540 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 241. 



" JES TU SCOLARIS." 



Allow me through your pages to ask some of 

 your correspondents for information respecting an 

 old and very curious book, which I picked up the 

 other day. It is a thin unpaged octavo of twelve 

 leaves, m black-letter type, without printer's 

 name or date ; but a pencil-note at the bottom 

 of a quaint woodcut, representing a teacher and 

 scholars, gives a date 1470 ! And in style of 

 type, abbreviations, &c, it seems evidently of 

 about the same age with another book which I 

 bought at the same time, and which bears date as 

 printed at " Padua, 1484." 



The book about which I inquire bears the title 

 Es tu Scolaris, and is a Latin- German or Dutch 

 grammar, of a most curious and primitive cha- 

 racter, proving very manifestly that when William 

 Lilly gave to the world the old Powles Grammar, 

 it was not before such a work was needed. A few 

 extracts from my book will give some idea of 

 the erudition and etymological profundity of the 

 " learned Theban " who compiled this guide to the 

 Temple of Learning, which, if they do not instruct, 

 will certainly amuse your readers. I should pre- 

 mise that the contractions and abbreviations in 

 the printing of the book are so numerous and 

 arbitrary, that it is extremely difficult to read, 

 and that this style of printing condenses the 

 subject-matter so much, that the twelve leaves 

 would, in modern typography, extend to twenty 

 or thirty. The book commences in the interro- 

 gatory style, in the words of its title, Es tu Sco- 

 laris ? — " Sum" It then proceeds to ring the 

 changes on this word " sum" what part of speech, 

 what kind of verb, &c. ; and setting it down as 

 verbum anormalium, goes on to enumerate the 

 anormalous verbs in this verse, — 



" Sum, volo, fero, atque edo, 

 Tot et anormala credo." 



Now begins the curious lore of the volume : 

 " Q. Uncle derivatur sum ? 

 A. Derivatur a greca dictione, hemi (e^O ; mutando 

 h in s et e in u, et deponendo i, sic habes sum ! " 



I dare say this process of derivation will be new 

 to your classical readers, but as we proceed, they 

 will say, " Foregad this is more exquisite fooling 

 still." 



" Q. Unde derivatur volo ? 

 A. Derivatur a beniamin (sic pro f3ov\ofj.cu) grece ; 

 mutando ben in vo et iamin in lo, sic habes volo. Versus 



Est volo formatum 



A beniamin, bene vocatum. 



Q. Unde derivatur fero ? 



A. Dicitur a phoos ! grece ; mutando pho in ft et 

 os in to, sic habes fero ! 



Q. Unde derivatur edo ? 



A. A phagin, grece ; mutando pha in e et gin in 

 do, sic habes edo ! " 



Here be news for etymologists, and proofs, 

 moreover, that when some of the zealous an- 

 tagonists of Martin Luther in the next century 

 denounced " Heathen Greek " as a diabolical in- 

 vention of his, there was little in the grammar 

 knowledge of the day to contradict the accusation. 



But we have not yet exhausted the wonders and 

 virtues of the word sum ; the grammar lesson goes 

 on to ask, — 



" Q. Quare sum non desinit in o nee in or ? 



A. Ad habendum, dfnam* [I cannot expand this 

 contraction, though from the context it means a mark 

 or token], dignitatis sue respectu aliorum verborum. 



Q. Declara hoc, et quomodo ? 



A. Quia per sum intelligitur Trinitas, cum tres 

 habeat litteras, scl. s. u. et m. Etiam illud verbum 

 sum, quamvis de omnibus dici valeat, tamen de Deo 

 et Trinitate proprie dicitur. 



Q. Quare sum potius terminatur in m quam in n ? 



A. Quia proprie m rursus intelligitur Trinitas, 

 cum ilia littera m, tria habet puncta." 



I shall feel much obliged for any particulars 

 about this literary curiosity which you or any of 

 your correspondents can give. A. B. B. 



Belmont. 



ON A DIGEST OF CKITICAL HEADINGS IN 

 SHAKSPEARE. 



With reference to this subject, which has been 

 so frequently discussed in your columns, daily 

 experience convincing me still farther in the opi- 

 nion that the complete performance of the task is 

 impracticable, would you kindly allow me to ask 

 what can be done in the now acknowledged case 

 of frequent occurrence, where different copies of 

 the folios and quartos vary in passages in the very 

 same impression ? What copies are to be taken 

 as the groundworks of reference ; and whose copy 

 of the first folio is to be the standard one ? Mr. 

 Knight may give one reading as that of the edi- 

 tion of 1623, and Mr. Singer may offer another 

 from the same work, while the author of the "cri- 

 tical digest" may give a third, and all of them 

 correct in the mere fact that such readings are 

 really those of the first edition. Thus, in respect 

 to a passage in Measure for Measure, — 



" For thy own bowels, which do call thee sire," — 



it has been stated in your columns that one copy 

 of the second folio has this correct reading, where- 

 as every copy I have met with reads fire ; and so 

 likewise the first and third folios. Then, again, 

 in reference to this same line, Mr. Collier, in his 

 Shakspeare, vol. ii. p. 48., says that the folio edi- 

 tion of 1685 also reads fire for sire; but in my 

 copy of the fourth folio it is distinctly printed 

 sire, and the comma before the word very pro- 



[* Drnam stands for difFerentiam.] 



