218 



IS^OTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 44. 



ever been publislied, or where I can meet with the 

 best account of him ? E. N. W. 



" Antiquitas sacnli juventus mundt."—Mv. Craik, 

 in bis admirable little work on Bacon; his Writ- 

 ings and his Philosophy, after quoting the para- 

 graph containing this fine aphoristic expression, 

 remarks tliat, — 



«' From the manner in wliich it is here introduced 

 as a Latin phrase, there would seem to be some reason 

 for doubting whether it be an original thought of 

 Bacoii's. It has much the a|)])earance of some apho- 

 rism or adage of the schools." (Vol. ii. p. 55.) 



Mr. Craik adds in a note, — 



" A friend, however, who, if we were to name him, 

 would be recognised as one of tlie first of living au- 

 thorities on all points connected with tlie history of 

 learning and pliilosophy, informs us that he feels cer- 

 tain of having never met with the expression or the 

 thought in any writer previous to Bacon." 



In Basil Montagu's edition of The Advancement 

 of Learning it is marked as a quotation. Query. 

 Has the expression, or the thought, been traced to 

 any writer previous to Bacon ? J. M. B. 



DEKIVATION OF " NEWS." 



I have no wish to prolong the controversy on 

 this word, iia which I feel I, at least, liave had my 

 share. I beg room, however, for an observation 

 on one or two very pertinent remarks by Mn. 



SiSGER. 



In the course of this argument I have seen that 

 li news were originally a plural noun, it might be 

 taken for an ellipsis of neiv-tidings. I\ly objection 

 to this would be twofold. First, that the adjective 

 new is of too common use, and, at the same time, 

 too general and vague to form an ellipsis intelli- 

 gible on its first application ; and, secondly, that 

 the ellipsis formed of new -tidings would be found 

 to express no more than tidings, still requiring the 

 7iew, if the idea of new were required, as in the 

 instance Me. Singer cites of neio neives. 



I would not pretend to determine whether the 

 word were taken from the High German or tlie 

 Dutch ; but Mr. Singer's remark, that our lan- 

 guage has derived scarcely anything from the 

 former, brings back the question to tlie point from 

 wliicli I originally started. That there was a poli- 

 tical and commercial connexion between the two 

 countries, I suppose there can be no doubt : and 

 such, I imagine, never existed without leaving its 

 marks on languages so near akin. 



Taking up Bailey's Dictionary hy accident a (\ny 

 or two ago, I turned to the word, which I there 

 find as derived from 9tcH)c6, Teut.; Bailey using 

 the term Tento7iic for German. 



I think I shall express the feelings of the majo- 

 rity of your readers in saying that nothing could be 

 more acceptable or valuable to the consideration 

 of any etymological question than the remarks of 

 JSIr. Singer. Samuel Hickson. 



I have read with much interest the respective 

 theories of the derivation of neivs, and it seems to 

 me that Mr. IIickson's opinion must give way to 

 an excellent authority in questions of this kind. 

 Dr. Latham, who says, ^- 



" Some say, this news is good ; in which case the 

 word is singuiar. More rarely we find the expression, 

 these neics arf. good ; in which case the word " news" is 

 plural. In the word " news," the -s (unlike the -s in 

 alms and riches') is no part of the original singular, but 

 the sign of the plural, like tlie -s in " trees." Notwith- 

 standing this we cannot subtract the s, and say " new," 

 in the same way that we can form "tree" from "trees." 

 Hence the word "news" is, in respect to its original 

 form, plural ; in respect to its meaning, cither singular 

 or plural, most frequently the former." — Eng. Gram- 

 mar, p. 62. 



The above extract will probably suffice to show 

 the true state of the case; and for information on 

 similar points I would refer your readers to the 

 work from which the above extract is taken, and 

 also to tiiat on The English Language, by the 

 same author. T. C. 



3acjpItCi» ta IHinor dittcrt'ciS. 



,Sif0}-ds worn in pxihlic (Vol. i., p. 415. ; vol. ii. 

 p. 110.). — I am surprised that the curious topic 

 suggested by the Query of J. D. A. has not been 

 more satisfactorily answered. Wedsecuarf's reply 

 (Vol. ii., p. 1 10.) is short, and not quite exact. He 

 says that "Swords ceased to be worn as an article 

 of dress through the influence of Beau Nash, and 

 were consequently first out of fashion at Bath ;" 

 and he quotes the authority of Sir Lucius 

 O'Trigcrer as to "wearing no swords the7-e." Now, 

 it is, i believe, true that Nash endeavoured to dis- 

 countenance the wearing swords at Bath ; but it 

 is certain that they were commonly worn twenty 

 or thirty years later. 



Sir Lu'cius OTrigger talks of Bath in 1774, 

 near twenty years after Nash's reign, and, even at 

 that time, only says that swords were "not worn 

 there'' — implying that they were worn elsewhere; 

 and we know that Sheridan's own <luel at Bath 

 was a rencontre, he and his adversary, ^Mathews, 

 both wearing swords. I remember my father's 

 swords hung np in his dressing-room, and his tell- 

 ing me that he had worn a sword, even in the 

 streets, so late as about 1779 or 1780. In a set of 

 characteristic sketches of eminent persons about 

 the year 1782, several wear swords; and one or 

 two members of the House of Commons, evidently 

 represented in the attitude of speaking, have 

 swords. I have seen a picture of the INIall in 



