"ES 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, in 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 character, proving very manifestly that when William Lilly gave to the world the old Powle's 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 premise 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 interrogatory style, in the words of its title, Es tu Scolaris?—"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. Unde derivatur sum?

A. Derivatur a greca dictione, hemi (εμι); 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 βουλομαὶ) 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 fe et os in ro, 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 antagonists of Martin Luther in the next century denounced "Heathen Greek" as a diabolical invention 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 nec in or?

A. Ad habendum, drnam[[2]] [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 illa 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. R.

Belmont.

Footnote 2:[(return)]

[Drnam stands for differentiam.]