This is something I have wondered for a while now. And I have tried to find the answers myself too. What are the ultimate origin and meaning of the proper names “London” (as in “City of…”) and “Shakespeare” (as in the famous playwright).
While trying to find the answer, I have usually gone to dictionaries. And the furthest I have ever gotten with London is that it is apparently a very old name, and of Celtic origins. As for Shakespeare, it is interesting to note Pope Adrian, the only English pope, was born Nicholas Breakspeare. This is interesting because it shows the word ending, possibly giving a place origin (like “-ton” and “-ville”) for Shakespeare is probably “-speare” not “-peare” like I originally thought.
If anyone does find the origin to these names, please tell me where you found it. As I’ve said, I am at my wits ends trying to find out (and as I’ve said, I usu. use dictionaries, which have been of no help thus far).
I strongly suspect that you will not get a definitive answer.
Shakespeare (or any of the other 13 ways it is spelled–many of them by the man, himself), probably has a bit more of a trail behind it–being a newer name–but I doubt that a clear line will be found for it, either.
Spelling was not an exact science back in Elizabethan times. Shakespeare spelled his name a number of different ways. The more common spellings began with Shak rather than Shake which has led scholars to believe his name was pronounced to rhyme with Baxter.
Just to confirm that London’s ultimate etymology is still unknown. It may be Celtic, but if so it’s not transparent. (The -don may just possibly be related to dunon, ‘fortress,’ but I wouldn’t bet money on it.) A pre-Celtic and thus unparseable etymon is the most likely.
It does when it comes from Old English, but there are two problems with this for London:
The earliest spellings are consistently -din, not -don
The earliest attestations predate the English arrival in Britain by several centuries.
From A. D. Mills’ Oxford Dictionary of London Place-Names: “Londinium may be derived from two pre-Celtic (Old European) roots with added Celtic suffixes describing [a particular place on the Thames] … with a meaning something like ‘place at the navigable or unfordable river.’” He cites R. Coates’s “A New Explanation of the Name London” in Transactions of the Philological Society 96:2 (1998), 203-29. Personally, I think you should take this particular meaning with a grain of salt, but I’d agree that -ium is probably a Latinized Celtic suffix, and that Londin- doesn’t have an easy explanation.
To quibble, it’s that there are no surviving cases of him using this spelling in his own handwriting. There are examples like the documents relating to the 1613 purchase of the Blackfriars Gatehouse where a clerk has drawn up a legal document on his behalf, consistently using the spelling “William Shakespeare” throughout and he’s then authorised this using the abbreviation “William Shakspre” as the signature (see images here). Thus a case of him, at the very least, acknowledging the spelling as a legally acceptable version of his name.
I reckon SHakespeare was originally spelled…BACON… That ought to set the cat amongst the pigeons. (I don’t really believe that, but I bet there are some on here who do)
