It may be that each child is expected to bear as a second name his mother's and as a last name his father's family name, as, for example, John Jones Jackson, Jones being the mother's and Jackson the father's personal signature; but when the child marries, by what name shall the family line be carried on?
To most of us who see in the family name adopted by both husband and wife at marriage a sign of family unity not to be lost without serious embarrassment to offspring, and some danger of easy drifting apart without the knowledge of others, the name seems not to be of vital importance.

Why, then, it is asked, should the woman always give up her family connection as indicated by inherited name, and the man retain his?
The fact that the custom has grown up by reason of the legal absorption of the wife's life in that of the husband is obvious, and gives much color to the claim that now, when a woman is a recognized personality in the law whether married or single, she should keep the name by which her personality has become known.

That is easily seen to be advantageous in the case of professional women of wide influence.

The great singer, the great writer, any creative genius or artist, continues, as a rule, to be known by the name under which greatness has been achieved.

In such cases, however, women often bear two names, the professional name either of family inheritance or a chosen _nom de plume_, and the social name, which is their husband's and engraved on calling cards.