164 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2tt«i S. No 61., Feb. 28. '67. 



of Isidorus Hispalensis (circa a.d. 620) is the fol- 

 lowing passage : 



" Mulier, a mollitie, tamquam mollier, detracta litera et 

 mutata, appellata est mulier." — Isid. Orig. ii. 2. 



And, moreover, in the Poentdus of Plautus 

 (circa B.C. 170), i. 2. 36., is, I believe, a similar 

 derivation of the word mulier. 



Besides this etymology, it may be worth while 

 to place Professor Max Miiller's derivation of 

 brother and sister : 



"The original meaning of 6Amtar (Sanskrit, brother) 

 seems to have been he who carries or assists ; of svasar 

 (sister), she who pleases or consoles — svasti meaning in 

 Sanskrit joy or happiness." — Oxford Essays, 1856, p. 16. 



The readers of Fielding will recal the passage 

 in which his hero carries the heroine in his arms 

 through some danger or fatigue ; whereupon the 

 novelist takes occasion to advise his countrywomen 

 to make choice of lovers whose stalwart arms 

 should be serviceable on like occasions. 



In the Romance language the Latin mulier is 

 represented by moUer, molher, moiller, moillier ; 

 and matrimonium by molierarisa, which is yet 

 nearer the derivation of Isidorus : " Ara digam de 

 matremonis, so es de la molieransas (maintenant 

 parlous de mariages, c'est a dire des epousailles)." 

 See Ragnouard's Lexique Roman, iv. 249. 



The Italian mogliere, moglie^ appears also con- 

 firmatory of the derivation from mollis. 



S. Singleton. 



Greenwich. 



Strada and Shakspeare. — In reading Vorstius, 

 De Latinitate merito suspectd, the other day, I 

 came upon a passage (p. 13.) in which that author 

 criticises Strada for using the phrase, " integu- 

 mento corporis se evolvere," instead of " mori." 

 It seemed worth " making note of," from its iden- 

 tity in meaning with Hamlet's " shuffle off this 

 mortal coil." J. G. F. 



Glasgow. 



Shahspeare's Portrait (2"'> S. iii. 61.) —The fol- 

 lowing Notes relative to portraits of the great poet 

 occur in one of Vertue's MSS. in the British Mu- 



" A Copy of the Picture of Shakespear, painted, and in 

 posesion of the Lord Halifax, which Picture S"" Godfrey 

 painted for Dryden, and Dryden made a Poem on S"" God- 

 frey. In the possession of Mr. H. Howard, 1716. 



" The Picture of Shakespear, one original in possession 

 of Mr. Keych of the Temple [1719]. He bought it for 

 forty guineas of Mr. Baterton, who bought it of S"" W. 

 Davenant, to whom it was left by will of John Taylor, 

 who had it of Shakespear. It was painted by one Taylor, 

 a player, cotemporary with Shakespear and his intimate 



friend. Another of Shakespear, painted in oil, by , 



1695. 



" 1719. Mr. Betterton told Mr. Keck several times that 

 the Picture of Shakespeare he had was painted by John 

 Taylor, a Player, who acted for Shakespear. This John 



Taylor, in his will, left it to S"^ Will. Davenant, and at 

 the death of S' William Mr. Betterton bought it, and at 

 his death Mr. Keck bought it, in whose possession it now 

 is. These following verses, to put under the plate [ ? ] of 

 Shakespear, are made by Mr. Keck purposely at my re- 

 quest : 



" ' Shakespear ! such thoughts inimitable shine, 

 Drest in thy words, thy fancy seems Divine ; 

 'Tis Nature's Mirrour, where she views each grace, 

 And all the various Features of her Face.' " 



Z. z. 



COMMON CACOLOGY. 



It was, I think, in Russell's Life of Moore that 

 I saw it stated of Lord Castlereagh that he always 

 used the phrase to join issue as meaning to agree, 

 a singular mistake in one who should have been 

 conversant with the legal forms of speech in or- 

 dinary usance. 



In the same book it is stated that on a certain 

 occasion (I have not the book at hand, and so 

 cannot refer to page or date), a discussion arose 

 about the use of the relative personal whose, as 

 applied to things neuter ; and Moore, who took 

 the proper view, records that his confidence in his 

 own opinion was shaken when he found authority 

 for whose in — (what ?) poetical writings ! Surely 

 this makes all the diff*erence ; whose, as applied to 

 things neuter, is allowable in the personifications 

 of poetry, but it sounds harshly, in my ear at 

 least, when so introduced in prose ; it seems much 

 as if one were to invoke the Muse in a dry ofiicial 

 despatch. 



I recollect, in my college days, an esteemed 

 sub-rector giving out that he would not accept 

 from an undergraduate a theme with the word 

 development used in it, and I am surprised to find 

 in Longfellow's Hiawatha, dove employed (though 

 I admit not unreasonably) as the preterite of dive. 



I recollect, many years ago, hearing an old 

 gentleman, who spoke and wrote remarkably well, 

 contend that to irrigate meant to drain; and I 

 shall never forget the good-humoured satisfaction 

 with which he received correction from me, pro- 

 ducing Johnson from a shelf at hand. 



I further remember noting in The Times, a year 

 and a half ago, an amusing blunder quoted of a 

 young ensign who spoke of seeing his captain 

 sereimding (e. e. promenading) in the street with 

 his wife. 



But my present object is to call the attention of 

 yourself and your readers to the common errors of 

 speech that I have heard in various society. 



Thus an ordinary form of writing Is that a ship 

 is under weigh. The mistake arises from the pre- 

 liminary proceeding of weighing anchor ; but the 

 fact is, that when a ship has weighed anchor, she 

 gets way on, and is under way. 



Again, the word assured is most improperly- 

 made to do duty for informed : as, " I ara assured 



