CHAPTER I._Literary Blunders: A Chapter in the "History of Human Error"

Produced by Charles Keller

"Larsen EB-11" encodes are used. Comments in {brackets} need stripped.

<?_> is a special encode for unknown/non ASCII characters.

Greek characters are in the Adobe symbol font delimited by <gr >

italics <ae> and <oe> may be transposed ?? (they look alike to me.)

Footnotes are moved from end of page to end of paragraph position.

They are renumbered sequentially as well. (No. [14] is obtrusive)

Uncertain characters are marked ?? No "emphasis" _italics_ marked.

A bit of latin, greek, french, and olde englishe need spellchecked.

this whole etext NEEDS spellchecked too!! Index needs checked!

There is a <Table> on "pages" 110-111 that have LOTS of non-ascii

characters. Many have the correct encode, but layout needs work!!!

Scanned by Charles Keller with

OmniPage Professional OCR software

donated by Caere Corporation, 1-800-535-7226.

Contact Mike Lough <Mikel@caere.com>

LITERARY BLUNDERS

A CHAPTER IN THE

``_HISTORY OF HUMAN ERROR_''

HENRY B. WHEATLEY, F.S.A.

PREFACE.

----

_EVERY reader of_ The Caxtons

_will remember the description,

in that charming novel,

of the gradual growth of Augustine

Caxton's great work ``The History

of Human Error,'' and how, in fact,

the existence of that work forms the

pivot round which the incidents turn.

It was modestly expected to extend to

five quarto volumes, but only the first

seven sheets were printed by Uncle

Jack's Anti-Publishers' Society, ``with

sundry unfinished plates depicting the

various developments of the human

skull (that temple of Human Error),''

and the remainder has not been heard

of since.

In introducing to the reader a small

branch of this inexhaustible subject, I

have ventured to make use of Augustine

Caxton's title; but I trust that

no one will allow himself to imagine

that I intend, in the future, to produce

the thousand or so volumes which will

be required to complete the work.

A satirical friend who has seen the

proofs of this little volume says it

should be entitled ``Jokes Old and New'';

but I find that he seldom acknowledges

that a joke is new, and I hope, therefore,

my readers will transpose the

adjectives, and accept the old jokes for

the sake of the new ones. I may claim,

at least, that the series of answers to

examination questions, which Prof.

Oliver Lodge has so kindly supplied

me with, comes within the later class.

I trust that if some parts of the

book are thought to be frivolous, the

chapters on lists of errata and misprints

may be found to contain some

useful literary information.

I have availed myself of the published

communications of my friends

Professors Hales and Skeat and Dr.

Murray on Literary Blunders, and

my best thanks are also due to several

friends who have helped me with some

curious instances, and I would specially

mention Sir George Birdwood,

K.C.I.E., C.SI.., Mr. Edward Clodd,

Mr. R. B. Prosser, and Sir Henry

Trueman Wood_.

CONTENTS.

----

CHAPTER

BLUNDERS IN GENERAL.

PAGE

Distinction between a blunder and a mistake--

Long life of a literary blunder

--Professor Skeat's ``ghost words''--

Dr. Murray's ``ghost words''--Marriage

Service--Absurd etymology--

Imaginary persons--Family pride--

Fortunate blunders--Misquotations--

Bulls from Ireland and elsewhere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

CHAPTER II.

BLUNDERS OF AUTHORS.

Goldsmith--French memoir writers--

Historians--Napier's bones--Mr. Gladstone--

Lord Macaulay--Newspaper

writers--Critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

CHAPTER III.

BLUNDERS OF TRANSLATORS.

PAGE

``Translators are traitors''--Amusing

translations--Translations of names--

Cinderella--``Oh that mine adversary had

written a book''--Perversions of the

true meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

CHAPTER IV.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL BLUNDERS.

Watt's _Bibliotheca Britannica_--Imaginary

authors--Faulty classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

CHAPTER V.

LISTS OF ERRATA.

Early use of errata--Intentional blunders--

Authors correct their books--Ineffectual

attempts to be immaculate--Misprints

never corrected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

CHAPTER VI.

MISPRINTS.

Misprints not always amusing--A

Dictionary of Misprints--Blades's

_Shakspere and Typography_--Upper and

lower cases--Stops--Byron--Wicked

Bible--Malherbe--_Coquilles_--Hood's

lines--Chaucer--Misplacement of type . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

PAGE

CHAPTER VII.

SCHOOLBOYS' BLUNDERS.

Cleverness of these blunders--

Etymological guesses--_English as she is

Taught_--Scriptural confusions--

Musical blunders--History and geography--

How to question--Professor

Oliver Lodge's specimens of answers to

examination papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157

CHAPTER VIII.

FOREIGNERS ENGLISH.

Exhibition English--French Work on the

Societies of the World--Hotel keepers'

English--Barcelona Exhibition--Paris

Exhibition of 1889--How to learn English--

Foreign Guides in so called English

--Addition to God save the King--

Shenstone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188

INDEX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215

LITERARY BLUNDERS.

CHAPTER I.

BLUNDERS IN GENERAL.

THE words ``blunder'' and ``mistake''

are often treated as

synonyms; thus we usually

call our own blunders mistakes, and

our friends style our mistakes blunders.

In truth the class of blunders is a sub-

division of the _genus_ mistakes. Many

mistakes are very serious in their

consequences, but there is almost always some

sense of fun connected with a blunder,

which is a mistake usually caused by some

mental confusion. Lexicographers state

that it is an error due to stupidity and

carelessness, but blunders are often caused

by a too great sharpness and quickness.

Sometimes a blunder is no mistake at all,

as when a man blunders on the right

explanation; thus he arrives at the right goal,

but by an unorthodox road. Sir Roger

L'Estrange says that ``it is one thing to

forget a matter of fact, and another to

_blunder_ upon the reason of it.''

Some years ago there was an article in

the _Saturday Review_ on ``the knowledge

necessary to make a blunder,'' and this

title gives the clue to what a blunder really

is. It is caused by a confusion of two

or more things, and unless something is

known of these things a blunder cannot

be made. A perfectly ignorant man has

not sufficient knowledge to make a blunder.

An ordinary blunder may die, and do

no great harm, but a literary blunder often

has an extraordinary life. Of literary

blunders probably the philological are the

most persistent and the most difficult to

kill. In this class may be mentioned (1)

Ghost words, as they are called by Professor

Skeat--words, that is, which have been

registered, but which never really existed;

(2) Real words that exist through a mistake;

and (3) Absurd etymologies, a large

division crammed with delicious blunders.

1. Professor Skeat, in his presidential

address to the members of the Philological

Society in 1886, gave a most interesting

account of some hundred ghost words, or

words which have no real existence. Those

who wish to follow out this subject must

refer to the _Philological Transactions_, but

four specially curious instances may be

mentioned here. These four words are

``abacot,'' ``knise,'' ``morse,'' and ``polien.''

_Abacot_ is defined by Webster as ``the cap

of state formerly used by English kings,

wrought into the figure of two crowns'';

but Dr. Murray, when he was preparing

the _New English Dictionary_, discovered

that this was an interloper, and unworthy

of a place in the language. It was found

to be a mistake for _by-cocket_, which is the

correct word. In spite of this exposure

of the impostor, the word was allowed

to stand, with a woodcut of an abacot,

in an important dictionary published

subsequently, although Dr. Murray's

remarks were quoted. This shows how

difficult it is to kill a word which has

once found shelter in our dictionaries.

_Knise_ is a charming word which first

appeared in a number of the _Edinburgh

Review_ in 1808. Fortunately for the fun

of the thing, the word occurred in an

article on Indian Missions, by Sydney

Smith. We read, ``The Hindoos have

some very strange customs, which it would

be desirable to abolish. Some swing on

hooks, some run _knises_ through their

hands, and widows burn themselves to

death.'' The reviewer was attacked for

his statement by Mr. John Styles, and he

replied in an article on Methodism printed

in the _Edinburgh_ in the following year.

Sydney Smith wrote: ``Mr. Styles is

peculiarly severe upon us for not being more

shocked at their piercing their limbs with

_knises_ . . . it is for us to explain the plan

and nature of this terrible and unknown

piece of mechanism. A _knise_, then, is

neither more nor less than a false print in

the _Edinburgh Review_ for a knife; and

from this blunder of the printer has Mr.

Styles manufactured this D<ae>dalean instrument

of torture called a _knise_.'' A similar

instance occurs in a misprint of a passage

of one of Scott's novels, but here there is

the further amusing circumstance that the

etymology of the false word was settled to

the satisfaction of some of the readers. In

the majority of editions of _The Monastery_,

chapter x., we read: ``Hardened wretch

(said Father Eustace), art thou but this

instant delivered from death, and dost thou

so soon morse thoughts of slaughter?''

This word is nothing but a misprint of

_nurse_; but in _Notes and Queries_ two

independent correspondents accounted for the

word _morse_ etymologically. One explained

it as ``to prime,'' as when one primes a

musket, from O. Fr. _amorce_, powder for the

touchhole (Cotgrave), and the other by ``to

bite'' (Lat. _mordere_), hence ``to indulge

in biting, stinging or gnawing thoughts of

slaughter.'' The latter writes: ``That the

word as a misprint should have been

printed and read by millions for fifty

years without being challenged and altered

exceeds the bounds of probability.'' Yet

when the original MS. of Sir Walter Scott

was consulted, it was found that the word

was there plainly written _nurse_.

The Saxon letter for _th_ (<?p>) has long

been a sore puzzle to the uninitiated, and

it came to be represented by the letter y.

Most of those who think they are writing

in a specially archaic manner when they

spell ``ye'' for ``the'' are ignorant of this,

and pronounce the article as if it were the

pronoun. Dr. Skeat quotes a curious instance

of the misreading of the thorn (<?p>)

as _p_, by which a strange ghost word is

evolved. Whitaker, in his edition of Piers

Plowman, reads that Christ ``_polede_ for

man,'' which should be _tholede_, from

_tholien_, to suffer, as there is no such

verb as _polien_.

Dr. J. A. H. Murray, the learned editor

of the Philological Society's _New English

Dictionary_, quotes two amusing instances

of ghost words in a communication to

_Notes and Queries_ (7th S., vii. 305). He

says: ``Possessors of Jamieson's Scottish

Dictionary will do well to strike out the

fictitious entry _cietezour_, cited from Bellenden's

_Chronicle_ in the plural _cietezouris_,

which is merely a misreading of cietezanis

(_i.e_. with Scottish z = <?z> = y), _cieteyanis_ or

citeyanis, Bellenden's regular word for

_citizens_. One regrets to see this absurd

mistake copied from Jamieson (unfortunately

without acknowledgment) by the

compilers of Cassell's _Encyclop<ae>dic Dictionary_.''

``Some editions of Drayton's _Barons

Wars_, Bk. VI., st. xxxvii., read--

`` `And ciffy Cynthus with a thousand birds,'

which nonsense is solemnly reproduced in

Campbell's _Specimens of the British Poets_,

iii. 16. It may save some readers a needless

reference to the dictionary to remember

that it is a misprint for cliffy, a favourite

word of Drayton's.''

2. In contrast to supposed words that

never did exist, are real words that exist

through a mistake, such as _apron_ and _adder_,

where the _n_, which really belongs to the

word itself, has been supposed, mistakenly,

to belong to the article; thus apron should

be napron (Fr. _naperon_), and adder should

be nadder (A.-S. _n<ae>ddre_). An amusing

confusion has arisen in respect to the

Ridings of Yorkshire, of which there are

three. The word should be _triding_, but

the _t_ has got lost in the adjective, as West

Triding became West Riding. The origin of

the word has thus been quite lost sight of,

and at the first organisation of the Province

of Upper Canada, in 1798, the county of

Lincoln was divided into _four_ ridings and

the county of York into _two_. York was

afterwards supplied with _four_.

Sir Henry Bennet, in the reign of

Charles II., took his title of Earl of

Arlington owing to a blunder. The proper

name of the village in Middlesex is

Harlington.

A curious misunderstanding in the

Marriage Service has given us two words

instead of one. We now vow to remain

united till death us _do part_, but the

original declaration, as given in the first

Prayer Book of Edward VI., was: ``I, N.,

take thee N., to my wedded wife, to have

and to hold from this day forward, for

better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in

sickness and in health, to love and to

cherish, till death us depart [or separate].''

It is not worth while here to register the

many words which have taken their present

spelling through a mistaken view of their

etymology. They are too numerous, and

the consideration of them would open up a

question quite distinct from the one now

under consideration.

3. Absurd etymology was once the rule,

because guessing without any knowledge

of the historical forms of words was

general; and still, in spite of the modern

school of philology, which has shown us

the right way, much wild guessing continues

to be prevalent. It is not, however,

often that we can point to such a brilliant

instance of blundering etymology as that

to be found in Barlow's English Dictionary

(1772). The word _porcelain_ is there

said to be ``derived from _pour cent annes_,

French for a hundred years, it having been

imagined that the materials were matured

underground for that term of years.''

Richardson, the novelist, suggests an

etymology almost equal to this. He

writes, ``What does correspondence mean?

It is a word of Latin origin: a compound

word; and the two elements here brought

together are _respondeo_, I answer, and _cor_,

the heart: _i.e_., I answer feelingly, I reply

not so much to the head as to the heart.''

Dr. Ash's English Dictionary, published

in 1775, is an exceedingly useful work, as

containing many words and forms of words

nowhere else registered, but it contains

some curious mistakes. The chief and

best-known one is the explanation of the

word _curmudgeon_--``from the French

c<oe>ur, unknown, and _mechant_, a correspondent.''

The only explanation of this

absurdly confused etymology is that an

ignorant man was employed to copy from

Johnson's Dictionary, where the authority

was given as ``an unknown correspondent,''

and he, supposing these words to be a

translation of the French, set them down

as such. The two words _esoteric_ and

_exoteric_ were not so frequently used in the

last century as they are now; so perhaps

there may be some excuse for the following

entry: ``Esoteric (adj. an incorrect

spelling) exoteric.'' Dr. Ash could not

have been well read in Arthurian literature,

or he would not have turned the noble

knight Sir Gawaine into a woman, ``the

sister of King Arthur.'' There is a story

of a blunder in Littleton's Latin Dictionary,

which further research has proved to be

no mistake at all. It is said that when

the Doctor was compiling his work, and

announced the word _concurro_ to his

amanuensis, the scribe, imagining from the

sound that the six first letters would give

the translation of the verb, said ``Concur,

sir, I suppose?'' to which the Doctor

peevishly replied, ``Concur--condog!''

and in the edition of 1678 ``condog'' is

printed as one interpretation of _concurro_.

Now, an answer to this story is that, however

odd a word ``condog'' may appear,

it will be found in Henry Cockeram's

_English Dictionarie_, first published in

1623. The entry is as follows: ``to agree,

concurre, cohere, condog, condiscend.''

Mistakes are frequently made in respect

of foreign words which retain their original

form, especially those which retain their

Latin plurals, the feminine singular being

often confused with the neuter plural. For

instance, there is the word _animalcule_

(plural _animalcules_), also written _animalculum

_(plural _animalcula_). Now, the

plural _animalcula_ is often supposed to be

the feminine singular, and a new plural is

at once made--_animalcul<ae>_. This blunder

is one constantly being made, while it is

only occasionally we see a supposed plural

_strat<ae>_ in geology from a supposed singular

strata, and the supposed singular _formulum_

from a supposed plural _formula_ will probably

turn up some day.

In connection with popular etymology,

it seems proper to make a passing mention

of the sailors' perversion of the Bellerophon

into the Billy Ruffian, the Hirondelle

into the Iron Devil, and La Bonne

Corvette into the Bonny Cravat. Some

of the supposed changes in public-house

signs, such as Bull and Mouth from

``Boulogne mouth,'' and Goat and Compasses

from ``God encompasseth us,'' are

more than doubtful; but the Bacchanals

has certainly changed into the Bag o' nails,

and the George Canning into the George

and Cannon. The words in the language

that have been formed from a false analogy

are so numerous and have so often been

noted that we must not allow them to

detain us here longer.

Imaginary persons have been brought

into being owing to blundering misreading.

For instance, there are many saints

in the Roman calendar whose individuality

it would not be easy to prove. All

know how St. Veronica came into being,

and equally well known is the origin of

St. Ursula and her eleven thousand virgins.

In this case, through the misreading of

her name, the unfortunate virgin martyr

Undecimilla has dropped out of the

calendar.

Less known is the origin of Saint Xynoris,

the martyr of Antioch, who is noticed in

the _Martyrologie Romaine_ of Baronius.

Her name was obtained by a misreading

of Chrysostom, who, referring to two

martyrs, uses the word <gr xunwr<i!>s> (couple or

pair).

In the City of London there is a church

dedicated to St. Vedast, which is situated

in Foster Lane, and is often described as

St. Vedast, _alias_ Foster. This has puzzled

many, and James Paterson, in his _Pietas

Londinensis_ (1714), hazarded the opinion

that the church was dedicated to ``two

conjunct saints.'' He writes: ``At the

first it was called St. Foster's in memory

of some founder or ancient benefactor,

but afterwards it was dedicated to St.

Vedast, Bishop of Arras.'' Newcourt

makes a similar mistake in his

_Repertorium_, but Thomas Fuller knew the

truth, and in his _Church History_ refers to

``St. Vedastus, _anglice_ St. Fosters.'' This

is the fact, and the name St. Fauster or

Foster is nothing more than a corruption

of St. Vedast, all the steps of which we

now know. My friend Mr. Danby P. Fry

worked this out some years ago, but his

difficulty rested with the second syllable

of the name Foster; but the links in the

chain of evidence have been completed

by reference to Mr. H. C. Maxwell Lyte's

valuable Report on the Manuscripts of the

Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's. The

first stage in the corruption took place in

France, and the name must have been

introduced into this country as Vast.

This loss of the middle consonant is in

accordance with the constant practice in

early French of dropping out the consonant

preceding an accented vowel, as

_reine_ from _regina_. The change of

_Augustine_ to _Austin_ is an analogous

instance. _Vast_ would here be pronounced

_Vaust_, in the same way as the word _vase_

is still sometimes pronounced _vause_. The

interchange of _v_ and _f_, as in the cases of

_Vane_ and _Fane_ and _fox_ and _vixen_, is too

common to need more than a passing

notice. We have now arrived at the form

St. Faust, and the evidence of the old

deeds of St. Paul's explains the rest,

showing us that the second syllable has grown

out of the possessive case. In one of

8 Edward III. we read of the ``King's

highway, called Seint Fastes lane.'' Of

course this was pronounced St. _Faust<e'>s_,

and we at once have the two syllables.

The next form is in a deed of May 1360,

where it stands as ``Seyn Fastreslane.''

We have here, not a final _r_ as in the latest

form, but merely an intrusive trill. This

follows the rule by which thesaurus became

_treasure, Hebudas, Hebrides_, and _culpatus,

culprit_. After the great Fire of London,

the church was re-named St. Vedast (_alias_

Foster)--a form of the name which it

had never borne before, except in Latin

deeds as Vedastus.[1] More might be said

of the corruptions of names in the cases

of other saints, but these corruptions are

more the cause of blunders in others than

blunders in themselves. It is not often

that a new saint is evolved with such an

English name as Foster.

[1] See an article by the Author in _The Athen<ae>um_,

January 3rd, 1885, p. 15; and a paper by the

Rev. W. Sparrow Simpson in the _Jourral of

the British Arch<ae>ological Association_ (vol. xliii.,

p. 56).

The existence of the famous St. Vitus

has been doubted, and his dance (_Chorea

Sancti Vit<ae>_) is supposed to have been

originally _chorea invita_. But the strangest

of saints was S. Viar, who is thus accounted

for by D'Israeli in his _Curiosities of

Literature_:--

``Mabillon has preserved a curious

literary blunder of some pious Spaniards

who applied to the Pope for consecrating a

day in honour of Saint Viar. His Holiness

in the voluminous catalogue of his saints

was ignorant of this one. The only proof

brought forward for his existence was this

inscription:--

S. VIAR.

An antiquary, however, hindered one more

festival in the Catholic calendar by

convincing them that these letters were only

the remains of an inscription erected for

an ancient surveyor of the roads; and he

read their saintship thus:--

[PREFECTV]S VIAR[VM].''

Foreign travellers in England have

usually made sad havoc of the names of

places. Hentzner spelt Gray's Inn and

Lincoln's Inn phonetically as Grezin and

Linconsin, and so puzzled his editor that he

supposed these to be the names of two

giants. A similar mistake to this was that

of the man who boasted that ``not all the

British House of Commons, not the whole

bench of Bishops, not even Leviticus himself,

should prevent him from marrying his

deceased wife's sister.'' One of the jokes

in Mark Twain's _Huckleberry Finn_

(ch. xxiii.) turns on the use of this same

expression ``Leviticus himself.''

The picturesque writer who draws a

well-filled-in picture from insufficient data

is peculiarly liable to fall into blunders,

and when he does fall it is not surprising

that less imaginative writers should

chuckle over his fall. A few years ago

an American editor is said to have received

the telegram ``Oxford Music Hall

burned to the ground.'' There was not

much information here, and he was ignorant

of the fact that this building was in

London and in Oxford Street, but he was

equal to the occasion. He elaborated a

remarkable account of the destruction

by fire of the principal music hall of

academic Oxford. He told how it was

situated in the midst of historic colleges

which had miraculously escaped destruction

by the flames. These flames, fanned

into a fury by a favourable wind, lit up

the academic spires and groves as they

ran along the rich cornices, lapped the

gorgeous pillars, shrivelled up the roof

and grasped the mighty walls of the

ancient building in their destructive

embraces.

In 1882 an announcement was made

in a weekly paper that some prehistoric

remains had been found near the Church

of San Francisco, Florence. The note

was reproduced in an evening paper and

in an antiquarian monthly with words in

both cases implying that the locality of

the find was San Francisco, California.

It is a common mistake of those who

have heard of Grolier bindings to suppose

that the eminent book collector was a

binder; but this is nothing to that of the

workman who told the writer of this that

he had found out the secret of making

the famous Henri II. or Oiron ware. ``In

fact,'' he added, ``I could make it as well

as Henry Deux himself.'' The idea of the

king of France working in the potteries

is exceedingly fine.

Family pride is sometimes the cause

of exceedingly foolish blunders. The

following amusing passage in Anderson's

_Genealogical History of the House of Yvery_

(1742) illustrates a form of pride ridiculed

by Lord Chesterfield when he set up on

his walls the portraits of Adam de Stanhope

and Eve de Stanhope. The having a

stutterer in the family will appear to most

readers to be a strange cause of pride.

The author writes: ``It was usual in ancient

times with the greatest families, and is by

all genealogists allowed to be a mighty

evidence of dignity, to use certain nicknames

which the French call sobriquets . . .

such as `the Lame' or `the Black.'. . .

The house of Yvery, not deficient in any

mark or proof of greatness and antiquity,

abounds at different periods in instances

of this nature. Roger, a younger son of

William Youel de Perceval, was surnamed

Balbus or the Stutterer.''

Sometimes a blunder has turned out

fortunate in its consequences; and a

striking instance of this is recorded in the

history of Prussia. Frederic I. charged

his ambassador Bartholdi with the mission

of procuring from the Emperor of Germany

an acknowledgment of the regal

dignity which he had just assumed. It

is said that instructions written in cypher

were sent to him, with particular directions

that he should not apply on this subject

to Father Wolff, the Emperor's confessor.

The person who copied these instructions,

however, happened to omit the word _not_

in the copy in cypher. Bartholdi was

surprised at the order, but obeyed it and

made the matter known to Wolff; who,

in the greatest astonishment, declared that

although he had always been hostile to

the measure, he could not resist this

proof of the Elector's confidence, which

had made a deep impression upon him.

It was thought that the mediation of the

confessor had much to do with the

accomplishment of the Elector's wishes.

Misquotations form a branch of literary

blunders which may be mentioned here.

The text ``He may run that readeth

it'' (Hab. ii. 2) is almost invariably

quoted as ``He who runs may read'';

and the Divine condemnation ``In the

sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread'

(Gen. iii. 19) is usually quoted as ``sweat

of thy brow.''

The manner in which Dr. Johnson

selected the quotations for his Dictionary

is well known, and as a general rule

these are tolerably accurate; but under

the thirteenth heading of the verb to

sit will be found a curious perversion

of a text of Scripture. There we read,

``Asses are ye that sit in judgement--

_Judges_,'' but of course there is no such

passage in the Bible. The correct reading

of the tenth verse of the fifth chapter is:

``Speak, ye that ride on white asses, ye

that sit in judgment, and walk by the

way.''

From misquotations it is an easy step

to pass to mispronunciations. These are

mostly too common to be amusing, but

sometimes the blunderers manage to hit

upon something which is rather comic.

Thus an ignorant reader coming upon a

reference to an angle of forty-five degrees

was puzzled, and astonished his hearers

by giving it out as _angel_ of forty-five

degrees. This blunderer, however, was

outdone by the speaker who described a

distinguished personage ``as a very

indefat<e'm>gable young man,'' adding, ``but even

he must succ<uu>mb'' (suck 'um) at last.

As has already been said, blunders are

often made by those who are what we

usually call ``too clever by half.'' Surely

it was a blunder to change the time-

honoured name of King's Bench to

Queen's Bench. A queen is a female

king, and she reigns as a king; the

absurdity of the change of sex in the

description is more clearly seen when

we find in a Prayer-book published soon

after the Queen's accession Her Majesty

described as ``our Queen and _Governess_.''

Editors of classical authors are often

laughed at for their emendations, but

sometimes unjustly. When we consider

the crop of blunders that have gathered

about the texts of celebrated books, we

shall be grateful for the labours of brilliant

scholars who have cleared these away

and made obscure passages intelligible.

One of the most remarkable emendations

ever made by an editor is that of

Theobald in Mrs. Quickly's description of

Falstaff's deathbed (_King Henry V_., act ii.,

sc. 4). The original is unintelligible:

``his nose was as sharp as a pen and a

table of greene fields.'' A friend suggested

that it should read `` 'a talked,'' and

Theobald then suggested `` 'a babbled,'' a reading

which has found its way into all texts,

and is never likely to be ousted from its

place. Collier's MS. corrector turned the

sentence into ``as a pen on a table of

green frieze.'' Very few who quote this

passage from Shakespeare have any notion

of how much they owe to Theobald.

Sometimes blunders are intentionally

made--malapropisms which are understood

by the speaker's intimates, but often

astonish strangers--such as the expressions

``the sinecure of every eye,'' ``as white

as the drivelling snow.''[2] Of intentional

mistakes, the best known are those which

have been called cross readings, in which

the reader is supposed to read across the

page instead of down the column of a

newspaper, with such results as the following:--

[2] See _Spectator_, December 24th, 1887, for

specimens of family lingo.

``A new Bank was lately opened at

Northampton--<?pointer> no money returned.''

``The Speaker's public dinners will

commence next week--admittance, 3/- to

see the animals fed.''

As blunders are a class of mistakes, so

``bulls'' are a sub-class of blunders. No

satisfactory explanation of the word has

been given, although it appears to be

intimately connected with the word

blunder. Equally the thing itself has not

been very accurately defined.

The author of _A New Booke of Mistakes_,

1637, which treats of ``Quips,

Taunts, Retorts, Flowts, Frumps, Mockes,

Gibes, Jestes, etc.,'' says in his address to

the Reader, ``There are moreover other

simple mistakes in speech which pass

under the name of Bulls, but if any man

shall demand of mee why they be so

called, I must put them off with this

woman's reason, they are so because they

bee so.'' All the author can affirm is

that they have no connection with the

inns and playhouses of his time styled

the Black Bulls and the Red Bulls.

Coleridge's definition is the best: ``A

bull consists in a mental juxtaposition of

incongruous ideas with the sensation but

without the sense of connection.''[3]

[3] Southey's _Omniana_, vol. i., p. 220.

Bulls are usually associated with the

Irish, but most other nations are quite

capable of making them, and Swift is said

to have intended to write an essay on

English bulls and blunders. Sir Thomas

Trevor, a Baron of the Exchequer 1625-49,

when presiding at the Bury Assizes, had a

cause about wintering of cattle before him.

He thought the charge immoderate, and

said, ``Why, friend, this is most unreasonable;

I wonder thou art not ashamed, for

I myself have known a beast wintered one

whole summer for a noble.'' The man at

once, with ready wit, cried, ``That was a

_bull_, my lord.'' Whereat the company

was highly amused.[4]

[4] Thoms, _Anecdotes and Traditions_, 1839, p

One of the best-known bulls is that

inscribed on the obelisk near Fort William

in the Highlands of Scotland. In this

inscription a very clumsy attempt is made

to distinguish between natural tracks and

made roads:--

``Had you seen these roads before they were made,

You would lift up your hands and bless General Wade.''

The bulletins of Pope Clement XIV.'s

last illness, which were announced at the

Vatican, culminated in a very fair bull.

The notices commenced with ``His Holiness

is very ill,'' and ended with ``His

Infallibility is delirious.''

Negro bulls have frequently been

reported, but the health once proposed by

a worthy black is perhaps as good an

instance as could be cited. He pledged

``De Gobernor ob our State! He come

in wid much opposition; he go out wid

none at all.''

Still, in spite of the fact that all nations

fall into these blunders, and that, as it

has been said of some, _Hibernicis ipsis

Hibernior_, it is to Ireland that we look

for the finest examples of bulls, and we

do not usually look in vain.

It is in a Belfast paper that may be

read the account of a murder, the result

of which is described thus: ``They fired

two shots at him; the first shot killed

him, but the second was not fatal.''

Connoisseurs in bulls will probably say that

this is only a blunder. Perhaps the

following will please them better: ``A man

was run down by a passenger train and

killed; he was injured in a similar way a

year ago.''

Here are three good bulls, which fulfil

all the conditions we expect in this branch

of wit. We know what the writer means,

although he does not exactly say it. This

passage is from the report of an Irish

Benevolent Society: ``Notwithstanding

the large amount paid for medicine and

medical attendance, very few deaths

occurred during the year.'' A country

editor's correspondent wrote: ``Will you

please to insert this obituary notice? I

make bold to ask it, because I know the

deceased had a great many friends who

would be glad to hear of his death.'' The

third is quoted in the _Greville Memoirs_:

``He abjured the errors of the Romish

Church, and embraced those of the

Protestant.''

It is said that the Irish Statute Book

opens characteristically with, ``An Act

that the King's officers may travel _by sea_

from one place to another within the _land_

of Ireland''; but one of the main objects

of the _Essay on Irish Bulls_, by Maria

Edgeworth and her father, Richard Lovell

Edgeworth, was to show that the title of

their work was incorrect. They find the

original of Paddy Blake's echo in Bacon's

works: ``I remember well that when I

went to the echo at Port Charenton, there

was an old Parisian that took it to be the

work of spirits, and of good spirits; `for,'

said he, `call Satan, and the echo will not

deliver back the devil's name, but will

say, ``Va-t'en.'' ' '' Mr. Hill Burton found

the original of Sir Boyle Roche's bull of

the bird which was in two places at once

in a letter of a Scotsman--Robertson of

Rowan. Steele said that all was the effect

of climate, and that, if an Englishman were

born in Ireland, he would make as many

bulls. Mistakes of an equally absurd

character may be found in English Acts

of Parliament, such as this: ``The new

gaol to be built from the materials of

the old one, and the prisoners to remain

in the latter till the former is ready''; or

the disposition of the prisoner's punishment

of transportation for seven years--

``half to go to the king, and the other half

to the informer.'' Peter Harrison, an

annotator on the Pentateuch, observed of

Moses' two _tables of stone_ that they were

made of _shittim wood_. This is not unlike

the title said to have been used for a useful

little work--``Every man his own Washer-

woman.'' Horace Walpole said that the

best of all bulls was that of the man who,

complaining of his nurse, said, ``I hate

that woman, for she changed me at

nurse.'' But surely this one quoted by

Mr. Hill Burton is far superior to Horace

Walpole's; in fact, one of the best ever

conceived. Result of a duel--``The one

party received a slight wound in the

breast; the other fired in the air--and

so the matter terminated.''

After this the description of the wrongs

of Ireland has a somewhat artificial look:

``Her cup of misery has been overflowing,

and is not yet full.''