WHAT'S IN A NAME? 138

travels, or had any more serious motive, it would now be idle to inquire. -
He was known both as Foe and De Foe to the last; but it is the latter name
which he inscribed on the title-page of almost every one of his books, and it
is the name by which he has become immortal. .

Mr. Lee, De Foe’s latest biographer, differs from all preceding authorities
in dating the change of name as late as 1703. “I am inclined to think,”
he says, “it began accidentally, or was adopted for convenience, to dis-
tinguish him from his father.” But surely such a distinction was unneces-
sary, when the son was called Daniel and the father James! I think the
change far more likely to have been a foreign affectation, adopted during
the exile’s Continental travels, and afterwards persevered in from habit;
but the reader shall have an opportunity of following up the chain of Mr.
Lee’s reasoning, which is ingenious, if unsatisfactory.

“ The father,” he says, “from his age and experience, and the son from
his commanding ability, were both influential members of the Dissenting
interest in the city. They would respectively be spoken of and addressed,
orally, as Mr. Foe, and Mr. D. Foe. The name as spoken would in writing
become Mr. De Foe,* and thus what originated in accident might be used for
convenience, and become more or less settled by time. This simple expla-
nation is favoured by the following proofs of De Foe’s indifference in the
matter. His initials and name appear in various forms in his works, sub-
scribed to dedications, prefaces, &c., and this may be presumed to have been
done by himself. Before 1708 I find only D. F. In that year Mr. De Foe,
and Daniel De Foe. In the following year, D. D. F.; De Foe; and Daniel
De Foe. In 1705, D. F.; and three autograph letters, all addressed to the
Earl of Halifax, are successively signed D. Foe; De Foe; Daniel De Foe. In
1706, D. F.; D. Foe; De Foe; Daniel De Foe. And in 1709, D. F.; De Foe;
and Daniel De Foe.”

The first printed production from De Foe’s pen was a political pamphlet,
the precursor of a legion of similar writings, entitled “A Letter, containing
some Reflections on His Majesty’s Declaration for Liberty of Conscience,”
dated the 4th of April 1687.

In the following year William of Orange landed at Torbay, and De Foe,
zealous as ever in the noble cause of civil and religious liberty, hastened to
welcome “ The Deliverer,” in whose success lay the only hope of the release
of England from the thraldom of bigotry and absolutism. Armed, and on
horseback, he joined the second line of William’s army at Henley-on-Thames.
He probably accompanied the Prince on his entry into London. At the
stirring debates of the Convention he was unquestionably present, and his
heart must have leaped with joy when he heard the famous resolution passed,
on the 18th of February, that no King had reigned in England since the day
of James’s flight. Gallantly mounted and accoutred, he was one of “the

*Surely not! There is a great difference in sound between the English D. and the
French De.