DERIVATION OF SIRLOIN.
Galena, Ill.
Is it true that an English king knighted a roast of beef as Sir Loin, and that this was the origin of the name sirloin for a certain cut of meat?
A Subscriber.
Answer.—It is true that the great lexicographer, Dr. Johnson, gave credence and currency to this etymological nonsense, and that subsequent lexicographers, down to Webster and Worcester, parrot-like repeated it. But both of our distinguished lexicographers rejected this popular tradition of a silly freak or pun of James I. or Charles II. as of no etymological value, and agree that sirloin, which appears in Johnson’s dictionary for the first time with this orthography, is derived from the French surlonge, that is, “upper loin.” In the old English dictionaries, such as Ainsworth’s and Cotgrave’s, the English word was spelled surloin, and both Webster and Worcester, while giving sirloin as the usual orthography, recommend surloin, and authorize it as the preferable spelling. Skeats’ Etymological Dictionary, Oxford, 1882, vocabulates this word thus: “Sirloin, an inferior spelling of surloin, q. v.;” and under surloin says: “Frequently spelled sirloin, owing to a fable that the loin of beef was knighted by one of our kings in a fit of good humor.” The king was naturally imagined to be the merry monarch Charles II., though Richardson says (on no authority) that it was so entitled by King James I. Both stories are discredited by the use of the original French surlonge in the fourteenth century. Indeed, Wedgewood actually cites ‘a surloyn of beef’ from an account of expenses of Henry VI. But Richardson had the authority of Dean Swift for referring the pun on surloin to James I. In “Polite Conversation” Swift says: “But, pray, why is it called a sirloin? Why, you must know that our King James I., who loved good eating, being invited to dinner by one of his nobles, and seeing a large loin of beef at his table, he drew out his sword and in a frolic knighted it.” Which Swift, in all probability, intended to be taken as a legend, and nothing more.
NORTH CAROLINA GOLD MINES.
Give us some information in regard to the extent of mining for the precious metals in North Carolina.
Malcolm McManus.
Answer.—There was a time when gold mining in North Carolina was an important industry. The earliest record at the United States mint of gold produced in this country was in 1804. In that year a deposit was made at the mint of gold found in North Carolina. Small amounts, not exceeding an annual average of $2,500, were received from 1804 to 1823, after which there was a steady increase, as follows: In 1824, total amount received at mint, $5,000; in 1825, $17,000; in 1826, $20,000; in 1827, $21,000; in 1828, $46,000; in 1829, $134,000. During this last year $2,500 was received from Virginia and $3,500 from South Carolina. A Southern “gold fever” set in, and hundreds of people went to prospecting all along the Appalachian Mountains, so that in the next year, 1830, the mint received $212,000 from Georgia, $204,000 from North Carolina, $26,000 from South Carolina, $24,000 from Virginia, and $2,000 from Tennessee and Alabama. The total amounts of precious metals from the mines of the South, deposited at the United States mint from 1804 to 1881, was as follows: