Qud §, No 14., Apri 5. *56.] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
277 
ence,” which seems never to have attracted the 
notice of your correspondent.. The word zéAaq, 
skin, or hide, the root of the Latin peilis, is not a 
“new word.” It is admitted in Scott and Lid- 
dell’s Lexicon, and in several other Lexicons not 
so common. I was perfectly aware that éepuctme- 
Aas, and not épvdpdr<Aas, was the right reading in 
Pollux ; and, as erysipelas itself means “a red 
eruption on the skin,” it was not necessary to con- 
found it with any other word of no authority. 
Nor was I ignorant of the more common senses 
of xéAAa. I did not, however, search for them in 
authors so recent as Athenzus and Nicander. The 
word is of not infrequent occurrence in Homer 
and Theocritus. 
The various Greek derivatives of 7éAda leave 
no doubt about the original sense of the word: 
‘< TleAAopados, one who sews skins together. 
MeAAagrar=trobypara, Hesychius. 
TleAAvrai=dSecpoi wept 74 oddpa, Hesychius. 
Movémedwos, with one sole. 
“EAxkos aedov, an unskinned wound. 
earn, a leathern buckler. > 
-IbjAné and widos are well compared by Benfey with these 
derivatives; for caps and helmets were originally of 
leather. 
_ And, lastly, the very word 7éada is introduced in 
Pollux as a material for writing on, between xdp- 
zot and di@0epa, lib. x. 56., on which your corre- 
spondent may consult a note by the editor whom 
he so justly commends. There seems good reason 
to believe that the Greek milking pail or méAda 
was originally formed of leather, and thence de- 
rived its name; for skins were in the earliest’ use 
for containing liquids. One can easily account 
for the wrong reading of épv9pdéredas in Pollux. 
The transcriber saw the definition was pdédrwp 
EPY@POS, and he did not know that @ and o were 
convertible letters. That they are so is evident 
from épuoién, the red mildew, otherwise called 
uidros, and, for the same reason, in Latin, rudigo. 
Every one recollects the Laconian aids for Sebs. 
By a contrary change the Rhodians used épu0iéi0s 
for epuciéios, an epithet of Apollo. 
The distinctive mark of this malady is redness. 
So Galen, “EPET@OS per diamdpou proydoews 3” and 
Celsus (lib. v.), “ Super inflammationem RusBor 
uleus ambit.” 
The explanation given in the Etym. Magnum 
seems to me very forced. It in no way describes 
the external appearance of the disease, nor, with- 
out supplying additional thoughts to the com- 
pound, does it in any way express its “ erratic 
character.” It puts one in mind of the whimsical 
etymology of AxuAAeds, in the Homeric Scholia of 
the Pseudodidymus: “apa 7) wh Svye xelrcn 
AMAtis’ GAws yap ov péerexe ydAaKTos. 
I trust that I have at least proved that I neither 
confounded together épv@pdmedas and épuolredus, 
nor have I supplied to the Greek language a new 
word, for which no authority can be discovered 
but my own. E. C. H. 
EHRENBERG AND HIS MICROSCOPES. 
(1* S. xii. 305. 459.) 
In a paper by Ehrenberg (Taylor's Scientific 
Memoirs, vol. i. p.555.), your correspondent E. C. 
will perhaps find the origin —certainly a complete 
refutation — of the note he quotes from the trans- 
lation of Schleiden’s Principles of Scientific Botany. 
Far from asserting that “ with a thirty shilling 
microscope he produced his great work on In- 
fusoria,” which, by the way, did not appear until 
nearly twenty years afterwards, Ehrenberg men- 
tions this imperfect instrument for a very different 
purpose, in the following words : 
“T was not then (1819) desirous of making publicly 
known any of those observations, because I saw on the 
.one hand that they were capable of being carried to much 
greater perfection, and on the other hand, I possessed at 
that time only a very incomplete thirty shilling wooden 
compound microscope from Nurenberg, which I had, ac- 
cording to my own views and wants, rendered more 
powerful.” — Scient. Mem., vol. i. p. 559. 
If you think that the following extracts, illus- 
trating Ehrenbere’s advance in microscopical 
acquisitions, will interest. E. C. or any other of 
your readers they are at your disposal : 
“From 1820 I made my observations in Africa with a 
microscope made by Hofman of Leipzig, of the cost of 
about 6/., which, with a greater magnifying power, gave 
a much better image; and from the year 1824 I used, 
together with that, an English microscope by Bleuler, 
which cost about 16/., and the power of which was still 
higher.” — Se. Mem., i. 560. 
“The reputation of Chevalier’s microscope, from Sel- 
ligue’s intimation that at a cheaper rate it would produce 
greater effects than those in general use, induced me to 
purchase one in 1828.” — Zd., 561, 
The letter found by your correspondent Ca- 
NoNBuRY is probably the one published in Che- 
valier des Microscopes, at p. 279., dated Berlin, 
March 17, 1833. Addressing Chevalier, Ehren- 
berg says: 
“Tn 1829 and 1830 I completed with your microscope 
that discovery of the perfect organisation of infusoria 
which other microscopes, previously employed by me, had 
not sufficiently revealed. My observations led me to 
suppose that there existed a still finer structure, and I 
was very anxious to see the microscope by Ploesk of 
Vienna, which was said to be stronger than yours; but 
although the amplification of this new microscope was 
really greater than that of your instrument, which I had 
then at hand, I have not succeeded in making profitable 
use of it for my purpose, because two microscopes by 
Ploesk of the price of 200 eeus, which I examined at 
Berlin, had too short a focus for the observation of objects 
in water. On this account I requested Messrs. Pistor and 
Schiek of Berlin to attempt the construction of a micro- 
scope with a focus as great as yours, and a magnifying 
power at least equal to that by Ploesk. So soon as 
M. Schiek had completed this microscope, I discovered 
