No CrossRef data available.
By solemn decree of nature the parents of a child control its future. According to the laws of civilisation they are at liberty to mould its soul. Not the least privilege is that of conferring the name with which it confronts its fellows, and which—should it offend the bearer arrived at the age of reason—cannot easily be doffed. Godparents, at Baptism, were formerly left to choose the neophyte’s name; but this courtesy has fallen into disuse, and almost everywhere the parents themselves designate their choice. Thus an infant is early bound, or safeguarded, as the case may be, not only by the blood inherited from his forbears, but by their fancy in Christian names as well as by the obligation of their surname. Too often the ‘Christian’ name is pagan; obsolete and disreputable gods and goddesses enjoying a condemnable vogue. But if Diana and Sylvia are mistakes, the names sought in vegetation, such as Ivy, Violet, Myrtle, etc., are likewise unbecoming when borne by Christians. Such names of flowers and plants are of Semitic provenance, and there is no excuse for overlooking, in their favour, the glorious roll with which the Church provides us.
Whether the surname be a fetter or an asset, the Christian name should be as far as possible in accordance with it, lest the child be from infancy torn in two, subjected to different currents, bewildered between adverse elements. Race, calling, heredity must be taken into account in bestowing names, for nobody should be made incongruous before he can speak. To hear of Marmaduke Murphy gives us a start.