Notes.
Reading edition
ELIMINATE.
(Vol. v., p. 317.)
"N. & Q." has from time to time done much good service by holding up to reprobation modern and growing corruptions of the English language. I trust that its columns may be open to one more attempt to rescue from abuse the word which stands at the head of this article.
Its signification, whether sought from Latin usage and etymology, or from the works of English mathematicians, is "to turn out of doors," "to oust," or, as we say in the midland counties, "to get shut of." In French it may be rendered as well by se défaire as by éliminer. Within the last seven or eight years, however, this valuable spoil of dead Latinity has been strangely perverted, and, through the ignorance or carelessness of writers, it has bidden fair to take to itself two significations utterly distinct from its derivation, viz. to "elicit," and to "evaluate." The former signification, if less vicious, is more commonly used than the latter. I append examples of both from three of the most elegant writers of the day. In the third extract the word under consideration is used in the latter sense; in the other extracts it carries the former.
Lectures on the Philosophical Tendencies of the Age, by J. D. Morrell, London, 1848, p. 41.:
"Had the men of ancient times, when they peopled the universe with deities, a deeper perception of the religious element in the mind, than had Newton, when having eliminated the great law of the natural creation, his enraptured soul burst forth into the infinite and adored?"
I take one more illustration (among many others) from pp. 145, 146. of this work:
"It would not be strictly speaking correct to call them philosophical methods, because a philosophical method only exists when any tendency works itself clear, and gives rise to a formal, connected, and logical system of rules, by which we are to proceed in the elimination of truth."
The Eclipse of Faith, by Professor Rogers, London, 1852, p. 392.:
"They are now at college, and have imbibed in different degrees that curious theory which professedly recognises Christianity (as consigned to the New Testament) as a truly divine revelation, yet asserts that it is intermingled with a large amount of error and absurdity, and tells each man to eliminate the divine 'element' for himself. According to this theory, the problem of eliciting revealed truth may be said to be indeterminate, the value of the unknown varies through all degrees of magnitude; it is equal to any thing, equal to every thing, equal to nothing, equal to infinity."
Theological Essays, by F. D. Maurice, Cambridge, 1853, p. 89.:
"Let us look, therefore, courageously at the popular dogma, that there are certain great ideas floating in the vast ocean of traditions which the old world exhibits to us, that the gospel appropriated some of these, and that we are to detect them and eliminate them from its own traditions."
But for the fact that such writers have given the weight of their names to so unparalleled a blunder, it would seem almost childish to occupy the columns of a literary periodical with exposing it. It is, however, somewhat singular that it should be principally men of classical attainments who perpetrate it. In my under-graduate days at Cambridge, the proneness of "classical men" to commit the blunder in question was proverbial.
In conclusion, then, let it be remembered that the word "eliminate" obtained general currency from the circumstance of its being originally admitted into mathematical works. In such works elimination signifies the process of causing a function to disappear from an equation, the solution of which would be embarrassed by its presence there. In other writings the word "elimination" has but one correct signification, viz. "the extrusion of that which is superfluous or irrelevant." As an example of this legitimate use of the word, I will quote from Sir William Hamilton's accurate, witty, and learned article on "Logic," published in the Edinburgh Review, April, 1833:
"The preparatory step of the discussion was, therefore, an elimination of these less precise and appropriate significations, which, as they could at best only afford a remote genus and difference, were wholly incompetent for the purpose of a definition."
C. Mansfield Ingleby.
Birmingham.
CRANMER'S BIBLE.
Queries which I have heard at various times lead me to think that a Note on this interesting volume may be acceptable to many readers who possess or have access to it; and especially to those whose copies may be (as too many are) imperfect at the beginning and end. Under this impression I send you an extract from the late Mr. Lea Wilson's catalogue of his unrivalled Collection of English Bibles. As very few copies of this curious and beautiful work were printed, and not one, I believe, has been sold, it is probable that few of your readers are aware of the criteria which that gentleman's ingenuity and industry have furnished for distinguishing between the various editions which are known under the title of The Great Bible, or Cranmer's Bible. He begins his description of the edition of April, 1539, thus:
"As this volume is commonly called the First Edition of Cranmer's or the Great Bible, I class it with the Six following; although in fact the Archbishop had nothing whatever to do with either the translation or publication. It was put forth entirely by Thomas Lord Cromwell, vide Herbert's Ames, p. 1550. vol. iii., who employed Coverdale to revise the existing translations. The first wherein Cranmer took any part is the large folio of April 1540, the text of which differs from this edition materially. The pages of this volume and of the four next following begin and end alike; and the general appearance of the whole five is so very similar that at first sight, one may be mistaken for another by those ignorant of the fact that they are all separate and distinct impressions: the whole of the titles, of which there are five in each Book, and every leaf of kalendar, prologue, text, and tables being entirely recomposed, and varying throughout in orthography, &c. The desire to make perfect copies out of several imperfect, has also caused extreme confusion, by uniting portions of different editions without due regard to their identity. These remarks apply equally to the editions of Nov. 1540, and Nov. 1541, of which, in like manner, each page begins and ends with the same words. Although the distinctive marks are very numerous, yet being chiefly typographical ornaments or arrangement, it is impossible to give here sufficient guides to ensure the integrity of each volume."—Page 12.
On the next page but one is added:
"The following lines of the forty-first chapter of Job differ in composition in all the seven volumes, and for the purpose of distinguishing the edition I have given them to each."
No. 1. April, 1539.
No mā is so cruell, that is able to stere him up. *Who is able to stande before me? Or ‡who hath geuē me anything afore hande, that I maye rewarde him agayne? All thynges un-
No. 2. April, 1540.
No man is so cruell, yt is able to stere hī up. *Who is able to stāde before me? Or ‡who hath geuen me any thyng afore hāde, ye I maye rewarde him agayne? All thynges
No. 3. July, 1540.
No man is so cruell, yt is able to stere hym up. *who is able to stande before me? Or ‡who hath geuen me any thynge aforehande, that I maye rewarde him agayne?
No. 4. May, 1541.
No man is so cruell, that is hable to styrre hym up. *Who is hable to stande before me? Or ‡who hath geue me any thing aforehande, that I maye rewarde hym agayne? All thyn-
No. 5. December, 1541.
No mā is so cruel, that is able to styrre hym up. *Who is hable to stand before me? Or ‡who hathe gyuen me anye thynge afore hande, that I maye rewarde hym agayne?
No. 6. November, 1540.
No man is so cruell that is able to styr hym up. *Who is able to stande before me? Or ‡who hath geuen me any thynge afore hande, that I maye re-
No. 7. November, 1541.
No man is so cruell that is hable to styrre hym up. *Who is able to stande before me? Or ‡who hath gyuen me any thyng afore hande, that I maye rewarde hym agayne? All
I believe the foregoing to be an exact copy of Mr. Wilson's catalogue, but, of course, I cannot be responsible for the accuracy of his transcripts. Perhaps none but those who were admitted to his library ever had an opportunity of comparing together all those editions; and nobody would have done it with more care and fidelity than himself.
S. R. M.
SOVEREIGNS DINING AND SUPPING IN PUBLIC.
The papers of the period of George II. say:
"There was such a resort to Hampton Court on Sunday, July 14, 1728, to see their Majesties dine, that the rail surrounding the table broke; and causing some to fall, made a terrible scramble for hats, &c., at which their Majesties laughed heartily."
And,—
"On Thursday, the 25th of the same month, it is stated, the concourse to see their Majesties dine in public at Hampton Court was exceedingly great. A gang of robbers (the swell-mob of that day?) had mixed themselves among the nobility and gentry; several gold watches being lost, besides the ladies' gown tails and laced lappets cut off in number."
And again:
"On Sunday, 15th September, 1728, their Majesties dined together in public at Windsor (as they will continue to do every Sunday and Thursday during their stay there), when all the country people, whether in or out of mourning, were permitted to see them."
Besides those three occasions of George II. and Queen Caroline dining in public, we have another recorded attended with some peculiar circumstances, as mentioned in the London Gazette, No. 7623. of Tuesday, Aug. 2, 1737:
"The 31st ult. being Sunday, their Majesties, the Prince and Princess of Wales, and the Princesses Amelia and Caroline, went to chapel at Hampton Court, and heard a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Blomer. Their Majesties, and the rest of the royal family, dined afterwards in public as usual before a great number of spectators. About seven o'clock that evening, the Princess of Wales was taken with some slight symptoms of approaching labour, and was removed to St. James's; where, a little after eleven, she was delivered of a princess."
This was the Princess Augusta, who was married to the Prince of Brunswick Wolfenbüttel.
Φ.
Richmond.
PARALLEL IDEAS FROM POETS.
Longfellow and Tennyson:
"And like a lily on a river floating, She floats upon the river of his thoughts." Spanish Student, Act II. Sc. 3. "Now folds the lily all her sweetness up, And slips into the bosom of the lake; So fold thyself, my dearest, thou, and slip Into my bosom and be lost in me." Princess, Part vii.
Wordsworth and Keble:
"A book, upon whose leaves some chosen plants By his own hand disposed with nicest care, In undecaying beauty were preserved;— Mute register, to him, of time and place, And various fluctuations in the breast; To her, a monument of faithful love Conquered, and in tranquillity retained!" Excursion, Book vi. "Like flower-leaves in a precious volume stor'd, To solace and relieve Some heart too weary of the restless world." Christian Year: Prayers to be used at Sea.
Moore and Keble:
"Now by those stars that glance O'er Heaven's still expanse Weave we our mirthful dance, Daughters of Zea!" Evenings in Greece. "Beneath the moonlight sky, The festal warblings flow'd, Where maidens to the Queen of Heaven Wove the gay dance." Christian Year: Eighth Sunday after Trinity.
Norris Deck.
Cambridge.
THE GREAT ALPHABETIC PSALM, AND THE SONGS OF DEGREES.
The words at the commencement of Psalms cxx. to cxxxiv., rendered "Song of Degrees," appear to me to signify rather "song of ascents," in reference to the Jewish practice of ascending to the house-top to watch and pray, as well as to sleep. If it be assumed that these fifteen Psalms were appropriated for domestic use on the Jew retiring, by ascending the ladder or stairs, to the upper part or top of the house (Ps. cxxxii. 3.), the meaning of several passages will be better apprehended, I conceive, than by supposing that they were composed solely for temple use, or, as Eichhorn thinks, to be sung on a journey. Standing on the house-top, the praying Jew, like David and Solomon, would have in view heaven and earth (cxxi. 2., cxxiii 1.), the sun and moon (cxxi. 6.), the surrounding hills (cxxi. 1.) and mountains (cxxv. 2.), the gates and city of Jerusalem (cxxii. 2. 3. 7.), Mount Zion (cxxv. 1.), the watchmen on the walls (cxxvii. 1., cxxx. 6.), his wife and children at home (cxxviii. 3., cxxxi. 2.), the mover bringing in his sheaves, compared with the grass on the house-tops (cxxix. 6-8.), all subjects especially noted in these fifteen Psalms. The number eight appears to be a favourite one in these, as well as in Psalm cxix., but there is no reason to believe that such number refers to the octave in music. It may refer, however, to the number of stairs or steps of ascent. I am not aware that the above views have been previously taken, which is my reason for calling attention to this interesting and well-debated subject.
T. J. Buckton.