[ANSTHRLD] "Lovecock" was: Eldwin's Submission IV

Wed Aug 4 02:28:47 PDT 2010

Eldwin Nightowl wrote:
> The submitter, who loves chickens, intends to register the last  
> name "Lovecock."

> http://www.archive.org/stream/collectionsfor1921stafuoft/ 
> collectionsfor1921stafuoft_djvu.txt  Lovecock

It'd be better to cite <http://www.archive.org/stream/ 
collectionsfor1921stafuoft#page/17/mode/1up/search/Lovecock>, since  
that's one step closer to the original document.  (The URL you gave  
leads to a transcription performed by Optical Character Recognition  
software, which frequently introduces errors.)

This is the first section of a calendar of deeds in the William Salt  
Library in Staffordshire, newly written at the time of its  
publication in 1921.  The introductory statement on the calendar  
<http://www.archive.org/stream/collectionsfor1921stafuoft#page/n24/ 
mode/1up> describes it as, ". . .giving a brief abstract of each  
deed, with the names of the parties and of the witnesses. . .," but  
does not say whether the spelling of the names has been normalized.   
There's a good chance that they have been, since the purpose of the  
calendar was to make it easier for historians to find deeds relating  
to specific individuals or events.  Before citing this source, you  
should try to find out.  (One way is to look within the text for  
variant spellings of names--any names, not just the one you're trying  
to document.)

>  http://www.archive.org/stream/englishsurnamest00bardiala#page/473  
> Lovecock

No dated instance of "Lovecock" is given in the text, which is  
largely a discussion of the origins of modern surnames and,  
therefore, contains a great number of modern spellings.  (Consider  
the page facing that containing the reference to "Lovecock", where  
the names "Merry" and "Merriman" are discussed but "Merrye" and  
"Meryman" are the cited historical forms.)  Without any information  
on when the variant in question came into use, this isn't much help.

> http://books.google.com/books? 
> id=ci42AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=Henry 
> +Lovecock&source=bl&ots=M2PJivKf4r&sig=eQk0zX_HAoGEtF-K_FD2Vz- 
> SDFA&hl=en&ei=KZxHTMCsIcOL4Aani7j7CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&res 
> num=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Henry%20Lovecock&f=false Henry  
> Lovecock Philip Lovecock

Wow, that's a lot of URL!  Just so you know, for a Google Books  
citation, the dynamic portion of the address need only include the  
book I.D. and the page number, as in <http://books.google.com/books? 
id=ci42AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA66>.

The cited page shows virtually no variation in spelling, despite  
there being a lot of repetitions in both given names and surname, in  
names recorded over a twenty year period in the 14th century.  The  
only names that might be variants of one another are the surnames  
"Wythern" and "Wythorn", each of which appears once.  Every instance  
of "William" is recorded as "Wm.", every "Reynold" "Reynold", every  
"Litchfield" "Litchfield", every "Pleigh" "Pleigh".   That degree of  
consistency in records from that period is unheard-of.  I'd bet money  
the author (or his source, whatever that might be) normalized the names.

I did find a few dated period forms of the desired byname (by  
checking the online Middle English dictionary, finding mention of  
them in quotes s.n. "love (n. (1))" <http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/ 
mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED26245>, and then looking up the cited  
sources in the Web Archive).

In a tax roll from the first year of the reign of Edward III (1327 on  
the current callendar) <http://www.archive.org/stream/ 
kirbysquestforso00grearich#page/79/mode/1up> are found as surnames  
"Lovecok" (pp. 90, 99, 131, and 197), "Lovecoks" (p. 91), and  
"Louecok" (pp. 191 and 209).  "Lovecok" and "Louecok" also appear in  
the roll as given names (pp. 174, 197).

A Thomas Lovecok is mentioned in a document from June 1st, 1318  
<http://www.archive.org/stream/calendarpatentr13offigoog#page/n195/ 
mode/1up> and a Henry Louecok in one from March 2, 1321 <http:// 
www.archive.org/stream/calendarpatentr13offigoog#page/n579/mode/1up/>  
according to the Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public  
Record Office, Edward II, Volume III.  The same text, Henry IV,  
Volume I, indicates a William Loucok is mentioned in a document from  
November 17th, 1399 <http://www.archive.org/stream/ 
calendarpatentr16offigoog#page/n177/mode/1up>.  And Henry VI, Volume  
VI, shows a Philip Lovecok in a document from October 14th, 1441  
<http://www.archive.org/stream/calendarpatentr00blacgoog#page/n16/ 
mode/1up/search/cok> and a Thomas Lovecok in one from October 18th of  
the same year <http://www.archive.org/stream/ 
calendarpatentr00blacgoog#page/n22/mode/1up>.

I couldn't find any instances of "-cock" in names, but "cock" appears  
as a common noun in quotes in the online MED, s.n. "cok (n.(1))",  
dated to around 1393 and around 1450, while "cok" is found in similar  
contexts in quotes from 1390, 1398, around 1400, 1425, and around  
1450.  An attested form is always better than a speculative one, but  
if your client is unduly attached to the "-c-" you could could use  
these to support the argument that at the end of the 14th century and  
the beginning of the 15th "cok" and "cock" were interchangeable, and  
that argument to support "Lovecock" as a plausible variant of the  
recorded "Lovecok".

Coblaith Muimnech
<mailto:Coblaith at sbcglobal.net>
<http://coblaith.net>