counting his sheep, he employs the expression πεμπεσθαι, etc.,-he fived them-showing that their five fingers were originally the limits of their arithmetical notions. And whether or not there be any connection between deka (ten) and duo echo, * or between pente (five) and panta (all), our 'DIGIT' (Latin digitus, a finger) at least gives a strong confirmation to the supposition; while 'CALCULATE' clearly tells of the calculi, or pebbles which the ancients employed to assist them in their arithmetical difficulties. A ludicrous example of this same attempt to tint things up couleur de rose is furnished in the word 'PAMPER,' a term which the Italians have given usbeing, I believe, in their language pambere, that is, 'pane,' bread, and 'bere' drink-so that it was originally nothing more luxurious than bread and drink, plenty even of that, however, being considered as enough to 'pamper' one. Just as the French viande, meat, flesh, becomes our English 'VIANDS' which carries the idea of something more dainty still! Again that French verb affronter which merely implies a meeting face to face-a coming up, ad frons, to the forehead, without any necessary hostility-gives us our 'AFFRONT,' with all its causticity of application. We said it did not necessarily imply hostility. Shakespeare suggests numerous examples of its employment in this neutral sense. Thus, in Hamlet, the King says: * Just as I have seen it stated that the Gothic Teiga, tein, our 'TEN' is just tai-hun that is two hands! But Tooke is more rational. "For we have closely sent for Hamlet hither; Hamlet III. 1. And indeed it would seem impossible for us irascible Saxons to have even an 'ENCOUNTER' without converting it into a downright battle. A 'MEETING' almost always conveys the idea of something sinister hidden beneath it. And we cannot have even the slightest cause of complaint-querela-without picking a 'QUARREL' out of it! It may be worth noticing in this connection, the feelings, embalmed in language, which have given rise to words expressive of Grandeur and Pettiness-may we not read therein a curious piece of man's mind? There seems to have been all along a very natural, yet rather ludicrous association of grandeur and pettiness with mere physical greatness or littleness. Thus our metaphorical 'GRAND' is simply the French grand -implying merely tall, large; while their petit, or little, become our 'PETTY' which is less still.* But, indeed, there is something so impressive and imposing about bodily bigness, that we wonder not that those old heroic Normans (or Northmen) did appear very 'magnificent,' with their great tallness-what they called 'HAUTEUR' (haut, high), which, alas, all too soon degenerated into mere 'HAUGHTINESS;' or that their 'MAJESTIES,' 'HIGHNESSES,' 'MAGNATES' and 'GRANDEES' should soon have absorbed all nobility and authority. Often, too, has man tried to gild over his vices with a fine name, calling those 'GALLANTS' who have no claim to the title, giving to persons whose sad life can be gilded with but few rays of genuine joy the appellation of 'FILLES DE JOIE,' covering a blackleg with the mantle of 'CHEVALIER D'INDUSTRIE,' and declaring that a 'PARAMOUR' is one who is lovedpar amour-very affectionately, although, by the way, Flute, the bellows-mender, understood the matter better than that: "Flute. He hath simply the best wit of any handicraft man in Athens. * French bigness (gros, grosse), however, degenerates into English 'GROSSNESS,' a fact of curious historic significance. † And see it used in this good sense throughout the whole of our old English literature. Quince. Yea, and the best person too: and he is a very paramour for a sweet voice. Flute. You must say, 'PARAGON:' a paramour is, God bless us, a thing of naught." Midsummer Nights' Dream IV. 2. On the contrary words often do not get their due, and debts which they never contracted are laid to their account. À 'LIBEL,' for instance, is properly just a libellus, a little book-what we call a pamphlet: as if it would insinuate that the only purpose of such is to defame and malign! So a 'LEGEND' is simply something to be read-legendum;* while 'REVEREND' evidently declares that it ought to be revered-reverendus; and a 'MAXIM' affirms that it is maximum -of the greatest importance. SO 'CATER,' which is coming with us to acquire a somewhat contemptuous meaning, has no such stain on its birth-it is simply to buy or purchase (acheter) for one. So I find in Ben Jonson "He is my ward-robe man, my acater, cook, The Devil an Ass I. 3.1 * For the corruption of this word see Tooke's Diversions of Purley. † Here the word is acater, which is nearly the original form, and yet in Chaucer I find it achator (Canterbury Tales 570 et passim) which is nearer still. 'OBSEQUIOUs' is another instance of this same downward tendency in words. For primitively the word has no opprobrious import, signifying simply following after, a meaning which becomes present from our use of 'OBSEQUIES' which is just the following the dead to the tomb; and in the elder dramatists we frequently meet with this primary application of 'obsequious.' Thus Shakespeare "How many a holy and obsequious [that is funereal] tear Sonnet XXXI. Now, however, we employ it but to express that cringing compliance that leads one to follow after the favor or fancy of another, or shape one's principles or practice according to his whims. And lastly I may mention the term 'GOSSIP' which tells a strange story: for originally it was just the name applied to sponsors at baptism-literally God-sibb: 'sibb,' related (to the child, in or through) God! Verstegan makes the matter clear: "Our Christian ancestors understanding a spirituall affinity for to grow betweene the parents, and such as undertooke for the childe at baptisme, called each other by the name of God-sib, |