In medieval times, tradesmen took surnames that reflected their profession. If you were John, and you baked bread for a living, you’d be John Baker.
A great many of these names persist, e.g. Archer, Bailey, Baker, Barber, Bishop, Bowman, Brewer, Carpenter, Carter, Cartwright, Carver, Chandler, Chaplin, Chapman, Clark, Collier, Conner, Cook, Cooper, Cutler, Dean, Dyer, Farmer, Falconer (Faulkner), Farrier, Fisher, Fletcher, Forester, Fowler, Fuller, Gardner, Glover, Hooper, Hunter, Joiner, Mason, Mercer, Miller, Porter, Potter, Reeve, Sadler, Sawyer, Shepherd, Skinner, Slater, Smith, Tanner, Taylor, Thatcher, Turner, Tyler, Walker, Ward, Weaver, Wheeler, etc.
But I was wondering (and if I weren’t so lazy, I’d go and do some actual research): what about those common names that refer to colors? Names like Brown, Green, White, and Black? What do those represent?
Also, why aren’t other common words for colors used as names? Why are lots of people named Brown and Green, but nobody is named Red or Yellow or Blue?
9 Comments
Johnny Red? From the NBA.
You mean Johnny Kerr?
I know you specified “surnames” in your opening sentence, but Red, of course, is a fairly common nickname for a red-haired person. Also, Erik the Red is a historical person. His son, of course, was Leif Ericson, which illustrates a most common source for surnames, namely patronymics.
Perhaps Yellow is not used in Western societies because there were few Asians in those societies when the adoption of surnames became commonplace. (Is it possible that the word “yellow” in Chinese is a known choice for a Chinese surname?)
As for Green/Verdi, which, to my knowledge, does not correspond to human skin or hair color, I can think of a possible reason for its use. During the time (late middle ages?) when Jews were forced to assume surnames (in place of their reliance on patronymics) by the governments of their host countries, there were opportunities to purchase a non-derogatory name that might otherwise have been assigned. So, for example, a poor Jew might have been assigned the name “Green” if he couldn’t pay for “White”.
As for “Blue”, though I have heard of its use as a given name, it is neither a hair or skin color, nor is it normally thought of as a pejorative name, such as “Green” is (because of the color’s predominance in the family of lizards).
I dunno, Henry; that Green hypothesis seems a bit of a reach.
I’m curious about common surnames here. Why colors at all? If based on hair, then why not Yellow or Red? (Sure, there was Erik the Red, but I’ve never heard of Red as an actual surname, even though the British Isles are full of red-haired people.)
That “Green hypothesis” is not such a reach, Malcolm. I am reminded of the following old Jewish joke:
Right, but I’m talking about English surnames here, and I doubt that selling names to Jews had much of an effect on the distribution of names in medieval England. And why colors in the first place?
OK then; if you’re going to get all serious about this “Onomastic Conundrum”, you can do your own research.
:)
Ha! Fair enough.
Good joke, by the way.
Obama is awesome!