Replies to Minor Queries.
_The Word Infortuner_ (Vol. iv., p. 328.).--J. C. W. enquires, "Is
_infortuner_ to be found in any old Dictionary?" I would state that I
have not been able to find it; but in Cockeram's _English Dictionarie_,
1639, I find "_Infortunate_, unhappy;" and in Bailey's _Dictionary_,
vol. i. 1753, "_Infortunate_, unhappy, unlucky;" "_Infortune_,
misfortune," referred to Chaucer; "_Infortunes_, an astrological term,
applied to Saturn and Mars, because of their unfortunate influences;"
"_Infortunid_, unfortunate," referred to Chaucer; and in vol. ii of
Bailey's _Dictionary_, 1727, I find "_Infortunateness_, unhappiness,
unluckiness." It is singular that Cockeram gives "infortunate" in his
first alphabet, which, he says, in his preface, "hath the _choicest_
words now in use, wherewith our language is enriched." "Unfortunate" he
places in the second alphabet, which, he says, "contains the _vulgar_
words." Neither Cole's _English Dictionary_, 1685, nor Blount's
_Glossographia_, 1670, nor Phillips' _World of Words_, 1678, contain the
word "unfortunate" in any of its terminations or applications. Mr.
Halliwell, in his _Dictionary of Provincial Words_, gives the word
"_Infortune_, misfortune," deriving it from the Anglo-Norman.
Whilst referring thus to our early lexicographers, allow me to allude
to an anecdote respecting, Dr. Adam Lyttleton, who, when compiling his
Latin Dictionary, announced the verb "concurro" to his amanuensis; the
latter, imagining, from an affinity of sound, that the first two
syllables gave the English meaning of the verb, said, "_Concur_, I
suppose, sir." To which the Doctor peevishly replied, "_Concur_,
condog." The scribe wrote down what he supposed his employer dictated,
and the word "condog" was inserted, and stands as one interpretation of
"concurro" in the first edition of the Dictionary; it is, of course,
expunged from subsequent ones. I give this statement as I find it in
print. I do not vouch for its correctness, not having the first edition
of the Dictionary to refer to. Strange to say, however, "condog" was
regarded as a synonym, or rather as an equivalent to "concur," long
before the date of the first edition of Dr. Lyttleton's _Dictionary_. In
Cockeram's _Dictionarie_, before referred to, sixth edition, 1639, I
find the second alphabet, among the words which the author calls
_vulgar_, the verb "to agree" defined "Concurre, cohere, _condog_,
condiscend." Cockeram's _Dictionary_ was evidently a work of some
authority in its day; it was dedicated to Sir Richard Boyle, and reached
to, at least, a _sixth_ edition, which edition is announced in the
title-page as "revised and enlarged," and therefore "condog" did not owe
its place in it to the error of an amanuensis or transcriber. The book,
although small, contains much curious matter, to which I may, perhaps,
hereafter refer. In his "premonition to the reader," he says, "where
thou meetest with a word marked thus +, know you that it is now out of
use, and only used of some ancient writers." Among these words thus
marked as obsolete in 1639, I find, on casually opening the book, the
following, "abandon, abate, bardes, insanity." He also defines _Troy
weight_ as "a pound weight of twelve ounces, wherewith _bread_, precious
stones, gold and silver are weighed." Blount also (1670), and Cole
(1685), say bread was sold by Troy weight; the latter adds medicines to
the articles sold by that standard. Cowell, in his _Law Dictionary_
(1708), says, "Electuaries, and medicinal things, and _brede_, are to be
weighed by Troy weight;" Bayley, in 1753, says, "Gold, silver, drugs,"
&c., are weighed by Troy weight, but does not enumerate bread. Can any
of your readers inform me when bread was first directed to be sold by
Troy weight, and when it ceased to be so?