Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 4.djvu/269

9"> 8. IV. Oct. 21, '99.] 337 NOTES AND QUERIES. Byron, 'Campbell would have claimed it if it had been his.'" Can we not have the authentic version in full in ' N. & Q.' ? Arthur Mayall. Madame Ristori (9th S. iv. 167, 295).—Un- less I am mistaken, I saw Ristori play at our Opera Comique (opposite the Strand Theatre) about 1870. She played specially, for a few nights only, I think ; and the performance I saw was Mary Stuart. But Prof. Henry Morley's 'Journal of a London Playgoer' would not be likely to give an account of this series of performances, for the simple reason that his record professedly closes in the year 1866. J. W. M. Gibbs. A reference to the files of the Era for 1858 shows that this celebrated actress appeared at the St. James's Theatre for a short season, commencing 16 June in that year, her rijwtoire comprising Macbeth, Plied re, Adrienne Lecouvreur, Ottavia, and Mary Stuart, and is evidently that referred to by Morley. E. J. Thomas. James Cox's Museum (9th S. ii. 7, 78).—This was a miscellaneous exhibition, a sort of cross between our Polytechnic Institute as first established, the Soho Bazaar, &e. It flourished during the latter half of the last century, and was in Spring Gardens. Two or three pages of Letter XIX. in Miss Burney's ' Evelina' (published between 1770 and 1780) describe a visit to it by the heroine as one of the sights of the town. Music of an eccentric cha- racter seems to have been one of the attractions, for Evelina (here, no doubt, to be identified with Fanny Burney herself)'says that the performances " concluded with a concert of mechanical music ; I cannot ex- plain how it was produced, but the effect was fileasing." Mrs. Raine Ellis's edition of 'Eve- ina'(Bell cfc Sons, 1882) has a note further descriptive of this "museum." J. W. M. Gibbs. 'H.E.D.' (9th S. iv. 184).— Mr. Julian Marshall's remarks bring to the front a much wider question—the momentous mis- take made in its title by the projectors of the ' Dictionary ': momentous, because it is irretrievable, and causes a blot upon the whole undertaking. 'A New English Dic- tionary on Historical Principles ' wants the stamp both of originality and ingenuity, and were the thing not so vexatious, it would be laughable. If even they had commenced with the definite article ! Wanting a princi- pal and distinctive title (the present would nave done very well as an explanatory sub- title), people are driven perforce to find substitutes or nicknames for it (' H.E.D.' is only one of a dozen) when referring to the work, to its detriment in a wider knowledge and popularity among the public, who are confused, if not disgusted, by the multiplicity of titles in use. Surely the most important word in a book or a dictionary is its name— the word an author or editor desires to be most in vogue ; and surely in such a work (claiming deservedly to be the best and fore- most of its kind) some of the wide and deep research and acumen brought into the inside might well have been bestowed upon the cover. Scores of names suggest themselves without thought: Grand, Great, Giant, Mammoth, Empire, Universal, Paragon, Sublime, Acme, Eureka, Nonpareil, Magnum Opus, Literary, Best, &c, or perhaps better than all, because the simplest, The Dictionary. If the promoters were wanting in the inven- tive faculty, they had at hand the means of arriving at the best title procurable. They had simply to ask their very large and learned staff to send in lists of what each considered the best half-dozen names, put in the order of merit. Selection woulrl thus have been made easy ; but if still doubtful between several of the most likely, the largest vote in the papers would have led to a proper decision. J. S. M. T. [We substituted ' H.E.D.' for ' N.E.I).,' as before has been said, at the suggestion of some connected with the production of the ' Dictionary,' and in the belief, which we now suspect to be erroneous, that the change would be gratifying to Dr. Murray, who is entitled to our first consideration. On the title- page of the part which last reached us we rind ' The Oxford English Dictionary'; in the dedication to Her Majesty in the last volume we read ' Historical Dictionary of the English Language.' Personally we have no preference and no right or claim to choice. Hut for remonstrance we should have left ' N.E.D.,' and ' H.E.IV and ' O.E.D.' are equally to our taste. We are to some extent of the mind of our contributor, and see no reason why, on account of its immense superiority to all existing works of its class, it should not be called ' The English Diction- ary.'] Leo of Modena's Hebrew-Italian Sonnets (9th S. iv. 183, 273).—It may not be universally known, but in the Middle Ages many Hebrew scholars and poets dedicated their leisure to the composition of bilingual verses, which at best display more ingenuity than elegance. Among them may be cited as most noteworthy Alcharizi and Immanuel, the friend of Dante. Their works, owing to their gross licentious- ness, were long held in disfavour by the literati. In modern times David Luzzatto was similarly distinguished. Perhaps your correspondent Xe Quid Ximis will be good enough to direct me to the works where the /"