Literary Blunders Part 1

Literary Blunders.

by Henry Benjamin Wheatley.

PREFACE.

_EVERY reader of_ The Caxtons _will remember the description, in that charming novel, of the gradual growth of Augustine Caxton's great work ''The History of Human Error,'' and how, in fact, the existence of that work forms the pivot round which the incidents turn.

It was modestly expected to extend to five quarto volumes, but only the first seven sheets were printed by Uncle Jack's Anti-Publishers' Society, ''with sundry unfinished plates depicting the various developments of the human skull (that temple of Human Error),''

and the remainder has not been heard of since.

In introducing to the reader a small branch of this inexhaustible subject, I have ventured to make use of Augustine Caxton's t.i.tle; but I trust that no one will allow himself to imagine that I intend, in the future, to produce the thousand or so volumes which will be required to complete the work.

A satirical friend who has seen the proofs of this little volume says it should be ent.i.tled ''Jokes Old and New''; but I find that he seldom acknowledges that a joke is new, and I hope, therefore, my readers will transpose the adjectives, and accept the old jokes for the sake of the new ones. I may claim, at least, that the series of answers to examination questions, which Prof.

Oliver Lodge has so kindly supplied me with, comes within the later cla.s.s.

I trust that if some parts of the book are thought to be frivolous, the chapters on lists of errata and misprints may be found to contain some useful literary information.

I have availed myself of the published communications of my friends Professors Hales and Skeat and Dr.

Murray on Literary Blunders, and my best thanks are also due to several friends who have helped me with some curious instances, and I would specially mention Sir George Birdwood, K.C.I.E., C.SI.., Mr. Edward Clodd, Mr. R. B. Prosser, and Sir Henry Trueman Wood_.

LITERARY BLUNDERS.

CHAPTER I.

BLUNDERS IN GENERAL.

THE words ''blunder'' and ''mistake''

are often treated as synonyms; thus we usually call our own blunders mistakes, and our friends style our mistakes blunders.

In truth the cla.s.s of blunders is a sub- division of the _genus_ mistakes. Many mistakes are very serious in their consequences, but there is almost always some sense of fun connected with a blunder, which is a mistake usually caused by some mental confusion. Lexicographers state that it is an error due to stupidity and carelessness, but blunders are often caused

by a too great sharpness and quickness.

Sometimes a blunder is no mistake at all, as when a man blunders on the right explanation; thus he arrives at the right goal, but by an unorthodox road. Sir Roger L'Estrange says that ''it is one thing to forget a matter of fact, and another to _blunder_ upon the reason of it.''

Some years ago there was an article in the _Sat.u.r.day Review_ on ''the knowledge necessary to make a blunder,'' and this t.i.tle gives the clue to what a blunder really is. It is caused by a confusion of two or more things, and unless something is known of these things a blunder cannot be made. A perfectly ignorant man has not sufficient knowledge to make a blunder.

An ordinary blunder may die, and do no great harm, but a literary blunder often has an extraordinary life. Of literary blunders probably the philological are the most persistent and the most difficult to kill. In this cla.s.s may be mentioned (1) Ghost words, as they are called by Professor Skeat--words, that is, which have been registered, but which never really existed; (2) Real words that exist through a mis

take; and (3) Absurd etymologies, a large division crammed with delicious blunders.

1. Professor Skeat, in his presidential address to the members of the Philological Society in 1886, gave a most interesting account of some hundred ghost words, or words which have no real existence. Those who wish to follow out this subject must refer to the _Philological Transactions_, but four specially curious instances may be mentioned here. These four words are ''abacot,'' ''knise,'' ''morse,'' and ''polien.''

_Abacot_ is defined by Webster as ''the cap of state formerly used by English kings, wrought into the figure of two crowns''; but Dr. Murray, when he was preparing the _New English Dictionary_, discovered that this was an interloper, and unworthy of a place in the language. It was found to be a mistake for _by-c.o.c.ket_, which is the correct word. In spite of this exposure of the impostor, the word was allowed to stand, with a woodcut of an abacot, in an important dictionary published subsequently, although Dr. Murray's remarks were quoted. This shows how difficult it is to kill a word which has

once found shelter in our dictionaries.

_Knise_ is a charming word which first appeared in a number of the _Edinburgh Review_ in 1808. Fortunately for the fun of the thing, the word occurred in an article on Indian Missions, by Sydney Smith. We read, ''The Hindoos have some very strange customs, which it would be desirable to abolish. Some swing on hooks, some run _knises_ through their hands, and widows burn themselves to death.'' The reviewer was attacked for his statement by Mr. John Styles, and he replied in an article on Methodism printed in the _Edinburgh_ in the following year.

Sydney Smith wrote: ''Mr. Styles is peculiarly severe upon us for not being more shocked at their piercing their limbs with _knises_ . . . it is for us to explain the plan and nature of this terrible and unknown piece of mechanism. A _knise_, then, is neither more nor less than a false print in the _Edinburgh Review_ for a knife; and from this blunder of the printer has Mr.

Styles manufactured this D

of one of Scott's novels, but here there is the further amusing circ.u.mstance that the etymology of the false word was settled to the satisfaction of some of the readers. In the majority of editions of _The Monastery_, chapter x., we read: ''Hardened wretch (said Father Eustace), art thou but this instant delivered from death, and dost thou so soon morse thoughts of slaughter?''

This word is nothing but a misprint of _nurse_; but in _Notes and Queries_ two independent correspondents accounted for the word _morse_ etymologically. One explained it as ''to prime,'' as when one primes a musket, from O. Fr. _amorce_, powder for the touchhole (Cotgrave), and the other by ''to bite'' (Lat. _mordere_), hence ''to indulge in biting, stinging or gnawing thoughts of slaughter.'' The latter writes: ''That the word as a misprint should have been printed and read by millions for fifty years without being challenged and altered exceeds the bounds of probability.'' Yet when the original MS. of Sir Walter Scott was consulted, it was found that the word was there plainly written _nurse_.

The Saxon letter for _th_ () has long

been a sore puzzle to the uninitiated, and it came to be represented by the letter y.

Most of those who think they are writing in a specially archaic manner when they spell ''ye'' for ''the'' are ignorant of this, and p.r.o.nounce the article as if it were the p.r.o.noun. Dr. Skeat quotes a curious instance of the misreading of the thorn () as _p_, by which a strange ghost word is evolved. Whitaker, in his edition of Piers Plowman, reads that Christ ''_polede_ for man,'' which should be _tholede_, from _tholien_, to suffer, as there is no such verb as _polien_.

Dr. J. A. H. Murray, the learned editor of the Philological Society's _New English Dictionary_, quotes two amusing instances of ghost words in a communication to _Notes and Queries_ (7th S., vii. 305). He says: ''Possessors of Jamieson's Scottish Dictionary will do well to strike out the fict.i.tious entry _cietezour_, cited from b.e.l.l.e.n.den's _Chronicle_ in the plural _cietezouris_, which is merely a misreading of cietezanis (_i.e_. with Scottish z = = y), _cieteyanis_ or citeyanis, b.e.l.l.e.n.den's regular word for _citizens_. One regrets to see this absurd

mistake copied from Jamieson (unfortunately without acknowledgment) by the compilers of Ca.s.sell's _Encyclop

''Some editions of Drayton's _Barons Wars_, Bk. VI., st. x.x.xvii., read--

'' 'And ciffy Cynthus with a thousand birds,'

which nonsense is solemnly reproduced in Campbell's _Specimens of the British Poets_, iii. 16. It may save some readers a needless reference to the dictionary to remember that it is a misprint for cliffy, a favourite word of Drayton's.''

2. In contrast to supposed words that never did exist, are real words that exist through a mistake, such as _ap.r.o.n_ and _adder_, where the _n_, which really belongs to the word itself, has been supposed, mistakenly, to belong to the article; thus ap.r.o.n should be nap.r.o.n (Fr. _naperon_), and adder should be nadder (A.-S. _n

the word has thus been quite lost sight of, and at the first organisation of the Province of Upper Canada, in 1798, the county of Lincoln was divided into _four_ ridings and the county of York into _two_. York was afterwards supplied with _four_.

Sir Henry Bennet, in the reign of Charles II., took his t.i.tle of Earl of Arlington owing to a blunder. The proper name of the village in Middles.e.x is Harlington.

A curious misunderstanding in the Marriage Service has given us two words instead of one. We now vow to remain united till death us _do part_, but the original declaration, as given in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI., was: ''I, N., take thee N., to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us depart [or separate].''

It is not worth while here to register the many words which have taken their present spelling through a mistaken view of their etymology. They are too numerous, and the consideration of them would open up a

question quite distinct from the one now under consideration.

3. Absurd etymology was once the rule, because guessing without any knowledge of the historical forms of words was general; and still, in spite of the modern school of philology, which has shown us the right way, much wild guessing continues to be prevalent. It is not, however, often that we can point to such a brilliant instance of blundering etymology as that to be found in Barlow's English Dictionary (1772). The word _porcelain_ is there said to be ''derived from _pour cent annes_, French for a hundred years, it having been imagined that the materials were matured underground for that term of years.''

Richardson, the novelist, suggests an etymology almost equal to this. He writes, ''What does correspondence mean?

It is a word of Latin origin: a compound word; and the two elements here brought together are _respondeo_, I answer, and _cor_, the heart: _i.e_., I answer feelingly, I reply not so much to the head as to the heart.''

Dr. Ash's English Dictionary, published in 1775, is an exceedingly useful work, as

containing many words and forms of words nowhere else registered, but it contains some curious mistakes. The chief and best-known one is the explanation of the word _curmudgeon_--''from the French cur, unknown, and _mechant_, a correspondent.''

The only explanation of this absurdly confused etymology is that an ignorant man was employed to copy from Johnson's Dictionary, where the authority was given as ''an unknown correspondent,''

and he, supposing these words to be a translation of the French, set them down as such. The two words _esoteric_ and _exoteric_ were not so frequently used in the last century as they are now; so perhaps there may be some excuse for the following entry: ''Esoteric (adj. an incorrect spelling) exoteric.'' Dr. Ash could not have been well read in Arthurian literature, or he would not have turned the n.o.ble knight Sir Gawaine into a woman, ''the sister of King Arthur.'' There is a story of a blunder in Littleton's Latin Dictionary, which further research has proved to be no mistake at all. It is said that when the Doctor was compiling his work, and

announced the word _concurro_ to his amanuensis, the scribe, imagining from the sound that the six first letters would give the translation of the verb, said ''Concur, sir, I suppose?'' to which the Doctor peevishly replied, ''Concur--condog!''

and in the edition of 1678 ''condog'' is printed as one interpretation of _concurro_.

Now, an answer to this story is that, however odd a word ''condog'' may appear, it will be found in Henry c.o.c.keram's _English Dictionarie_, first published in 1623. The entry is as follows: ''to agree, concurre, cohere, condog, condiscend.''

Mistakes are frequently made in respect of foreign words which retain their original form, especially those which retain their Latin plurals, the feminine singular being often confused with the neuter plural. For instance, there is the word _animalcule_ (plural _animalcules_), also written _animalculum _(plural _animalcula_). Now, the plural _animalcula_ is often supposed to be the feminine singular, and a new plural is at once made--_animalcul

_strat

In connection with popular etymology, it seems proper to make a pa.s.sing mention of the sailors' perversion of the Bellerophon into the Billy Ruffian, the Hirondelle into the Iron Devil, and La Bonne Corvette into the Bonny Cravat. Some of the supposed changes in public-house signs, such as Bull and Mouth from ''Boulogne mouth,'' and Goat and Compa.s.ses from ''G.o.d encompa.s.seth us,'' are more than doubtful; but the Baccha.n.a.ls has certainly changed into the Bag o' nails, and the George Canning into the George and Cannon. The words in the language that have been formed from a false a.n.a.logy are so numerous and have so often been noted that we must not allow them to detain us here longer.

Imaginary persons have been brought into being owing to blundering misreading.

For instance, there are many saints in the Roman calendar whose individuality it would not be easy to prove. All

know how St. Veronica came into being, and equally well known is the origin of St. Ursula and her eleven thousand virgins.

In this case, through the misreading of her name, the unfortunate virgin martyr Undecimilla has dropped out of the calendar.

Less known is the origin of Saint Xynoris, the martyr of Antioch, who is noticed in the _Martyrologie Romaine_ of Baronius.

Her name was obtained by a misreading of Chrysostom, who, referring to two martyrs, uses the word s> (couple or pair).

In the City of London there is a church dedicated to St. Vedast, which is situated in Foster Lane, and is often described as St. Vedast, _alias_ Foster. This has puzzled many, and James Paterson, in his _Pietas Londinensis_ (1714), hazarded the opinion that the church was dedicated to ''two conjunct saints.'' He writes: ''At the first it was called St. Foster's in memory of some founder or ancient benefactor, but afterwards it was dedicated to St.

Vedast, Bishop of Arras.'' Newcourt makes a similar mistake in his _Reper

torium_, but Thomas Fuller knew the truth, and in his _Church History_ refers to ''St. Vedastus, _anglice_ St. Fosters.'' This is the fact, and the name St. Fauster or Foster is nothing more than a corruption of St. Vedast, all the steps of which we now know. My friend Mr. Danby P. Fry worked this out some years ago, but his difficulty rested with the second syllable of the name Foster; but the links in the chain of evidence have been completed by reference to Mr. H. C. Maxwell Lyte's valuable Report on the Ma.n.u.scripts of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's. The first stage in the corruption took place in France, and the name must have been introduced into this country as Vast.

This loss of the middle consonant is in accordance with the constant practice in early French of dropping out the consonant preceding an accented vowel, as _reine_ from _regina_. The change of _Augustine_ to _Austin_ is an a.n.a.logous instance. _Vast_ would here be p.r.o.nounced _Vaust_, in the same way as the word _vase_ is still sometimes p.r.o.nounced _vause_. The interchange of _v_ and _f_, as in the cases of

_Vane_ and _Fane_ and _fox_ and _vixen_, is too common to need more than a pa.s.sing notice. We have now arrived at the form St. Faust, and the evidence of the old deeds of St. Paul's explains the rest, showing us that the second syllable has grown out of the possessive case. In one of 8 Edward III. we read of the ''King's highway, called Seint Fastes lane.'' Of course this was p.r.o.nounced St. _Fausts_, and we at once have the two syllables.

The next form is in a deed of May 1360, where it stands as ''Seyn Fastreslane.''

We have here, not a final _r_ as in the latest form, but merely an intrusive trill. This follows the rule by which thesaurus became _treasure, Hebudas, Hebrides_, and _culpatus, culprit_. After the great Fire of London, the church was re-named St. Vedast (_alias_ Foster)--a form of the name which it had never borne before, except in Latin deeds as Vedastus.[1] More might be said

of the corruptions of names in the cases of other saints, but these corruptions are more the cause of blunders in others than blunders in themselves. It is not often that a new saint is evolved with such an English name as Foster.

[1] See an article by the Author in _The Athen

The existence of the famous St. Vitus has been doubted, and his dance (_Ch.o.r.ea Sancti Vit

''Mabillon has preserved a curious literary blunder of some pious Spaniards who applied to the Pope for consecrating a day in honour of Saint Viar. His Holiness in the voluminous catalogue of his saints was ignorant of this one. The only proof brought forward for his existence was this inscription:--