Notes and Queries, Number 207, October 15, 1853. Various

Чтение книги онлайн.

      Such also was Johnson's opinion of the word, for he represents it to be "from like, as by likelihood;" and assigns to it the meanings of "probably, likely, perhaps." However, I venture to say, in opposition to so great an authority, that there is no immediate connexion whatever between the words belike and likely, with the exception of the accidental similarity in the syllable like.

      We find three different meanings attached to the same form like in English, viz. like, similis; to like, i. e. to be pleased with; and the present word belike, whose real meaning I propose to explain.

      The first is from the A.-S. lic, gelic; Low Germ. lick; Dutch gelyk; Dan. lig (which is said to take its meaning from lic, a corpse, i. e. an essence), which word also forms our English termination -ly, sometimes preserving its old form like; as manly or manlike, Godly or Godlike; A.-S. werlic, Godlic; to which the Teut. adjectival termination lich is analogous.

      The second form, to like, i. e. to be pleased with, is quite distinct from the former (though it has been thought akin to it on the ground that simili similis placet); and is derived from the A.-S. lician, which is from lic, or lac, a gift; Low Germ. licon; Dutch lyken.

      The third form, the compound term belike (mostly used adverbially) is from the A.-S. licgan, belicgan, which means, to lie by, near, or around; to attend, accompany; Low Germ. and Dutch, liggen; Germ. liegen. In the old German, we have licken, ligin, liggen—jacere; and geliggen—se habere; which last seems to be the exact counterpart of our old English belike; and this it was which first suggested to me what I conceive to be its true meaning. We find the simple and compound words in juxtaposition in Otfridi Evang., lib. i. cap. 23. 110. in vol. i. p. 221. of Schilter's Thes. Teut.:

      On which Schilter remarks:

      We thus see that the radical meaning of the word belike is to lie or be near, to attend; from which it came to express the simple condition, or state of a thing: and it is in this latter sense that the word is used as an adverbial or rather an interjectional expression, when it may be rendered, it may be so, so it is, is it so, &c. Sometimes ironically, sometimes expressing chance, &c.; in the course of time it became superseded by the more modern term perhaps. Instances of similar elliptical expressions are common at the present day, and will readily suggest themselves: the modern please, used for entreaty, is analogous.

      It is not a little singular that this account of the word belike enables us to understand a passage in Macbeth, which has been unintelligible to all the commentators and readers of Shakspeare down to the present day. I allude to the following, which stands in my first folio, Act IV. Sc. 3., thus:

      Now it is not easy to see why Malcolm should wish that "chance" should "be like," i. e. similar to, their "warranted quarrel;" inasmuch as that quarrel was most unfortunate and disastrous. Chance is either fortunate or unfortunate. The epithet just, which might apply to the quarrel in question, is utterly irreconcilable with chance. Still this sense has pleased the editors, and they have made "of goodnesse" a precatory and interjectional expression. Surely it is far more probable that the poet wrote belike (belicgan, geliggen) as one word, and that the meaning of the passage is simply "May good fortune attend our enterprise." Mr. Collier's old corrector passes over this difficulty in silence, doubtless owing to the circumstance that the word was well understood in his time.

      I have alluded to the word like as expressive in the English language of three distinct ideas, and in the A.-S. of at least four; is it not possible that these meanings, which, as we find the words used, are undoubtedly widely distinct, having travelled to us by separate channels, may nevertheless have had originally one and the same source? I should be glad to elicit the opinion of some one of your more learned correspondents as to whether the unused Hebrew ילן may not be that source.

      —– Rectory, Hereford.

      DRUSES

      Comparing the initiatory undertaking or covenant of the Druses, as represented by Col. Churchill in his very important disclosures (Lebanon, ii. 244.), with the original Arabic, and the German translation of Eichhorn (Repertorium für Bibl. und Morgenland, lib. xii. 222.), I find that the following additions made by Col. Churchill (or De Sacy, whom he follows) are not in the Arabic, but appear to be glosses or amplifications. For example:

      Col. Churchill, although furnishing the amplest account which has yet appeared of the Druse religion, secretly held under the colour of Mahometanism, has referred very sparingly to the catechisms of this sect, which, being for the especial instruction of the two degrees of monotheists, constitute the most authentic source of accurate knowledge of their faith and practices, and which are to be found in the original Arabic, with a German translation in Eichhorn's Repertorium (xii. 155. 202.). In the same work (xiv. 1., xvii. 27.), Bruns (Kennicott's colleague) has furnished from Abulfaragius a biography of the Hakem; and Adler (xv. 265.) has extracted, from various oriental sources, historical notices of the founder of the Druses.

      The subject is peculiarly interesting at the present juncture, as it is probable that the Chinese religious movement, partaking of a peculiar kind of Christianity, may have originated amongst the Druses, who appear from Col. Churchill to have been in expectation of some such movement in India or China in connexion with a re-appearance of the Hakem.

      Birmingham.

      FOLK СКАЧАТЬ