An extensive examination of the names of characters in
tlte works of the majority of nineteenth and twentieth century
Qovelists would obviously be of little value, for the growjng
tendency toward the commonplace in realism has necessitated
tl}e selection of neutral names or names taken outright from
a~tual persons. Though few of the characters in recent fiction
are so handicapped by inappropriate names as are many
~ople in reallife,-where, to quote a modern poet, H surnames
ever go J:>y contraries"-still, with the contemporary novelists,
there is usually nothing in a name to denote an·intimate correspondence between it.and the character towhich it belongs.
It may be that the aveJ:Sion to the grotesque or the descriptive
in nomenclature springs from a' conviCtion that the liking for
peculiar names is obsolete, and that it has passed from the
world of letters, as the brilliantly flowered waistcoat from the
pages of fashion; or it may be that it is merely an illustratioll
of loss of caste by a literary mode, which appears in succeeding
generations in varying degrees of degradation. .
discriminating writers. For,
example, the appellation imp, which no one would now consider
a respectful epithet, was applied by Shakespeare to no less a
personage than the king. Literary types often share the fate of words in loss of
dignity, for the tale of knighthood and chivalry is no longer a
theme of absorbing interest to critical readers, but it, along
with the game of tag and other recreations formerly enjoyed
by court ladies, is relegated' to' children. Such names as
appear in the morality plays and in the early Elizabethan
drama have fallen into disrepute as a feature of literature.
It was doubtless a great convenience in the ante-program"days
for the audience to be able to conjecture from the name of a
character whether to applaud him as a hero or to execrate him
as a villain. The early novelists made use, with more or less
freedom, of this custom of descriptive nomenclature, as shown
by the names of characters,strikingly in Smollett, less so in
Goldsmith~ Modern literature is marked by a nearly complete
disappearance of the names that give a clue to the occupation
or nature of the character to which they pertain; the heritage
of Ben Johnson's "humours" and the antics and clowns of
the Elizabethan stage has fallen to the comic supplement of
the daily paper.
Except for Trollope's strongly individualized portraits,
many of them catalogued with. descriptive names, the last
noteworthy appearance in fiction of names that pertinently
distinguish the characters is in the works of Charles Dickens,
especially in his early books. Frequently the personages that
he dismisses with a few words, or shows only in a sketch, are
those bearing the most clearly' descriptive .names. Probably
his familiarity with Goldsmith and Smollett is largely responsible for the presence in his works of that to which Chesterton
. refers as the "last cry of Merry England."l But it is not
alone in the non-Puritanic attitude toward religion (as mentioned by Chesterton) that Dickens brings. back the spirit of
the early days; there is something of the same rejuvenescence
in the prodigality of his genius, in the exuberance of his fancy,
in the irrepressibility of his humor, and especially in the whimsical facetiousness of the names he bestows upon his characters.
Even if he had not acknowledged his debt to Smollett and
Goldsmith in David Copperfield, his acquaintance with their books might be surmised from indications in his works. From
these authors he came to appreciate the artistic possibilities
of studies in the life of the poor, and to realize his own powers
of observation and expression. His later fondness for Ben
Jonson may have confirmed him in the use of descriptive
names, especially for the characters who had not heroic roles
to play; but he evidently owed his initial interest in nomenclature to the early influence of Roderick Random and The
Vicar of Wakefield, and to the types of names employed by
his immediate predecessors in humor, Hook and Pierce Egan.
In Dickens' works the number of characters possessing a
distinct personality is so great that one can readily understand
the amazement of the old charwoman, who, as Kitton relates,!
thought that it must have taken three or four men to write
Dombey and Son.
There must have been something in the name of the untidy
old nurse, Sairy Gamp, which was felt to be suggestive of the
disreputable umbrella she carried, for her name was retained
as a contribution to the language in order that large and
baggy umbrellas might thenceforth be designated as 'gamps'.
The skill with which Dickens' characters are drawn may have
contributed to the spell which seems to belong to their names,
but still, it is impossible to imagine a Weller masquerading as
a Jones, and unable to "spell it vith a we."
Explanation: i read some article in the past.
