I cannot positively say that Childe Cockburn
had a red nose, but there are several reasons
to suppose so. Dugdale in his account of the
illustrious families of the British peerage, affirms,
that the Cockburns were anciently called
Cock, from their being such fighting fellows;
and that the burn was afterwards added on account
of one of them having distinguished himself,
by burning several cottages and haystacks
in a border-foray. Others say, that this addition
was expressly given in honour of the red nose,
which was hereditary in this family, and that
Bardolph himself was one of the Cockburns, who
were, as Shakespeare says, celebrated for “carrying
a lantern in the poop.” That Sir Cockburn,
who inherits the hereditary taste for burning,
should also have succeeded to the red nose,
is extremely probable, and I have accordingly
directed that he should hoist his lantern, without
further ceremony.
In the dearth of Sirnames, which characterised
those remote times, the colour of the nose often
became of common use, to distinguish different
individuals of the same name, different families,
and different factious from each other. The
most celebrated instance of this sort is the feud
between the houses of York and Lancaster; and
the most singular instance of historical blundering,
I have ever known, is connected with this
circumstance. All the historians I have met with,
agree in saying that the badges of distinction
between the two rival houses, were the red and
the white rose; whereas, the late Lord Orford
has, or at least could have demonstrated, that
the true reading ought to be the red and the
white nose. Under these two noses, all the people
of England marshalled themselves; and the
Cockburns, who were of course distinguished
red-noseans, signalized themselves in various
burning expeditions. Hence originated the different
titles of Admiral of the red, and Admiral
of the white, which were first need to distinguish
the fleets of Lancaster and York from each
other. The custom is still kept up, but the reasons,
as usual, have been lost. Childe Cockburn,
as may be inferred from his nose, is a distinguished
admiral of the red.
Those who are in the least intimate with ancient
history, must occasionally have been not a
little amused with the origin of most of the sirnames
of the distinguished personages of Grecian
and Roman, as well as of the early European
history. Passing over Pericles, the Ptolomies,
and the host of Pharaohs, I will merely
mention the kings of France and England. There
was Philip the fair, Lewis the gross, and Charles
the fat, of France; Edward the confessor, Edmund
Ironside, and Edward Longshanks, of England,
besides a thousand others.
It would be no unamusing speculation, to inquire
what sirnames would suit some of the present
notable race of monarchs, provided they
were bestowed with a due regard to their distinguishing
qualities of mind and body, or their
peculiar habits and tastes—or lastly, their peculiar
situations. Alexander might be called the
Accoucheurer, or Deliverer—Napoleon, in addition
to his sirname of Great, might have that of
Sinner appended—Frederick might probably be
called Lackland; Jerome, the Bigamist—Don
Carlos, the Fiddler—Gustavus, the Double, because,
as Joe Miller says, be is a man beside himself
—and honest King George is fully entitled to
the sirname of Well meaning. The rest, though
they are such an obscure set of rogues, that I
really dont recollect their names, yet doubtless
have sufficient character to entitle them to a nickname
at least. Having mentioned nicknames, it
may not be amiss to observe that they probably
had their origin in the waggery of mischievous
boys; and because they were not sanctioned by
any of the usual ceremonies of the church, were
called Nick-names, in honour of Old-Nick, who
was supposed to stand godfather on these occasions.
