Mak. 19. 1853.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



279 



a.3 evidence of the road-side necessities of the 

 period. That word, however, does not bear such 

 a construction ; although, at first sight, nothing 

 -would be more natural than to render it so. It is 

 "written in the original "cok','' contracted ; and to 

 those conversant with mediaeval Latin, it is known 

 "to express "cokinus — coquinus," Gallice " co- 

 -quin : " a word derived from " coquus," and not 

 that word itself. It occurs commonly enough in 

 the Royal Wardrobe Accounts, and means simply 

 " a messenger." * For those who have not the 

 •opportunity of referring to original documents, 

 there is a very good account of the persons so 

 designated supplied by the Liber quotidianus Con- 

 irarotulcdoris Garderohce, anno 28 Edw. /., edited 

 by John Topham, Esq., in 1787, from the original 

 in the library of the Society of Antiquaries. It 

 is referred to in the note to the Post Olfice Report 

 as containing the words Cokinus, Nuncius, and 

 Oarcio, used apparently in one sense. At p. 280. 

 is an account of payments under the heading 

 '*' Tituhis de expens' nuncior' et cok' Regis Ed- 

 Tvardi," &c., and in the glossary this explanation 

 'Of the word is given : 



" Cokinus, Coquinus ' Homo vilisslmus nee nisi 



infimis coquinte ministerils iiatus,' says Ducange. 

 Charpentier adds beggar. Here it means the Jo west 

 kind of messengers or errand-boys, like sculls or scul- 

 lions in colleges." 



But this is too low an estimate of the class. 



Having disposed of this passage, I wish now to 

 ■draw the attention of your readers who have taken 

 part or interest in the late discussion in your 

 pages upon certain surnames, to the bearing which 

 this extract, and others expressive of the indivi- 

 duals there referred to, has upon that numerous 

 series of names ending in " cock ; " about which 

 so many, and, for these regenerate days, some 

 singular suggestions have been made. The dis- 

 cussion was, I believe, commenced in the Gentle- 

 man's Magazine for May, 1837; and, in the num- 

 ber for the same month in the following year, 

 -J. G. N. suggested that many of those names 

 might be referred to forms of " Coc, koc, le coq, 

 which occur in records as abbreviations of coquus, 

 •cocus — cook." 



How cavalierly the suggestions thus afforded by 

 Mr. Urban's pages were treated by Mr. Lower, 



* In the Report from the Select Committee (of the 

 House of Commons) on the Post Office in 1844, Sir F. 

 Palgrave makes the following note on the word Co- 

 Mnus, which occurs in some documents supplied to 

 the Committee, and printed in their Appendix : 



" The word Coliinus, in the Wardrobe Accounts of 

 the latter half of the thirteenth century, is used to 

 signify a ' messenger ; ' but in what the Cokinus dif- 

 fered from the Nuncius and the Gareio — the other 

 terms employed in their accounts to signify the bearers 

 of letters or messages — does not appear. 



your readers will see who refer to the pages of 

 that gentleman's work upon English Surnames^ 

 indicated in the author's last communication to 

 you (" N. & Q ," Vol. v., p. 509.). But their faith 

 in the improvement " N. & Q." has so greatly con- 

 tributed to effect in such matters, will not how- 

 ever let them be deterred by the terms there used 

 from pursuing the_ subject. It will be seen that 

 my present contribution will modify the view 

 taken by J. G. N., but also, to a considerable 

 extent, support it. 



I am not aware that any attempt has been made 

 to show how early these names were used. I cau 

 refer to several instances of the names " Wilcoc" 

 or " Willecok," and " Badecok," two complete 

 examples of the kind, in the documents of the 

 reign of Edward I. 



Those of your readers who are members of the 

 Camden Society have now before them a copy of 

 a document in v/hich the first of those names 

 occurs several times. I refer to the small House- 

 hold Roll of John of Brabant while at the English, 

 court, which is printed in the last volume of the 

 Camden Society's Miscellany. 



No one doubts that by far the greater part of 

 the names in question were originally corrupted 

 forms of Christian names, with a suffix. Mr. 

 Lower has done good service in showing thus 

 much. And any one who refers to the list in the 

 Royal Wardrobe Account of 28 Edw. I., and espe- 

 cially those who can also consult other similar 

 manuscripts, will admit that it would be quite 

 possible that any Christian name might have beefti 

 so used ; so numerous must have been the class of 

 persons called " cokini." I will not further tres- 

 pass upon your space with specimens of names so 

 manufactured, as they can be formed with ease 

 upon the first name "Wilcoc" from " Wille le 

 cok,"' — the contracting mark being dropped. The 

 final letter " k " is of importance, as distinguish- 

 ing the derivative from the parent word "coquus;" 

 from what period, and why., is doubtful. That 

 there is but little early documentary evidence of 

 the names in their complete state, might be attri- 

 buted to the inferior class of the individuals so 

 designated. 



Mr. Lower's sole explanation of the terminal 

 in question is, that it Is a diminutive like " kin ; " 

 and in justice to that view, I must not pass over 

 the evidence afforded by the Brabant Roll of a 

 case where the two names seem to be interchanged. 

 One of Prince John's pages Is named on the roll 

 "Hankin" (p. 7. line 3.) ; while, on the Wardrobe 

 Account three years previous, where the servants 

 are specified by name, "Hancock" is there, who 

 is most likely the same person. It will ako be 

 seen, that whereas In the Wardrobe Account the 

 armourer's name is " Giles," and the barber's 

 " "Walter" (see notes to the Brabant Roll), the 

 foreit;u scribe of the account dubs them " Gllki.u" 



