"What's in a Name" Surname Index

Contents & Site Map

What's in a Name ?

COX (Part Three)

The previous articles discussing this surname mentioned various possible sources and concluded that since most of them were or nearly identical (e.g. cocc, coch, kok) and had all settled on the form "Cox" it is now well-nigh impossible to sort them out.

The final symbol, "-x-" only adds to the confusion. There are several letters in our alphabet which are superfluous because they have no sounds of their own. For example "c" is useless because it can be replaced with either "k" or "s". As for "x" it is an illogical rendering of "-ks-". In the case of "Cox" the alternative "Cocks" is preferable because grammatically it retains something by way of the "apostrophe s". And that is central to its meaning.

The apostrophe "s" indicates possession. In very old English the work "of" had not fully evolved: it begins to appear round about the year 800 A.D. Formerly the rule was to add "-es-" to a word. So "the door of the room" would have been "ye roomes doore".

As time passed it was found convenient to drop the "e" in writing, and indicate the omission with that little squiggle which we called the "apostrophe". (It is a Greek word which roughly means "something has been thrown out"). When this is applied to surnames, the "possessor" would have been a parent and the thing "possessed" would have been the child. So, "the child of Peter" would have been rendered as "Peteres childe" and, later, in answer to the hypothetical question, "Who's kid' that?" the reply was "It's Peter's". However this apostrophic form was clumsy and so "-s-" was simply tagged on.

Hence, in the case of a father known in his community as "Cock", if he has a child it was identified as "Cocks" or, alternatively "Cox". The final "-s" occurs in countless surnames, but in a few, the old "-es" form survives as in "Jones" and "Hughes" (i.e. child of John or Hugo). Where the Father's name ended in "-ck", as, for example "Rick" the ensuing surname would have emerged either as "Ricks" or "Rix". Similar development attached itself to "Hicks - Hix" or "Backs - Bax".

Merely in passing it may be noted that the omission of the apostrophe occurs also in a few general words. An attractive example is this. The sun is poetically called "the eye of the day". Hence we would have got "the dayes eye" (i.e. the day's eye) which emerges as "the Daisy", the little flower to which it bears a fanciful resemblance, the apostrophe in this case has vanished entirely.

So to sum up. It must follow that "Cox" must have had a corresponding development based upon a preliminary name, "Cock" otherwise neither "Cocks" nor "Cox" can be accounted for.

But then we are back where we started. There was certainly a personal name, "Cock" which can be traced back to the earliest English settlements and which survived until about the end of the 17th Century and then went suddenly out of use.

Some of the more localised sources such as "Coch" (Welsh), "cog- aim" (Irish) and (possibly?) some sea-faring expressions have been looked at in previous articles but by far the most convincing claim for the majority of the cases when the name is recorded is to be presented by an extremely old word, "Cocc" which, while it occurs in hundreds of place-names, has now ceased to be part of current vocabulary.

It means "a low hill" or "a mount". Such modest items are not very distinctive or eye-catching in any landscape and so the unit rarely goes into the composition of leading place-names. Its universality is demonstrated that, to the north we find "Cock Beck" (West Riding) and to the south "Cockhampstead" (Hertford).

The unit is to be found in localised field-names everywhere. Near Castleton we find "Silcocke", while other illustrations of its usage, borne out by reference to old records include "Cockey Farm" (Abney - meaning "Cock's Island', from the units "Cocc" plus "eg" (island) and probably because it stood on slightly elevated land and created an island when Bretton Brook flooded). A similar name occurs at Repton - "Cockey Barn Farm". In Chapel- en-le-Frith is "Cock Yard" which means "The Enclosure owned by a man called Cocca".

The notion of "hill" or "mound" however still survives in one expression. It is "hay-cock" which describes a "heap" or "pile" of hay. It may be noted that the work "Kok" occurs in Danish and there are similar terms in Swedish and Norwegian. It also lurks in the pub name "Cock and Bottle" where "bottle" has evolved from the old English "botel" which means "bundle", hence "the heap and bundle".

Surnames based on locations, particularly "Hill", "Brook", "Woods" etc. are instantly recognised because they are built upon words still in use, whereas "cocc" requires historical analysis. Bearing this in mind, then, persons called "Cox" or its less familiar version "Cocks" can take it that it is possible they might be descended from ancestors who were identified as "The Folk who lived on the Hill".

In a very few cases this can actually be confirmed from entries in old records where an explanatory phrase is introduced, namely "at" or "atte" signifying "near" or "in the vicinity of-". Thus in London (1319) there are two references to Hwgh" (sic); one as "ate Cocke" and the other as "Atte Coke". In Suffolk (1380) there is a similar entry: Thomas atte Cok".

This is only part of the story of the surname but space is limited the the rest will be concluded in a later issue of the Peak Advertiser.

To be continued.

© Desmond Holden
From "The Peak Advertiser", 14th September 1998.

© Copyright GENUKI and Contributors 1996-2008, &c.
GENUKI is a registered trade mark of the charitable trust GENUKI, see About GENUKI as an Organisation

Are you lost in the Genuki hierarchy or arrived here from a Search Engine?
If so, use the up-arrow(s) at the top of the page to go up the hierarchy.

URL of this page: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DBY/NamesPersonal/Cox3.html