‘L⟨i⟩fe’ does not appear to vouchsafe this informatio⟨n⟩, and I have not been able to discover it mysel⟨f⟩. The twelfth edition of the ‘Life,’ enlarged, contains an epitaph on the miser, in which occur the following lines:—
Lies a strong picture of the human race
In Elwes’ form,
It ⟨i⟩s said to have been copied from the Chelmsford Ch⟨r⟩onicle. Is it known who wrote the lines? Are they to be found on his tombstone? Elwes died at Marcham, in Berkshire, where was part of his property; but I learn from the vicar that there is no entry of his burial in the parish register.
Heidegger.—Where is there any authority for the statement in Mr. Lecky’s ‘History’ (vol. i. p. 533) that the great nobles attracted Heidegger the rival theatre in Lincoln’s Inn Fields?
‘The Kalevala.’—The following remark upon this Work appears in a recent catalogue:—
“Max Müller places ‘Kalevala’ on a level with the greatest epics of the world, and says it possesses merits not dissimilar from those of the ‘Iliad,’ and will claim ⟨i⟩ts place as the fifth national epic of the world.”
Where is this opinion of Prof. Müller’s expressed? In what order are the four greater national epics ⟨r⟩anked by him?
Sprat and Clifford.—Are any descendants of Mr. T. Sprat, Cowley’s biographer, or of his friend Mr. M. Clifford living? Is anything known about ⟨t⟩heir respective families?
The Celibacy of the Clergy.—Froude, in one of his essays, declares he had seen a list of ⟨t⟩wenty English ecclesiastics (temp. Henry VIII.) who had “licences to keep concubines.” Were ⟨s⟩uch documents really issued; or is it a Protestant ⟨i⟩nvention? Surely it is possible to ascertain the ⟨t⟩ruth on this point!
Estienne le Noir, French Clockmaker.—I ⟨h⟩ave a fine old French clock, temp. Louis XIV., with the name of the maker, “Estienne le Noir, Paris,” in black letters on a piece of white enamel, ⟨s⟩et into the brasswork below the dial. Though I ⟨h⟩ave seen many of similar style, I have not met with any bearing the name of the above maker, ⟨a⟩nd therefore send this query in the hope of elicit⟨i⟩ng information.
Insignia of Knighthood.—When the sovereign ⟨i⟩nvests any person with the insignia of an order of ⟨k⟩nighthood, does it not follow as a matter of course ⟨t⟩hat he must, ipso facto, receive the honour of ⟨k⟩nighthood? I ask the question because I found ⟨i⟩n the World of March 23, 1887, the statement ⟨t⟩hat “Dr. Cameron Lees, the well-known minister ⟨o⟩f St. Giles’s Cathedral, Edinburgh, dined and slept at Windsor Castle, when Her Majesty privately invested him with the insignia of the Thistle” previous to his leaving for nearly a year’s absence in Australia. He had been recently appointed Dean of the Chapels Royal in Scotland and Dean of the Order of the Thistle.
Chums.—Can any one explain or suggest a meaning for this word in the following passage, quoted by Nares, s.v. “Cheery,” from ‘Witty Apothegms,’ 1669?—
“A young maid having married an old man, was observed on the day of marriage to be somewhat moody, as if she had eaten a dish of chums.”
Nares does not enter it as a word in its own order.
Oxford.
Replies.
PLURALIZATION. (7th S. vii. 142.)
Is not this a horrible coinage? However, Mr. Mount makes his paper highly interesting. But has he not, as nearly all do who alight upon a bright idea, grown a little dazzled with its proper brightness?
When we use the plural “brains,” it is in the sense of capacity, intelligence. A man with plenty of brains is otherwise to be described as a man of good parts. A surgeon may write on the brain, and study its anatomy, as being a single object, non-plural; but the vernacular will always have its “man of brains” for a clever fellow, and myself I cannot see why not. Literal views on such matters are always in danger of falling into literal nonsense. Language is a haphazard engine, that flashes a meaning, and leaves logic limping to rearward.
Now, what is there commendable in the French phrase, “Il s’est brûlé la cervelle d’un coup de pistolet”? The brain is left in the singular. So far so good. But “s’est brûlé” is absurd. He has not burnt anything, except gunpowder.
As to the line of Milton’s, I am pleased to see that Mr. Mount is of opinion that that foolish folk the modern editors and verbal critics would have altered it, or corrected it, to “circumstances.” They are always correcting what is not wrong, when often what is wrong they cannot see to be so. Still, although the word “circumstance” means an environment, it means a vast deal besides that. It means even a condition and state of affairs. You may correctly say, “A man is in good circumstances.” Young says:—
Who does the best his circumstance allows.
A man may speak of a remarkable circumstance in history. There it is merely an incident, and incidents may be plural or singular. There is no
