|Posted By:||James Russell Brokaw|
|Subject:||Re: LYMAN as baptismal name--1800s|
|Post Date:||March 23, 2000 at 20:20:57|
|Forum:||Lyman Family Genealogy Forum|
You write: "I have wondered if there is family connection also."
When I posted this query originally, I never doubted that there was a
family connection in most instances where "Lyman" was conferred as a baptismal name. What seemed evident (but keep in mind that what seems evident is not always real) was that "Lyman" was conferred disproportionately to most other possible ancestral names. It may be merely that the Lymans had an extremely high birthrate--but having researched other New England families--including the Russells--I doubt that the Lymans had a propriogenitive edge. Certainly "Lyman" has a euphonious quality that "Putnam"--to cite one example--does not
possess. There were a number of early Lymans
(General Phineas Lyman, for instance) who did
loom large in Colonial history. Whatever the
answer, it is not a name conferred often today. And until somebody actually does an
empirical study of early nineteenth century
naming the whole question I posed originally
remains speculation--nothing more!