1869. J 



231 



and of children, and are mere familiar nicknames." Mr. Marshall admits them to 

 be now " sanctioned by usage " — 



— USU8, 



Qnem penes arbitrium est, et jus, et norma loquendi. 



Many familiar, nay many contemptuous nicknames, h ave become honourable 

 and hereditary surnames. Whatever the origin of redbreast may have been, it is 

 now the recognised vernacular name of a particular species of bird, given as a noun 

 substantive in all dictionaries, used as a noun substantive by all writers ; and I 

 make bold to proclaim my adhesion to redbreast as a compound noun substantive, 

 as grammatically correct, and (if logic has anything to do with the question) as 

 logically correct as blackbird. If it be not, will Mr. Marshall favour us with the 

 grammatical, logical, and correct name of that which in " the language of the 

 vulgar " is called the redbreast ? It seems to me an utterly untenable doctrine 

 that the name of every bird is ungrammatical, illogical, or incorrect, if it do not 

 contain the subject, bird. I hold thrush to be as good an English substantive as 

 blackbird, eagle as good as butcher-bird, swan as good as lyre-bird ; just as I hold 

 shark to be as good an English substantive as swordfish, crab as crawfish, moth as 

 butterfly. 



But let us leave the redbreast and go to the bluebeard. " We might nickname 

 an individual Brazenbeard, having no fear of genders before our eyes. But in 

 Latin Ahenobcbrba, -cb, fem., will not do for a man's name. His name, like himself, 

 must be masculine, and accordingly we have the adj. Ahenobarbus, taking its gender 

 from the real subject, from the man, and not from his beard.'* It is quite true 

 that the Romans had a Domitius Ahenobarbus ; it is equally true that they had an 

 .^milius Barbula, who was probably " downy " in more senses than one. They 

 might equally well have had an -^milius Ahenobarbula or Ahenobarba. I am not 

 aware that any one has ever argued, certainly there is nothing in my previous remarks 

 to suggest, that in Latin the name of a man could be feminine. Barbula, as the 

 name of a Roman Consul, was masculine, as Ahenobarba would have been. There 

 was a distinguished man, Q. Fabius Maximus by name, who had a wart on his 

 lip, was cautious in war, and possessed a mild temper ; from these peculiarities 

 he acquired three surnames or nicknames (I care not which they are called), 

 Yerrucosus, warty ; Cunctator, tarrier ; and Ovicula, the lamb. And if a few 

 more examples be required of a " slovenly idiom" which is said to be "impossible 

 in Latin," take L. Pontius Aquila, Cn. Com. Scipio Asina, L. Calpumius Bestia, 

 Martianus Felix Capella, P. Cornelius Dolabella, P. Com. Lentulus Sura, and two 

 or three Emperors, such as C. Csesar Caligula, M. Aur, Ant. Ca/racalla, and Serv. 

 Sulpicius Galba. The itaHcized feminine nouns substantive, when applied as names 

 of men, were, of course, masculine. 



The next sentence of Mr. Marshall's reply, that " words containing only some 

 attribute of the subject must in Greek and Latin be adjectives, agreeing in gender 

 with their real subject, and with nothing else," simply begs the question at issue 

 between us. (It will be observed that there are now two subjects — the real 

 SUBJECT, and the graphic or poetic subject.) I have never disputed " that golden 

 rule of our youth, that an adjective agrees with its substantive, &c.," or urged that 

 this rule " is to be evaded in zoological names." If Acanthosoma be an adjective, 



