who was washed ashore on the New Jersey coast was named Preserved Fish, a name which he lived to bear with distinction. In 1611 there was baptized at St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, a child to whom was given the name of Job- raked-out-of-the-ashes. Another curious name was Cherubin Diball, but upon this Mr. Bardsley remarks that it was not more singular than many another. "In 1678, Seraphim Marketman is referred to in the last testament of John Kirk. But was it gratitude after all? We have all heard of the wretched father who would persist in having the twins his wife presented to him christened by the names of Cherubin and Seraphim, on the ground that they continually do cry.' Perhaps Cherubin Diball and Seraphim Marketman made noise enough for two.

Two other singular Puritan names may be mentioned-namely, Stand-fast-onhigh Stringer of Crowhurst, and Searchthe Scriptures Moreton of Salehurst. But we must leave this interesting branch of our subject, merely remarking that, although as we have said this grotesque Puritan nomenclature has died out, there are still some curious names to be occasionally met with. As Mr. Edward Peacock has recently noted, such names as Original, Philadelphia, Pleasant, and Eden are by no means as yet extinct.

There are a great many popular errors with regard to the etymological derivation of names. Not long ago a writer in Notes and Queries took the opportunity of correcting some of these. For example, Anna-belle is not Anna-bella, or Fair Anna, but it is the feminine of Hannibal, meaning gift or grace of Bel. Arabella is not Ara-bella, or beautiful altar, but Arabilia, a praying woman. It appears that in its Anglicized form of Orabel, it was much more common in the thirteenth century than it is at present. Maurice has nothing whatever to do with Mauritius, or a Moor, but comes from Amalric-himmelreich-the kingdom of heaven. The very common name of Ellen is the feminine of Alain, Alan, or Allan, and has no possible connection with Helen, which comes from a different language, and is older by some thousand years at least. Amy is not from aimée, but from amie. Avice, or Avis, does not exactly mean advice, as many seem to think. It comes from Aed-wis, and means happy wisdom, so that our masculine readers had better secure for their helpmeet (providing they do not already possess one) a lady bearing the name of Avice. Eliza bears no relation to Elizabeth; it is the sister of Louisa, and both are the daughters of Héloïse, which is hiddenwisdom. There is, indeed, it is pointed out, another form of Louisa, or rather Louise, which is the feminine of Louis, but this was scarcely heard of before the sixteenth century. The older Héloïse, from the form of name, Aloisa, Aloisia, or Aloysia, was adapted into medieval English, as Alesia—a name which our old genealogists always confuse with Alice. Emily and Amelia are not different forms of one name. Emily

is from Emylia, the name of an Etruscan gens. Amelia comes from the Gothic amala, heavenly. Reginald is not derived from Regina, and has nothing to do with a queen. It is Rein-alt, exalted purity. Alice, Adelais, Adelaide, Alisa, Alix, Adeline, are all forms of one name, the root of which is adel, noble. Anne was never used as identical with Annis, or Agnes (of which last the old Scottish Annas is a variety), nor was Elizabeth ever synonymous with Isabel.

Coming now to surnames, we are astonished at their heterogeneous whimsicality. As a genial essayist has observed, the whole of Europe suffered from the deeds of Buonaparte, whose name really means Good-part or Goodside. When the Hollanders were compelled to receive the Prince of Benevento, that august personage must greatly have belied his name with the Dutch, seeing that it signifies "welcome.' "Fortune seems to have intended, by her whimsical distribution of names, sometimes to show the nothingness of a bad name to great men, and sometimes the nothingness of a good name to men of indifferent character." In feudal times men were named from their estates, and in still more ancient days from some peculiar feature in their mental character or personal appearance, and both these methods had some show of reason in them. The appellations could not then be regarded as inconsistent; but among nations the Greeks were preeminently fond of anticipating the greatness of their offspring by giving them high-sounding names. In some cases their choice proved sublimely ridiculous, and, in still more, exceedingly unfortunate and malapropos. With the word love especially they made sad work. Their lovers of horses (Philippoi), who never cared for a horse; their brotherlylovers (Philadelphoi), who cut the throats of their family; and their lovers-of-thepeople (Philolaoi), who oppressed the whole community, deserved their appellations quite as much as the great majority of their lovers of wisdom (Philosophoi), who disputed so fiercely about the nonentity of pain or the lawfulness of eating beans. The Athenian populace must have been grievously annoyed to see the philosopher Heavenborn (for