That is very helpful and I perused it and find the logic persuasive. However, on the current topic of whether hockey emerged as a name for bandy around London in the 1700`s, the more I read in Google Books, the more I am convinced that England long knew hockey under that name before the 1760`s. This article is from 1767:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=eDE...Dg&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hockey&f=false
It is a very interesting description of field hockey, the essentials of which are very similar to ice hockey as it is played today. A bung or India rubber ball is suggested as the best propellant. There is no suggestion here to call the ball or puck the hockey, that was surely a later usage of loose language by a casual writer or a contraction of `hockey ball`or `hockey bung`. The way this confident writer writes, hockey was an old sport in England, not just in London. He refers to hurling and shinty as names given a similar game in the `sister kingdoms` of Scotland and Ireland. There is no suggestion that hockey is a relatively new term in England, on the contrary the impression is given it is an old one. He states that in the last generation games of hockey - he uses the term hurling only to describe such games when played by people of Irish origin residing in London - were played not just in Kennington Common where the Irish residents played it but elsewhere in open spaces in London and in other parts of the country (meaning England). If bandy was so generalized and hockey non-existent until some mysterious galvanizing event in the 1700`s, this writer would have mentioned this.
Apart from this, there is the recollection from the early 1800`s of an Etonian that hockey is a very old game associated with the school - no reference to bandy or other names (I assume this reference is in the new book as probably the 1767 article I mention above, if not I can provide the reference).
Finally again the West Sussex playing of `hawkey`, seems decisive to me. Yes it is from the 1880`s but I cannot imagine - this is an interpretation of evidence - that the same game did not exist for 200 years and more under that name. An historical or (perhaps here) antiquarian book is written to attest to old practices, not new. 40 miles may not seem that far but in England at that time 40 miles was like being half-way across the world. An example of this is from Holloway`s very book where in the introduction he states that the local speech was so distinctive it could sometimes not be understood outside the county. I cannot imagine a bucolic area such as this receiving influence from London-area old boys, it does not make sense.
I do believe this is my last comment until I read the new book. I did walk over yesterday to our local bookshop but they don't have it in yet. It is tops on my bucket list though and I will add any further thoughts after a careful reading. I do compliment the authors for undertaking such an initiative. It is a fascinating question that deserves careful study and it is great that they have done this. Kudos all round and to Iain and the other knowledgeable people who have contributed their thoughts here, it is all grist for the mill and will, hopefully, advance the discussion!
Gary
Last edited:
