Loading ...
Well, it seems the Cornell Society for a Good Time is getting a bit lazy as the summer months come upon us… not sure what’s happened to my companions. I for one have been working to finish up the semester and prepare a paper for an upcoming conference. But I thought I’d take a break to sound off on another issue of some importance to me… name-piling.
Name-piling is what I call it when a couple gives a whole list of names to their infant. A first name and a family name are obviously necessary, and I think middle names are acceptable, though frankly I have some reservations even about those (more on that later.) But I think a parent needs a darn good justification to put more than three names on their child’s birth certificate. And in fact, I favor a general trend towards greater economy in naming.
What is wrong with giving your child four or five different names, as some cultures seem to like to do? Ambrosius once insisted to me that this custom is endemic to Catholic cultures, and while I haven’t done a study to see how true that is, I still just can’t regard it as a good thing. The core of the issue, for me, is that a name should mean something significant, because it is significant. A name is the vehicle by which we identify (for others, but in a sense for ourselves as well) who we are. It marks us out as a valuable “someone” with a real identity, even before we’ve done anything significant to deserve to be thought of as a someone. Names connect us with the world. That is why Catholics choose saints’ names for their children; it does honor to the saint, of course, but it also gives the child a meaningful connection, not only to this imperfect world, but to the Church Triumphant as well. People can reasonably suppose that their name-saints will intercede for them and make them a particular object of concern. And a Catholic really should feel a particular connection to the saint for whom he was named, since every time he or someone else names him, they are also affirming his connection with that saint.
So, names are a good thing, for more than just convenience. Why, then, would it not be good to have more of them rather than less? My contention is that, in order to avoid cheapening the significance of names, it is important that every name we attach to ourselves should be a significant part of our identity, and should have real meaning for us. And I think there are limits to the number of names that can have that significance in an individual person’s life. The name by which you are actually called from childhood will naturally take on personal significance for you. And sometimes, as a person moves through life, it becomes appropriate to add other names — confirmation names, married names, or religious names for members of some orders. These names, hopefully, will have significance, in virtue of how and why they were taken. But a person who has four or five names from birth very rarely feels that same attachment to all of their names. Even middle names just seem to be random personal trivia for many or most people; in fact, people have sometimes told me, semi-seriously, that the best reason for middle names is so that mothers have an “angry” name by which to address their offspring when they are in trouble (as in: “James Robert Glover! You get back here right now!). Now, isn’t that a pleasant association to have with a name?
I say we should combat this cheapening of names by demanding that they not be distributed too easily or lightly. Here, then, are Clara’s Proposed Rules for Decent Naming:
1) A newborn infant may be given, at most, three names (first, middle and family.) Exceptions will be considered only for royalty for whom the piling of names may be essential to the good of the state.
2) Middle names shall be tolerated, but parents are encouraged to regard them as an optional extra to be used only when there is good reason. Again, in the case of middle names, the reason need not necessarily be dire. If both parents have their hearts set on a particular name, the use of middle names may be used to find a compromise. If there is a family name that must be used for tradition’s sake, but the parents greatly prefer another name, it is permissible to use middle names to appease all parties. Or, if a child is named for a parent, middle names might be helpful to sort out the one from the other. (Personally, I’m not hugely enthusiastic about the custom of naming sons for fathers, particularly once the numerals start piling up. It seems to me that the passing on of a family name should be adequate to preserve the family identity, so that reiterating the first name as well seems slightly ostentatious, or perhaps just lacking in imagination. If people want to do honor to their forbears, I find it much more charming — not to mention less confusing — to skip a generation. However, I recognize that this is a long-standing custom in some families, and I will not interfere.)
3) Names may be added for significant reasons. Confirmation names may be added to the legal name if the confirmand so desires. Married woman may of course take their husband’s name, and vowed religious may take new religious names. The Supreme Pontiff may take a new name. Other reasons will be considered on a case-by-case basis, with the governing principle being that the name must signify something important about the person, and must be intimately connected with their identity (in their own mind or the minds of others).
For those who want to argue that name-piling is more “Catholic”, I would point out that both Our Lord and Our Lady were initially given only one name. The number of names by which they are known has since then multiplied enormously, but always in a way that is significant and meaningful at least to someone. If simple names were sufficient for them at birth, I would think that simple names should be sufficient for us all.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Beautiful, Clara. Definitely in the running for “Rant O’ the Year!”
:)
I try.
“Now, isn’t that a pleasant association to have with a name?”
Yes, actually, it is. Or, to look at it another way, it is unpleasant in a prudent way, for a good reason. When my mother yells at me, she addresses me the same way the state would if I were indicted for a crime — all three names. Not John Public, not John Q. Public, but John QUINCY Public! It really does grab your attention — she means business. Most of us have a formal name for formal/extraordinary occasions. It is like that secret name that exists in certain cultures, the name that is be known only to certain other people, or which you yourself are forbidden to speak. It’s a question of formal/indignant/attention-grabbing identification, not of plain old practical identification.
Plus, there are far too many people with given names like John and surnames like Smith and Miller. In a village where there was only one smith and one miller, these surnames made sense. Nowadays, they are so common as to be, well, insignificant for the purposes of identification once you get rid of distinguishing middle names and middle initials. Imagine facing a phone book with 20 Ryan Millers and no distinguishing middle initials. So if we’re to ditch middle names, I propose we also ban the most vulgar (i.e. common) surnames: Smith, Miller, Johnson, Jones, etc.
But naming reforms sound so prescriptivist, modernistic, and liberal. Why don’t we institute spelling reforms while we’re at it? I thought that conservatives went with convention. In this country, the middle name is prevalent and serves a function. We obviously find it significant, or else we wouldn’t use it. Extra middle names are not prevalent, and probably will not become so, so prescriptions against it are probably superfluous.
Well, I went for twenty-seven years with a very common first name and the country’s MOST common last name, and it never caused any major confusion, despite my having no middle name. However, I already conceded that middle names are sometimes acceptable. So I suggest that this is just one more possible qualifying reason. The John Smiths of the world may have middle names.
As for your argument about the full name “meaning business”, I’m familiar with it, but it just doesn’t seem very good to me. My mother has five children with no middle names, and never has trouble communicating when she “means business.” But at any rate, if the name is intended to have primarily alarming associations, I propose that at least it should not be a saint’s name. No saint deserves to be anyone’s “you’re in trouble now” name.
“but it just doesn’t seem very good to me.”
But it does seem good to a large number of your fellow Americans. The custom of a parent calling a child out by employing the middle name is fairly prevalent. That is the way things are, and it seems liberal to try to prescribe an opposing custom. This is the convention, it is not immoral, so there is no problem.
“My mother has five children with no middle names, and never has trouble communicating when she “means business.””
It’s about what works and is accepted, not about what is strictly necessary. Let’s not fall into reductionism and social engineering. No, the middle name is not *necessary* for grabbing attention. However, it most certainly does serve to grab attention when this is necessary. It is not immoral and does have the weight of custom and convention. And that’s good enough . . . for the conservative temperaement, at least.
“at any rate, if the name is intended to have primarily alarming associations, I propose that at least it should not be a saint’s name. No saint deserves to be anyone’s “you’re in trouble now” name.”
Ah, but the child is being held to account. The particular name chosen is not chosen so as to be alarming. Rather, the reading of the full name is what is alarming, as we usually do not use it. Or, if you wish, the disobedient child should be reminded of all the saints he’s named after and whose virtues he should be imitating, but has in this instance obviously failed to imitated.
“Well, I went for twenty-seven years with a very common first name and the country’s MOST common last name, and it never caused any major confusion, despite my having no middle name.”
Perhaps to some extent you stood out precisely by not having a middle name.
“However, I already conceded that middle names are sometimes acceptable. So I suggest that this is just one more possible qualifying reason.”
I counter: the middle name is *always* acceptable. There is *no* need for a qualifying reason.
I think it is a matter of custom and what one is used to, Clara, that decides the rules of naming. You are used to having only two names. I know of one family, and have heard of others especially among the French, whose boys are all named Joseph and the girls Mary. Only the oldest boy and girl are called by their first names. Thank God the others have middle names. Had you been born in Elizabethan England you may have sided with Shakespeare’s “What’s in a name? A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Had you been born in Italy, you may have had a female version of Alphonsus Mary Antony John Cosmas Damian Michael Gaspard de’ Liguori. Now that’s what I call name piling but perhaps the more names, the more heavenly patrons. Here’s another good one: Sister Marie Francois Therese of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face. But of course there’s one nationality that really knows how to name a person. Three guesses.
I was always under the impression that having a middle name used to be an indicator that you were “Christian” because Christians give their children middle names at baptism where as pagans had just two names. I think this is a myth though. My parents never gave me a middle name at baptism thinking they’d let me choose one at Confirmation. (They said it was difficult enough to come up with one name). But I decided not to choose one at Confirmation… I had gone this long without a middle name, who needs one now. People were always shocked that I didn’t have a middle name. When I got married I had my maiden name legally changed to my middle name and took my husbands surname. I guess I wanted my maiden name to somehow still be part of my “name” because it identified me in some way. Now I have three names…
“For those who want to argue that name-piling is more “Catholic”, I would point out that both Our Lord and Our Lady were initially given only one name.”
I think that this argument entails a fallacy. There are plenty of wholesome Catholic practices that are not observable within the Early Church. I think that some legends portray very early Christians venerating religious statues. Statues are not generally used in the Christian East, where icons prevail. Yet the veneration of religious statues is still “more ‘Catholic’” than the Protestant exclusion of them. Catholic cultures often do pile up names, often with the explicit notion of honoring this or that patron saint.
Using the logic that Our Lord and Our Lady had only one name (plus a patronymic), one could just as easily conclude that giving children saints’ names isn’t necessarily “more Catholic.” In the Early Church, there were very few Christian saints to provide saints’ names, and I am not aware of pagan converts taking Old Testament names. So people with explicitly pagan names like Apollonia (Apollo’s girl) and Demetrius (Demeter’s guy) were baptized with their pagan names. Now their pagan names, derived from the names of pagan gods, are saints’ names. If these Catholic saints got to keep their explicitly pagan names, why is it “more Catholic” to give children saints’ names at their baptism? Because in such particulars the notion of “more Catholic” or less actually varies. In the 300s, it was “more Catholic” to keep one’s pagan name upon conversion. Now, it is “more Catholic” to give children saints’ names.
I’m not saying that it actually is more Catholic to pile up names. I am saying that the fact that Our Lord and Our Lady did not have multiple names is not much of a rebuttal to the claim.
“I would point out that both Our Lord and Our Lady were initially given only one name. The number of names by which they are known has since then multiplied enormously, but always in a way that is significant and meaningful at least to someone.”
So, as long as it is significant and meaningful it’s acceptable. Well, who is going to determine that Saint Alphonsus’ baptismal name cited above was not meaningful at least to someone? Not least of all, his parents must have thought it was. I don’t think he felt cheapened by a long name or suffered any kind of identity crisis. Long baptismal names are significant to the parents who bestow them. In time the child will learn the significance, too.
Names of Our Lady have been multiplied as Clara expressed. We have an example in the Litany of Loreto and prayers such as the Hail Holy Queen. And then there is Our Lady of Fatima, Knock, Lourdes, Guadalupe etc. and various devotions and pictures such as Our Mother of Perpetual Help. Adding names here is definitely appropriate and yet they are given not just because they are merited but because of devotion to our Blessed Mother.
In general a devout Catholic does not address or refer to Our Lady by her simple given name, Mary, unless some other name follows. But Protestants like to keep it short and will not call her by any of those names piled on by Catholics. Mary is sufficient for them, not even Saint Mary is granted. Saint Mary is usually how a nominal Catholic refers to her. But those who have a devotion to her love to pile on the names.
Long names tend to enhance rather than cheapen. The Spanish know how to do it. Maria Teresa Garcia Ramirez de Arroyo sounds quite royal, doesn’t it? Why can’t every child ennobled at baptism receive a long list of “royal” saints names? On the other hand, shortening names usually cheapens: Margaret becomes Peggy, Dorothy becomes Dot, Augustine is shortened to Gus, Peter becomes Pete, Anthony becomes Tony. When Jeanne Baptiste deKertanguy came to the United States it wasn’t a week before Protestant custom changed it to John B. Guy.
I would say that name piling is a Catholic phenomenon and those having long names tend to be Catholic. American Protestants are lucky if they get three or four paltry syllables to their name but even names like Jed Jones, Uriah Brown, and Sam Houston can be made Catholic sounding by adding a middle name of a New Testament saint. Compare American names like Will Rogers, Abe Lincoln, and Joseph Smith to names like Salvatore Francis Rocco De Majestre and Patrick Michael Seamus Finbar O’Rourke and tell me which are more Catholic.
One could argue that Jesus had more than one name even before his birth: “Parvulus enim natus est nobis, et filius datus est nobis,
et factus est principatus super humerum ejus: et vocabitur nomen ejus, Admirabilis, Consiliarius, Deus, Fortis, Pater futuri sæculi, Princeps pacis.” (Isaiah 9:6) and also Matthew: “Hoc autem totum factum est, ut adimpleretur quod dictum est a Domino per prophetam dicentem: Ecce virgo in utero habebit, et pariet filium: et vocabunt nomen ejus Emmanuel, quod est interpretatum Nobiscum Deus.” (1:22-23).
I have no Greek (or Hebrew), but as I understand it, the Latin suggests that these are names? or are they properly titles?
I had to smile upon reading this. When we children were born, my fathered insisted on only the first name and the last name, even though in our Latino culture, name-piling is typical. (He was not a very good Catholic.)
I always felt different and in a way inferior to my classmates, who at least had a middle name. Towards the completion of 8th grade, our teacher had everyone tell exactly how each one of us wanted his name to appear on the diploma. I noticed that every single one of my classmates was giving their full name which included a middle name. I couldn’t stand it! When my turn came, I gave myself middle name – Marie!
Martha Marie….Yeah, I lied. :-)
Good gracious me! I’ve never heard the like before! Our eldest son is christened Alexander, Andrew, Colm, Francis & second son..Andrew Joseph Pio..without moving on to the girls! On my blog a lovely picture of Apologist Raymond De Souza names his sons & daughters..all beautiful names. We are VERY Catholic!