OLDER ENGLAND.
[To THE EDITOR OF TUB "SPECTATOR."] Srs„—Permit me, as one who has paid some attention to English philology, to enter a strenuous protest against the etymologies—I might more truly say, pseuclalogies—advanced by Mr. Hodgetts in his work, which your reviewer quotes (p. 448), but too leniently abstains from stigmatising. Unless we are to believe that Skeet, and Fick, and Grimm, and Curtius, and Diez, and Littre, and Scheler have laboured altogether in vain, there can be no doubt that Mr. Hodgetts is under a series of delusions. I confine myself to those instances of his method which are cited in your notice. " Sword " is not etymologically the thing sworn upon (though, of course, that custom prevailed, teste Hamlet), but simply "the wounder ;" while swear is of quite distinct origin. "Board," in nautical -usage, as in "star- board," "larboard," has probably no direct connection with Anglo- Saxon bard, a shield (as contended), but is merely a survival of Icelandic bordh, denoting (1), a plank ; (2), the side of a ship (Vigfusson). Mr. Hodgetts is very unhappy in his remarks on this word, since "back-board," which he adduces, has nothing to do with our "back," but is akin to German back, the fore- castle, and denotes "the forecastle side" (German, back-bard), i.e., the "larboard"; and this latter word can scarcely mean the " lower " or "lurking" aide, if the old English form, lade- borde, is to be taken into account. Surely, too, "above board is merely the converse of "under the table," not under-hand, or concealed, like much of the manipulations at spiritualistie s6ances. Again, "lance"- is, of course, no curtailment of landes- knecht, but a straightforward derivative through the French from Latin lancea ; though the same cannot be said of lansquenet and the old corrupt form, lanceknight. But, strangest of all, we- are assured that "Ash Wednesday" (Dies cinerum) is properly and originally in Scandinavian the Wednesday of the Ash tree (frazinus), though the Icelanders themselves, unfortunately, refuse to know anything of an aska-odhinsclagr, and do religiously observe an osku-odhinsd,agr or osku-dagr, the day of ashes, askcc (see Cleasby and Vigfusson, p. 25; and Hampson, "Medii.1Evi Kalendarium, Glossary," p. 25). Finally, " holly " (Anglo- Saxon holen) has nothing in the world to do with "holy" (Anglo-Saxon though holly-hock has.
These light-hearted excursions into the domain of philology are, I suppose, one more instance of the proverbial reluctance of the cobbler to restrict himself to his too familiar last. We- would hardly have expected, however, to find these theories gravely propounded to a select circle in our National Museum of Antiquities. They might possibly have found a place in the fossil department, among the prehistoric curiosities.—I
Curate of Woodford, Essex.
Previous page
