At the christening it turned out that George and not Jacob had been chosen as the third name. This was after the first known ancestor of the Lepsius family, George Leps.[97] The christening feast was a merry one, and the godmother has given a brief account of the toasts which were drunk. That delivered by Jacob Grimm to the health of the godfathers is so characteristic of him that to everyone acquainted with this magnificent scholar and man it must seem as delightful as to the godmother it must have been agitating. “I like,” so he began, “to come to the christening of a child: it is always more agreeable than a wedding or a funeral feast, where one usually sees nothing of the principal persons.” He then found fault with the christenings of the present day, the numerous godfathers, wherein the young Charles George Richard was not lacking, and said that “formerly it was much more solemn than now. Then there were only two godparents, the child was entirely stripped--there was more to be seen--and it was first plunged under water in the font, and then covered with a little shirt. More account was made of the godparents. After baptism the child had to go to them on every holiday, and received a gift from them. The church regarded baptism as a regeneration, and therefore it was considered of much greater importance; on this account the child was baptized _immediately_.” Then he said that usually the godparents did not long survive the child’s baptism (general contradiction), “his godfather had died half a year after his christening; however the boy could learn his name out of the books. The boy had three names, and that was particularly _stupid_.” (This word was strongly emphasized, and Frau Lepsius’ temper waxed hot). “He certainly only needed _one_, for when he was fooling around on the street with other boys and his mother wanted to call to him out of the window, she would not cry: ‘Charles-George-Richard come here,’ but ‘Richard, come here!’ He had waited and listened, to see if the minister would not pronounce ‘Jacob’ too, but in vain. What was there though in that name to take exception to? It was indeed a Jewish name, but still Jacob had been a good man, and he could tell of many excellent people who had been called Jacob. The name pleased him very well, and it grieved him that the child had not been called by it.” To these latter words Frau Lepsius adds the remark: “It grieved me too very much at that moment, and still more afterwards.” Here we will break off the description of this toast. It had touched the honest man very nearly that he had to share with so many others the honor of being godfather to the first-born son of his beloved Lepsius, and he would have liked to see the little one grow up with his own good name, as he had been led to expect. It was never his way to conceal his feelings; but nothing was farther from the childlike nature of this man, who in science was a giant, than any intention of giving pain.