14 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2nd g. ifo 79., July 4. '57. 



nor a tanner (Ital. danaro, small change), nor a 

 hob (baubee), nor a bull (bulla, a great leaden 

 seal), strictly expresses the amount for which the 

 term passes current in our elegant vernacular. 

 And therefore much as a bull (or a hog) stands 

 arbitrarily for a five-shilling-piece, half a bull for 

 half-a-crown, a bob for a shilling, a tanner for 

 sixpence, &c., with equal propriety might a plum 

 stand for 100,000/. A fortune of this amount, 

 acquired in trade, was considered — say at the 

 beginning of the last century — a great success. 

 Hence the phrase, " Such an one has got a plum," 

 when adopted into our language from the Spanish 

 " Fulano tiene plunia," would gradually attach 

 itself to the sum acquired in trade to that amount. 



This, then, we might answer. But before we 

 quite abandon the inquiry, ought we not to look 

 a little closer at the word " plum," and to ascer- 

 tain, if possible, whether there exist not some 

 specific reason for connecting it with 100,000/. ? 



The letters of the word plum express that 

 amount. P stands for pounds. U is the old 

 Gothic form for double I. And therefore " plum " 

 is 100,000/. literally expressed. Thus : 



Plum = P. lum. 



= Pounds lum. 

 = Pounds liim 

 - = Pounds 1 X ii X m 

 = Pounds 50 X 2 X 1000. 

 = 100,000/. 



Thomas Boys. 



Letkrediensis does not seem to have been 

 aware that Richardson in his convenient manual 

 — the 8vo. edition of his Dictionary — first published 

 in the year 1844, and lately reprinted, says that 

 Plum is perhaps plump or plumper^ and, referring 

 to Plump, there tells us that to " Plim is still a pro- 

 vincialism : to swell, to increase in bulk." I have 

 frequently heard the word so used by Cornish 

 friends. Taking this for the origin of the word, 

 a plum may be considered to be (consequentially) 

 a sum swelled or increased to any given bulk, e.g. 

 that of 100,000/., the largest expected or looked 

 upon as attainable in the days of the writers 

 quoted as using it. The explanation sought by 

 your correspondent seems to be satisfactorily ar- 

 rived at. 



It is difficult to say what would be deemed a 

 plum by our monied men of the present day, when 

 we hear a man called a millionaire without being 

 startled. Q. 



Bloomsbury. 



musicaij acottstics (2°"* S. iii. 507.) : greek 

 GEOMETERS (2°* S. iii. 518.) 



These two matters having both relation to 

 music, I answer both in one. 



Mr. Hewett's Queries are matter for a volume. 

 If the mention of my name be an invitation to me 

 to reply, I can only say that I am sure music has 

 science in it, and also art which pretends to be 

 science. As I wrote the articles Acoustics, Cord, 

 Pipe,, Scale, Tuning, in the Penny Cyclopwdia, I may 

 refer to them as containing very nearly or exactly 

 my present opinions on the subject. 



Y. B. N. J. is wrong in supposing that I either 

 said, or seemed to say, that only three of the 

 authors proposed by Bernard have been printed 

 at the University press. I said, and I was right, 

 that only three of the volumes of Bernard^s pro- 

 posed series have been published. Wallis's edition 

 of Ptolemy, a very well-known work, was not in 

 that series, for two reasons. First, it was in another 

 series. Meibomius published his two-volume col- 

 lection of musical authors — as well known as 

 Wallis's Ptolemy, but not so easily procured — in 

 1652 ; it did not contain either Ptolemy or Bryen- 

 nius, which were intended for a third volume. 

 Wallis, learning that insufficiency of means pre- 

 vented Meibomius from proceeding, published the 

 Ptolemy in 1682, and again in the third volume 

 (folio, 1699) of his collected works. In this last 

 folio also appeared, for the first time, Bryennius, 

 and Porphyry's commentary on Ptolemy. 



Secondly, Wallis's Ptolemy was published in 

 1682 ; Bernard's series was first thought of, at the 

 instigation of Bishop Fell, about 1673. (T. Smith, 

 Vita Bemardi, 1704, p. 23.) The synopsis, which 

 sets forth the matter and the volumes, was not 

 completed till many years after, and was never 

 published till 1704, as an appendix to the life just 

 cited. This synopsis settles the manuscripts which 

 were to be used, a work of long time and great 

 labour. It is very unlikely that its fourteenth 

 and last volume could have been settled until long 

 after Wallis's publication ; and there is nothing 

 to show that Wallis was even cognizant of the 

 existence of any written programme of Bernard's 

 plan. 



Those who have Meibomius's two volumes and 

 Wallis's Ptolemy should consider them as three 

 volumes of one set, in spite of a little difference of 

 size. A. De Morgan. 



BECKFORD S LETTERS. 



(2°'» S. iii. 487.) 



I am indebted to the Query of C. S. for the 

 pleasure of renewing my acquaintance with those 

 charming volumes. Letters from Italy, Spain, and 

 Portugal, by the author of Vathek ; and, in turn- 

 ing over a few of the earlier pages, rich beyond 

 measure with thoughts of rare beauty, clothed in 

 language of the most marvellous felicity, I soon 

 found that, without noticing mere ordinary coin- 

 cidences of thought, I should meet with enough to 



