(Vol. vi., p. 588.)
I must differ from your correspondent C., in believing that the "N. & Q."
have effected much good service to etymology. Even the exposure of error,
and the showing up of crotchets, is of no inconsiderable use. I beg to
submit that C. himself (unless there are other Richmonds in the field) has
done good service in this way. See _Grummett_, _Slang Phrases_, _Martinet_,
_Cockade_, _Romane_, _Covey_, _Bummaree_, &c.
I do not, indeed, give implicit faith to his _Steyne_, and some more. He,
however, would be a rash man who should write or help to write a Dictionary
of the English language (a desideratum at present) without turning over the
indices of the "N. & Q." Even in the first volume, the discussions on
_Pokership_, _Daysman_, _News_, and a great many others, seem to me at
least valuable contributions to general knowledge on etymology.
As to my remark (Vol. vi., p. 462.) about the derivation of _leader_, C.
has, perhaps excusably, for the sake of the pun, done me injustice. I
hazarded it on the authority of one who has been in the trade, and, as I
believe, in the _cuicunque perito_. I beg to inclose his own account. He
says:
"It is a fact, that when _editorial_ articles are sent to the printer,
written directions are generally sent with them denoting what type is
to be used: thus, _brevier leads_, or _bourgeois leads_, signifying
that the articles are to be set in brevier or bourgeois type with
_lead_ strips between the lines, to keep them further asunder. It is
also a fact, that such articles are denominated in the printing-office
'leaded articles'--hence, leaders."
I submit if this does not justify my Note. I grant, however, many of those
articles are entitled also to be called _leaden_, as C. will have it.
I do not think, however, that in tracing recent words, we should not give
possible as well as certain origins. Many words, if not a double, have at
least several putative origins.