NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. in. JAN. 7, m
are almost unknown. Charles only became
popular after the execution of Charles I.,
and George came in with the Hanoverian
dynasty.
The names of women present similar phenomena. What occurred with the names of men was also the case with those of women, though more frequently than men they received what we may call fancy names, such as Enota, Amicia, Diota, Avicia, Lora, Ameria, Lelice, or Anabilla. Such names, however, were unusual, since we find that in the fourteenth century one - third of the women were called either Agnes or Alice, while Agnes, Alice, Joan, and Margaret amount altogether to half of the whole num- ber ; and if we add Isabella, Cecilia, and Matilda, three-fourths are accounted for.
The great vogue of Agnes and Alice, and to a lesser degree of Barbara and Cecilia, is explained by popular metrical legends. In the time of Charles I. Agnes has descended from the first place to the tenth, and Alice from the second to the sixth. Ann and Elizabeth now head the list, followed by Jane, Margaret, Mary, Alice, Isobel, Dorothy, and Ellen, while Sarah, now so popular, has already the seventeenth place, having only been introduced at the Reformation. Eliza- beth came in with Elizabeth Woodville, and Arine with the queen of Richard II.
ISAAC TAYLOR.
GHOST-WORDS. (See 9 th S. ii. 341, 406, 485.) 4. Cherisaunce, Cherisaunie.The real word, chevisaunce, duly explained in the
- H.E.D.,' occurs five times in Chaucer : once
in the ' Prologue,' once in the ' Legend of Phillis,' and thrice in the 'Shipman's Tale.' It generally refers to some business transac- tion, but also means resource or remedy.
In the French 'Roman de la Rose,' ed. Meon, 11. 3112-3, we have the passage : Sovent plore et sovent me plains Que ne soi de moi chevissance ;
i.e., I often lament and often complain that I know for myself no resource (or remedy).
The translator of this passage in the English version of the 'Romaunt of the Rose' expressed it, rather freely, as follows :
Tho, dismayed, I lefte [remained] al sool [sole],
Wery, forwandred as a fool,
For I ne knew no chevisaunce.
But unluckily the scribe who copied out the MS. turned chevisaunce into cherisaunce, mistaking the v for an r, and all the old editions reproduced this mistake. Hence the word was duly recorded in Speght's ' Glossary,' with the explanation " comfort." This explanation was doubtless due to an
imaginary connexion of the word with the
verb to cherish. This suggested " cherishing,"
and " cherishing " suggested " comfort." By
extraordinary good luck the interpretation
is not much amiss.
Nevertheless, cherisaunce is truly a ghost- word, and, as such, has been avoided in the H.E.D.'
This, however, is not the end of the story. The troubles of the word were not over ; it suffered yet another forcible (but accidental) alteration by a printer's substitution of i for the second c. And this is why we find in Bailey's dictionary the grave entry : "Cheri- saunie, comfort."
Nor was even this the end. Kersey also made a note of the word, but his printer turned the final -ie into -ei, giving us " Cherisaunei, comfort." We see that Bailey, who succeeded Kersey, had the wit to put the final -ie right again ; but he had no suspicion that the r was wrong !
The interesting point about Kersey's mis- print is that Chatterton got hold of it in this strangely perverted form. The very first line of his 'Introduction to vElla' runs thus :
Somme cherisaunei 'tys to gentle mynde, where the explanation " comfort " has obviously been accepted in all innocence. It may suffice to say that this singular and wonderful use of a non-existent word is quite sufficient to show that the line just quoted was not written by Rowley in the fifteenth century.
And it can now be clearly seen that cherisaunei is an error for cherisaunie, which is an error for cherisaunce; and that cheri- saunce is itself a ghost-word, being an error for chevisaunce. WALTER W. SKEAT.
" PLOUGHING THE SANDS." This very expressive phrase, brought into public notice by Mr. Asquith in a political speech towards the end of 1897, and recently quoted by Mr. Chamberlain at Manchester and by Mr. A. J. Balfour at Bristol, has not, so far as I am aware, suggested a query as to its origin.* There can be no doubt that it is of immemorial antiquity. I cannot, however, find anything resembling it in the sacred writings, where the sands of the sea-shore are frequently referred to as an illustration of a vast collection of units impossible to be numbered, such as the generations of men or the myriad soldiers of a mighty army. It is unnecessary to give instances with which every one will be more or less acquainted. It is interesting to know that Homer used
[* See 8 th S. xii. 306, 432.]
