(1) _Individualization_. The word _sur_name means an _added_ name—_i.e._, a sobriquet added to the personal or baptismal name. Why? Because one was not sufficient to give individuality to the bearer. Adam and Eve, and Seth, and Abel, and Joseph, and Moses, all were enough while population was small; but manifestly such simplicity could not last. In the wilderness there were, say, 2,500,000 Israelites. How could one suffice there, especially if “Caleb” or “Joshua” had become so popular that there were, say, 50 or 100 of each in the closely-packed community? It was not enough: therefore we find a surname adopted, that is, an added name. “Joshua, the son of Nun”—“Caleb, the son of Jephunneh”—are amongst the world’s first surnames. In Directory language this is simply “Joshua Nunson,” or “Caleb Jephunneh.” Simon Barjonas is nothing more than Simon Johnson. Remember, however, these were not _hereditary_. They died with their owner, and the child, if there was one, got a surname of his own. Surnames did not become hereditary in Europe even till the beginning of the twelfth century, and among the lower classes not till the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Imagine London with, say, 3,000,000 souls, each possessing but one name. Picture to yourself to-morrow’s post bringing 1000 letters to “Mr. John,” or “John, Esquire.” We can’t conceive it. No, a surname became an imperative necessity when population increased, when men herded together, and communities began to be formed. It is curious to note that some of these surnames have become so common that they have failed of their object, and ceased to give individuality. There are 270,000 “Smiths” in England and Wales, and as many “Joneses.” They would together form a town as large as Manchester, or separately as big as Leeds. William Smith scarcely individualizes the bearer now; so he either gets three names or four names at the font, or his identity is eked out by a remarkable single name, perchance “Plantagenet,” or “Kerenhappuck,” or “Napoleon,” or “Sidney.” The worst of it is that “Sidney” was so greedily fixed upon after it became famous that there are now hundreds of “Sidney Smiths,” and thus it has ceased to give proper individuality. It is the same with “John Jones.” The Registrar-General says that if “John Jones” were called out at a market in Wales, either everybody would come, or nobody: either everybody, thinking that you meant each, or nobody, because you had not added some description which should distinguish the particular John Jones you wanted. I remember at college two John Joneses went in for examination for the “little go.” Both belonged to the same college; one passed, the other did not. The one who got first to the schools bore away his certificate in triumph. The one who came last always declared that his _confrère_ had robbed him of his “testamur,” and I have no doubt will die assured of the same! I believe a day will come