Читать книгу: «Notes and Queries, Number 39, July 27, 1850», страница 4

REPLIES

A TREATISE ON EQUIVOCATION

My attention has recently been drawn to the inquiry of J.M. (Vol. i., p. 260.) respecting the work bearing this name. He inquires, "Was the book ever extant in MS. or print? What is its size, date, and extent?" These questions may in part be answered by the following extracts from Parsons's Treatise tending to Mitigation, 1607, to which J.M. refers as containing, "perhaps, all the substance of the Roman equivocation," &c. It appears from these extracts that the treatise was circulated in MS.; that it consisted of ten chapters, and was on eight or nine sheets of paper. If Parsons' statements are true, he, who was then at Douay, or elsewhere out of England, had not seen it till three years after it was referred to publicly by Sir E. Coke, in 1604. Should the description aid in discovering the tract in any library, it may in answering J.M.'s second Query, "Is it now extant, and where?"

(Cap. i. § iii. p. 440.):—

"To hasten then to the matter, I am first to admonish the reader, that whereas this minister doth take upon him to confute a certain Catholicke manuscript Treatise, made in defence of Equivocation, and intercepted (as it seemeth) by them, I could never yet come to the sight therof, and therfore must admit," &c.

And (p 44):—

"This Catholicke Treatise, which I have hope to see ere it be long, and if it come in time, I may chance by some appendix, to give you more notice of the particulars."

In the conclusion (cap. xiii. §ix. p. 553.):—

"And now at this very instant having written hitherto, cometh to my handes the Catholicke Treatise itselfe of Equivocation before meneyoned," &c.... "Albeit the whole Treatise itselfe be not large, nor conteyneth above 8 or 9 sheetes of written paper."

And (§ xi. p. 554.):—

"Of ten chapters he omitteth three without mention."

I.B.

FURTHER NOTES ON THE DERIVATION OF THE WORD "NEWS."

I have too much respect for the readers of "NOTES AND QUERIES" to consider it necessary to point out seriatim the false conclusions arrived at by MR. HICKSON, at page 81.

The origin of "news" may now be safely left to itself, one thing at least being certain—that the original purpose of introducing the subject, that of disproving its alleged derivation from the points of the compass, is fully attained. No person has come forward to defend that derivation, and therefore I hope that the credit of expunging such a fallacy from books of reference will hereafter be due to "NOTES AND QUERIES".

I cannot avoid, however, calling Mr. Hickson's attention to one or two of the most glaring of his non-sequiturs.

I quoted the Cardinal of York to show that in his day the word "newes" was considered plural. MR. HICKSON quotes me to show that in the present day it is used in the singular; therefore, he thinks that the Cardinal of York was wrong: but he must pardon me if I still consider the Cardinal an unexceptional authority as to the usage of his own time.

MR. HICKSON asserts that "odds" is not an English word; he classifies it as belonging to a language known by the term "slang," of which he declares his utter disuse. And he thinks that when used at all, the word is but an ellipsis for "odd chances." This was not the opinion of the great English lexicographer, who describes the word as—

"Odds; a noun substantive, from the adjective odd."

and he defines its meaning as "inequality," or incommensurateness. He cites many examples of its use in its various significations, with any of which MR. HICKSON's substitution would play strange pranks; here is one from Milton:—

 
"I chiefly who enjoy
So far the happier lot, enjoying thee
Pre-eminent by so much odds."
 

Then with respect to "noise," MR. HICKSON scouts the idea of its being the same word with the French "noise." Here again he is at odds with Doctor Johnson, although I doubt very much that he has the odds of him. MR. HICKSON rejects altogether the quasi mode of derivation, nor will he allow that the same word may (even in different languages) deviate from its original meaning. But, most unfortunately for MR. HICKSON, the obsolete French signification of "noise" was precisely the present English one! A French writer thus refers to it:—

"A une époque plus reculée ce mot avait un sens différent: il signifiait bruit, cries de joie, &c. Joinville dit dans son Histoire de Louis IX.,—'La noise que ils (les Sarrazins) menoient de leurs cors sarrazinnoiz estoit espouvantable à escouter.' Les Anglais nous ont emprunté cette expression et l'emploient dans sa première acception."

MR. HICKSON also lays great stress upon the absence, in English, of "the new" as a singular of "the news." In the French, however, "la nouvelle" is common enough in the exact sense of news. Will he allow nothing for the caprice of idiom?

A.E.B.

Leeds, July 8. 1850.

News, Noise (Vol. ii., p. 82.).—I think it will be found that MR. HICKSON is misinformed as to the fact of the employment of the Norman French word noise, in the French sense, in England.

Noyse, noixe, noas, or noase, (for I have met with each form), meant then quarrel, dispute, or, as a school-boy would say, a row. It was derived from noxia. Several authorities agree in these points. In the Histoire de Foulques Fitz-warin, Fouque asks "Quei fust la noyse qe fust devaunt le roi en la sale?" which with regard to the context can only be fairly translated by "What is going on in the King's hall?" For his respondent recounts to him the history of a quarrel, concerning which messengers had just arrived with a challenge.

Whether the Norman word noas acquired in time a wider range of signification, and became the English news, I cannot say but stranger changes have occurred. Under our Norman kings bacons signified dried wood, and hosebaunde a husbandman, then a term of contempt.

B.W.

"NEWS," "NOISE," AND "PARLIAMENT."

1. News.—I regret that MR. HICKSON perseveres in his extravagant notion about news, and that the learning and ingenuity which your correspondent P.C.S.S., I have no doubt justly, gives him credit for, should be so unworthily employed.

Does MR. HICKSON really "very much doubt whether our word news contains the idea of new at all?" What then has it got to do with neues?

Does MR. HICKSON'S mind, "in its ordinary mechanical action," really think that the entry of "old newes, or stale newes" in an old dictionary is any proof of news having nothing to do with new? Does he then separate health from heal and hale, because we speak of "bad health" and "ill health"?

Will MR. HICKSON explain why news may not be treated as an elliptical expression for new things, as well as greens for green vegetables, and odds for odd chances?

When MR. HICKSON says dogmaticè, "For the adoption of words we have no rule, and we act just as our convenience or necessity dictates; but in their formation we must strictly conform to the laws we find established,"—does he deliberately mean to say that there are no exceptions and anomalies in the formation of language, except importations of foreign words? If he means this, I should like to hear some reasons for this wonderful simplification of grammar.

Why may not "convenience or necessity" sometimes lead us to swerve from the ordinary rules of the formulation of language, as well as to import words bodily, and, according to MR. HICKSON'S views of the origin of news, without reference to context, meaning, part of speech, or anything else?

Why may we not have the liberty of forming a plural noun news from the adjective new, though we have never used the singular new as a noun, when the French have indulged themselves with the plural noun of adjective formation, les nouvelles, without feeling themselves compelled to make une nouvelle a part of their language?

Why may we not form a plural noun news from new, to express the same idea which in Latin is expressed by nova, and in French by les nouvelles?

Why may not goods be a plural noun formed from the adjective good, exactly as the Romans formed bona and the Germans have formed Güter?

Why does MR. HICKSON compel us to treat goods as singular, and make us go back to the Gothic? Does he say that die Güter, the German for goods or possessions, is singular? Why too must riches be singular, and be the French word richesse imported into our language? Why may we not have a plural noun riches, as the Romans had divitæ, and the Germans have die Reichthumer? and what if riches be irregularly formed from the adjective rich? Are there, MR. HICKSON, no irregularities in the formation of a language? Is this really so?

If "from convenience or necessity" words are and may be imported from foreign languages bodily into our own, why might not our forefathers, feeling the convenience or necessity of having words corresponding to bona, nova, divitiæ, have formed goods, news, riches, from good, new, rich?

News must be singular, says MR. HICKSON; but means "is beyond all dispute plural," for Shakspeare talks of "a mean:" with news, however, there is the slight difficulty of the absence of the noun new to start from. Why is the absence of the singular an insuperable difficulty in the way of the formation of a plural noun from an adjective, any more than of plural nouns otherwise formed, which have no singulars, as clothes, measles, alms, &c. What says MR. HICKSON of these words? Are they all singular nouns and imported from other languages? for he admits no other irregularity in the formation of a language.

2. Noise.—I agree with MR. HICKSON that the old derivations of noise are unsatisfactory, but I continue to think his monstrous. I fear we cannot decide in your columns which of us has the right German pronunciation of neues; and I am sorry to find that you, Mr. Editor, are with MR. HICKSON in giving to the German eu the exact sound of oi in noise. I remain unconvinced, and shall continue to pronounce the eu with less fullness than oi in noise. However, this is a small matter, and I am quite content with MR. HICKSON to waive it. The derivation appears to me nonsensical, and I cannot but think would appear so to any one who was not bitten by a fancy.

I do not profess, as I said before, to give the root of noise. But it is probably the same as of noisome, annoy, the French nuire, Latin nocere, which brings us again to noxa; and the French word noise has probably the same root, though its specific meaning is different from that of our word noise. Without venturing to assert it dogmatically, I should expect the now usual meaning of noise to be its primary meaning, viz. "a loud sound" or "disturbance;" and this accords with my notion of its alliances. The French word bruit has both the meanings of our word noise; and to bruit and to noise are with us interchangeable terms. The French bruit also has the sense of a disturbance more definitely than our word noise. "Il y a du bruit" means "There is a row." I mention bruit and its meanings merely as a parallel case to noise, if it be, as I think, that "a loud sound" is its primary, and "a rumour" its secondary meaning.

I have no doubt there are many instances, and old ones, among our poets, and prose writers too, of the use of the noun annoy. I only remember at present Mr. Wordsworth's—

 
"There, at Blencatharn's rugged feet,
Sir Lancelot gave a safe retreat
To noble Clifford; from annoy
Concealed the persecuted boy."
 

3. Parliament.—FRANCISCUS's etymology of Parliament (Vol. ii., p. 85.) is, I think, fit companion for MR. HICKSON's derivations of news and noise. I take FRANCISCUS for a wag: but lest others of your readers may think him serious, and be seduced into a foolish explanation of the word Parliament by his joke, I hope you will allow me to mention that palam mente, literally translated, means before the mind, and that, if FRANCISCUS or any one else tries to get "freedom of thought or deliberation" out of this, or to get Parliament out of it, or even to get sense out of it, he will only follow the fortune which FRANCISCUS says has befallen all his predecessors, and stumble in limine. The presence of r, and the turning of mens into mentum, are minor difficulties. If FRANCISCUS be not a wag, he is perhaps an anti-ballot man, bent on finding an argument against the ballot in the etymology of Parliament: but whatever he be, I trust your readers generally will remain content with the old though humble explanation of parliament, that it is a modern Latinisation of the French word parlement, and that it literally means a talk-shop, and has nothing to do with open or secret voting, though it be doubtless true that Roman judges voted clam vel palam, and that palam and mens are two Latin words.

C.H.