One of the problems that have arisen out of the ubiquity of such internet tools as Google and Wikipedia is our increasing tendency to rely on them for answers to our questions. I am sure we have all had experience of quoting a definition from these sources, only to be disproved subsequently. In any event, when looking for the origins and definitions, I frequently revert to Google Books. Here one can sometimes find definitions that pre-exist the internet era. It is not always a guarantee that such definitions are likely to be any more accurate than those posted by enthusiastic amateurs on Wikipedia or Wiktionary, but they do often provide an interesting alternative.
One such book is this The Etymological Compendium – By William Pulleyn. Written in 1830 it provides all sorts of explanations of the origins of words, customs and inventions.
The word I had actually been researching was bigot, a word that gets bandied a round a great deal on this internet. Its definition is easy enough, but where did it come from? According to Pulleyn
“The word Bigot is derived by that judicious antiquary, Camden, from the following circumstance :—When Rollo, Duke of Normandy, received Gisla, the daughter of Charles the Simple, King of France, in marriage, together with the investiture of that dukedom, be would not submit to kiss Charles’s feet; and when his friends urged him by all means to comply with that ceremony, he made answer in the English tongue, “Ne se, by God,” i. e. “Not so, by God” Upon which, the king and his courtiers deriding him, and corruptly repeating his answer, called him .Bigot, from whence the Normans were called Bigodi, or Bigots.”
I confess that the direction this post is taking may appear sinsiter to some, but rest assured that it was serendipity, or its antithesis, that lead me to origins of this next word:
“RACE.
The Arabs call their thorough-bred horses, Race-horses, or horses of a family, or Race, because they can trace their families or breeds as high as a Welsh pedigree. The Iman is at once both priest and civil magistrate, and it is equally his duty to register the birth of children and the foaling of brood mares.
On the sale of one of these horses, the Iman delivers a certificate of the pedigree, carefully copied from his register to the buyer, of which an A rab is as proud as if it were his own pedigree. As these horses of race, or family, were, in Europe, bred only for the course, we evidently, in preserving the French expression, ckeral de ‘race, or race-horse, gave the name of Race to the course itself, being a contest between race-horses, from whence the expression became popular to denote any contest in running.”
Elsewhere, Pulleyn claims that during his life, Henry VIII was responsible for 72,000 executions, a staggering number that amounts to 3% of the population. I have seen the figure quoted elsewhere, but I think all from the same source. While it does seem excessive, given the number of queens, courtiers and former friends he had put to death, it might not be that surprising that he showed even less compassion to the peasant community. I would love to know if there is any truth in this figure or in the fact that he had about 80 people burned at the stake. Even to loyal, though lapsed Catholics such as me, Henry has always been considered something of an amiable rascal, but it does appears as if he truly was an evil tyrant.
Anyway, the book is worth a browse. You can access a plain text version by clicking on the cog-wheel tool on the right and selecting Plain Text. Enter the page you are looking for.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Sipu, HVIII’s dissolution of the monasteries made him a vandal of the first water.
Thanks Janus. Yes I agree. Increasingly one finds out about the horrific losses that occurred during that time. Of course Cromwell should also take a great deal of blame for the destruction of British heritage. Charing Cross was one of his victims, as the book explains.
It is high time that history bestows upon Henry the complete vilification he deserves.
“One of the problems that have arisen out of the ubiquity of such internet tools as Google and Wikipedia is our increasing tendency to rely on them for answers to our questions.” – Sipu
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity” – Abraham Lincoln
😀
OZ
OZ, Reminds me of the article in today’s Telegraph in which it discusses an email full of schoolboy jokes sent by Mr Assad to Mrs Assad of Syria,
Question. In which battle did Napoleon die?
Answer. His last battle.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9151547/Syria-I-am-the-real-dictator-declares-Asma-al-Assad.html
It might have been vaguely funny if it had been Nelson rather than Napoleon. It is just irritating that people are so stupid as to get the joke wrong.
Sipu – Ah weell, (© J. Mackie), that’s modern eddukayshun for you.
OZ
I personally know of two areas on the internet taken as gospel and yet promulgating some of the biggest load of old rubbish I have ever heard/seen.
Geography and botany. (horticulture)
Fortunately I own reference books and Atlases by the yard on both subjects and can generally find the answer the old fashioned way.
It is interesting to note that there are a few competent sites on both subjects but none of them are free and some are restricted to professional membership.
I have to say I rather fancy your book, good bed time reading.
Tend to have to agree about damage done by Henry VIII and the Civil War. It always rather amazes me how little the Luftwaffe destroyed considering the amount of bombing done especially compared with Germany.
Looks as if Pulleyn’s theory about ‘race’ has a few antagonists. The word has solid antecedents in O.E. and German.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=race
CO, I know that you and Boadicea are both academics who will go to the source of information when promulgating a hypothesis (does that make sense) as opposed to many pontificators who refer to any available point of reference to support their claims (I am on a role here (oops roll)), but even the most authentic looking source can turn out to be dodgy. Even hearing the facts from the horse’s mouth, race horse or otherwise, does not guarantee veracity. Few people tell the same story twice in exactly the same way incorporating exactly the same facts. And even if they do, there is no guarantee that their version is accurate. http://bigthink.com/ideas/20583 With all due respect to your atlases and reference books, they have required the intervention of a human hand, and we all know about the fallibility of humans, the Pontiff notwithstanding. Mr Pulleyn seems like an educated, intelligent and sincere fellow, but clearly some of what he says is bunkum. His theory on the origins of Yankee for example differ to every other explanation I have read. But maybe he is right. Still, as you say, it is good bed time reading.
sipu, I think most books are generally pretty accurate as far as the knowledge goes when they went to press.
I think they are overtaken by events and further research etc quite easily.
This can be remedied to a degree by purchasing further books at intervals on the same subject, thus you get a continuum rather than a snapshot. It becomes quite easy to see what is still fluid and what has been set in stone for a while.
Take two cases. Linnean classification moves all the time as plant DNA is researched.
Boundaries on maps of countries are totally fluid after wars, countries change names, rivers change courses etc etc
You cannot just own one atlas you need at least a dozen to actually get any picture at all as to what is happening.
This is one of my great objections to the internet, the Wiki syndrome presents snapshots as definitive truth and people with no real knowledge of the subject take it as gospel.
I have been roundly abused on this site with no apologies as to certain geological predictions in the Antipodes.
Sometimes turning the electricity off and retreating to a good library makes all the sense in the world. Too many rely on specious rubbish.
PS. My library on the subject of physics is nil! I gave all the boy’s textbooks back to his fellows as being far more use to them than me, I couldn’t even read them there were no words, only numbers and cabbalistic signs!!!
I have to admit that the etymology of words is of only passing interest but it sounds a fun book if only from the bunkum theory of entertainment.
“Originally a northern word, it became general in English c.1550. Meaning “contest of speed” first recorded 1510s (the verb in this sense is from 1670s). ” Ah, but Janus, what is the source of that claim?
CO #9 “Sometimes turning the electricity off and retreating to a good library makes all the sense in the world. Too many rely on specious rubbish.”
Hear hear!