{540}
* * * * *
"ES TU SCOLARIS."
Allow me through your pages to ask some of your correspondents for
information respecting an old and very curious book, which I picked up the
other day. It is a thin _unpaged_ octavo of twelve leaves, in black-letter
type, without printer's name or date; but a pencil-note at the bottom of a
quaint woodcut, representing a teacher and scholars, gives a date 1470! And
in style of type, abbreviations, &c., it seems evidently of about the same
age with another book which I bought at the same time, and which bears date
as printed at "Padua, 1484."
The book about which I inquire bears the title _Es tu Scolaris_, and is a
Latin-German or Dutch grammar, of a most curious and primitive character,
proving very manifestly that when William Lilly gave to the world the old
_Powle's Grammar_, it was not before such a work was needed. A few extracts
from my book will give some idea of the erudition and etymological
profundity of the "learned Theban" who compiled this guide to the Temple of
Learning, which, if they do not instruct, will certainly amuse your
readers. I should premise that the contractions and abbreviations in the
printing of the book are so numerous and arbitrary, that it is extremely
difficult to read, and that this style of printing condenses the
subject-matter so much, that the twelve leaves would, in modern typography,
extend to twenty or thirty. The book commences in the interrogatory style,
in the words of its title, _Es tu Scolaris?_--"_Sum._" It then proceeds to
ring the changes on this word "_sum_," what part of speech, what kind of
verb, &c.; and setting it down as _verbum anormalium_, goes on to enumerate
the anormalous verbs in this verse,--
"Sum, volo, fero, atque edo,
Tot et anormala credo."
Now begins the curious lore of the volume:
"_Q._ Unde derivatur _sum_?
_A._ Derivatur a greca dictione, _hemi_ ([Greek: emi]); mutando _h_ in
_s_ et _e_ in _u_, et deponendo _i_, _sic habes sum_!"
I dare say this process of derivation will be new to your classical
readers, but as we proceed, they will say, "Foregad this is more exquisite
fooling still."
"_Q._ Unde derivatur _volo_?
_A._ Derivatur a _beniamin_ (sic pro [Greek: boulomai]) grece; mutando
_ben_ in _vo_ et _iamin_ in _lo_, sic habes _volo_. Versus
Est _volo_ formatum
A _beniamin_, bene vocatum.
_Q._ Unde derivatur _fero_?
_A._ Dicitur a _phoos_! grece; mutando _pho_ in _fe_ et _os_ in _ro_,
sic habes _fero_!
_Q._ Unde derivatur _edo_?
_A._ A _phagin_, grece; mutando _pha_ in _e_ et _gin_ in _do_, sic
habes _edo_!"
Here be news for etymologists, and proofs, moreover, that when some of the
zealous antagonists of Martin Luther in the next century denounced "Heathen
Greek" as a diabolical _invention_ of his, there was little in the grammar
knowledge of the day to contradict the accusation.
But we have not yet exhausted the wonders and virtues of the word _sum_;
the grammar lesson goes on to ask,--
"_Q._ Quare _sum_ non desinit in _o_ nec in _or_?
_A._ Ad habendum, _d[=r][=n]am_[2] [I cannot expand this contraction,
though from the context it means a mark or token], dignitatis sue
respectu aliorum verborum.
_Q._ Declara hoc, et quomodo?
_A._ Quia per _sum_ intelligitur Trinitas, cum tres habeat litteras,
scl. _s_. _u_. et _m_. Etiam illud verbum sum, quamvis de omnibus dici
valeat, tamen de Deo et Trinitate proprie dicitur.
_Q._ Quare _sum_ potius terminatur in _m_ quam in _n_?
_A._ Quia proprie _m_ rursus intelligitur Trinitas, cum illa littera
_m_, tria habet puncta."
I shall feel much obliged for any particulars about this literary curiosity
which you or any of your correspondents can give.