Article #371-2 | Gutenberg Articles

Excerpt

Excerpt from Literary Blunders: A Chapter in the "History of Human Error", by Henry B. Wheatley

Some years ago there was an article in
the Saturday Review on ``the knowledge
necessary to make a blunder,'' and this
title gives the clue to what a blunder really
is. It is caused by a confusion of two
or more things, and unless something is
known of these things a blunder cannot
be made. A perfectly ignorant man has
not sufficient knowledge to make a blunder.

An ordinary blunder may die, and do
no great harm, but a literary blunder often
has an extraordinary life. Of literary
blunders probably the philological are the
most persistent and the most difficult to
kill. In this class may be mentioned (1)
Ghost words, as they are called by Professor
Skeat--words, that is, which have been
registered, but which never really existed;
(2) Real words that exist through a mistake;
and (3) Absurd etymologies, a large
division crammed with delicious blunders.

Professor Skeat, in his presidential
address to the members of the Philological
Society in 1886, gave a most interesting
account of some hundred ghost words, or
words which have no real existence. Those
who wish to follow out this subject must
refer to the Philological Transactions, but
four specially curious instances may be
mentioned here. These four words are
abacot,'' knise,'' morse,'' and polien.''
Abacot is defined by Webster as the cap of state formerly used by English kings, wrought into the figure of two crowns''; but Dr. Murray, when he was preparing the _New English Dictionary_, discovered that this was an interloper, and unworthy of a place in the language. It was found to be a mistake for _by-cocket_, which is the correct word. In spite of this exposure of the impostor, the word was allowed to stand, with a woodcut of an abacot, in an important dictionary published subsequently, although Dr. Murray's remarks were quoted. This shows how difficult it is to kill a word which has once found shelter in our dictionaries. _Knise_ is a charming word which first appeared in a number of the _Edinburgh Review_ in 1808. Fortunately for the fun of the thing, the word occurred in an article on Indian Missions, by Sydney Smith. We read, The Hindoos have
some very strange customs, which it would
be desirable to abolish. Some swing on
hooks, some run knises through their
hands, and widows burn themselves to
death.'' The reviewer was attacked for
his statement by Mr. John Styles, and he
replied in an article on Methodism printed
in the Edinburgh in the following year.
Sydney Smith wrote: Mr. Styles is peculiarly severe upon us for not being more shocked at their piercing their limbs with _knises_ . . . it is for us to explain the plan and nature of this terrible and unknown piece of mechanism. A _knise_, then, is neither more nor less than a false print in the _Edinburgh Review_ for a knife; and from this blunder of the printer has Mr. Styles manufactured this D<ae>dalean instrument of torture called a _knise_.'' A similar instance occurs in a misprint of a passage of one of Scott's novels, but here there is the further amusing circumstance that the etymology of the false word was settled to the satisfaction of some of the readers. In the majority of editions of _The Monastery_, chapter x., we read: Hardened wretch
(said Father Eustace), art thou but this
instant delivered from death, and dost thou
so soon morse thoughts of slaughter?''
This word is nothing but a misprint of
nurse; but in Notes and Queries two
independent correspondents accounted for the
word morse etymologically. One explained
it as to prime,'' as when one primes a musket, from O. Fr. _amorce_, powder for the touchhole (Cotgrave), and the other by to
bite'' (Lat. mordere), hence to indulge in biting, stinging or gnawing thoughts of slaughter.'' The latter writes: That the
word as a misprint should have been
printed and read by millions for fifty
years without being challenged and altered
exceeds the bounds of probability.'' Yet
when the original MS. of Sir Walter Scott
was consulted, it was found that the word
was there plainly written nurse.

Explanation

**Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from Literary Blunders: A Chapter in the "History of Human Error" by Henry B. Wheatley**

1. Context of the Source

Henry Benjamin Wheatley (1838–1917) was a British bibliographer, editor, and writer known for his works on literary history, bibliography, and the study of errors in scholarship. Literary Blunders (1893) is a humorous yet scholarly examination of mistakes—particularly linguistic and philological ones—that persist in literature, dictionaries, and common usage despite corrections. The book reflects Wheatley’s interest in how errors arise, spread, and resist correction, often due to human credulity, misprints, or misinterpretations.

The excerpt discusses "literary blunders," focusing on ghost words (nonexistent words that enter dictionaries due to misprints or misreadings) and absurd etymologies (false explanations of word origins). Wheatley’s tone is witty and ironic, highlighting how even educated people perpetuate errors once they take root in print.

2. Breakdown of the Excerpt with Analysis

A. Definition of a Blunder (First Paragraph)

"Some years ago there was an article in the Saturday Review on ‘the knowledge necessary to make a blunder,’ and this title gives the clue to what a blunder really is. It is caused by a confusion of two or more things, and unless something is known of these things a blunder cannot be made. A perfectly ignorant man has not sufficient knowledge to make a blunder."

Key Idea: A blunder is not mere ignorance but a misapplication of partial knowledge. It requires some familiarity with the subject to confuse two things (e.g., mixing up similar-sounding words).
Literary Device:
- Paradox: "A perfectly ignorant man... cannot make a blunder" suggests that blunders require a false sense of knowledge.
- Irony: The more one thinks they know, the more likely they are to err.
Significance: This sets up the theme that literary blunders are born from overconfidence in flawed sources (e.g., dictionaries, misprints).

B. The Persistence of Literary Blunders (Second Paragraph)

"An ordinary blunder may die, and do no great harm, but a literary blunder often has an extraordinary life. Of literary blunders probably the philological are the most persistent and the most difficult to kill."

Key Idea: Unlike everyday mistakes, literary blunders (especially linguistic ones) linger because they get printed, cited, and repeated by others.
Themes:
- Authority vs. Error: Once a mistake appears in a respected source (e.g., a dictionary), it gains false legitimacy.
- The "Life" of a Blunder: Errors become self-perpetuating—people trust printed words without questioning them.
Literary Device:
- Personification: Blunders have an "extraordinary life" and are "difficult to kill," framing them as living entities that resist eradication.

C. Three Types of Philological Blunders (Third Paragraph)

Wheatley categorizes blunders into three types:

Ghost words (words that never existed but were recorded due to errors).
Real words that exist through a mistake (e.g., misprints that become accepted).
Absurd etymologies (false explanations of word origins).

Significance: This taxonomy shows how language is vulnerable to human error at multiple levels (creation, definition, interpretation).

3. Case Studies of Ghost Words (Detailed Analysis)

Wheatley provides four examples of ghost words, each illustrating how blunders arise and persist despite corrections.

A. "Abacot" (Misreading of "By-cocket")

"Abacot is defined by Webster as ‘the cap of state formerly used by English kings, wrought into the figure of two crowns’; but Dr. Murray, when he was preparing the New English Dictionary, discovered that this was an interloper, and unworthy of a place in the language. It was found to be a mistake for by-cocket... Yet, in spite of this exposure, the word was allowed to stand in an important dictionary published subsequently."

Origin of the Blunder:
- A misreading or misprint of by-cocket (a type of medieval cap) led to abacot being recorded in dictionaries.
- Webster’s Dictionary (an authoritative source) included it, giving it false credibility.
Persistence Despite Correction:
- Even after Dr. James Murray (editor of the Oxford English Dictionary) exposed the error, later dictionaries still included it, showing how tradition and inertia keep errors alive.
Literary Device:
- Dramatic Irony: Readers now know abacot is fake, but past scholars treated it as real.
- Satire: Wheatley mocks the blind trust in dictionaries, even when they’re wrong.

B. "Knise" (Misprint for "Knife")

"Knise is a charming word which first appeared in a number of the Edinburgh Review in 1808... ‘Some swing on hooks, some run knises through their hands...’ Sydney Smith later admitted: ‘A knise, then, is neither more nor less than a false print in the Edinburgh Review for a knife.’"

Origin of the Blunder:
- A typographical error in the Edinburgh Review turned knife into knise.
- Sydney Smith (a famous wit and clergyman) initially used it seriously, but later mocked those who took it seriously.
Human Reaction to the Error:
- Mr. John Styles criticized Smith for not being shocked by knises, assuming it was a real instrument of torture.
- Smith’s sarcastic reply exposes how easily people invent meanings for nonsense words.
Literary Device:
- Humor & Exaggeration: The idea of a knise as a "Dædalean instrument of torture" (a labyrinthine, mythical device) is absurd.
- Meta-commentary: The anecdote shows how authority figures (like reviewers) can accidentally create myths.

C. "Morse" (Misprint for "Nurse")

"In the majority of editions of The Monastery [by Walter Scott], we read: ‘Hardened wretch... dost thou so soon morse thoughts of slaughter?’ This word is nothing but a misprint of nurse; but in Notes and Queries, two independent correspondents accounted for the word morse etymologically."

Origin of the Blunder:
- A printing error in Scott’s novel The Monastery turned nurse (meaning "to harbor") into morse.
- For 50 years, readers assumed morse was a real word.
Absurd Etymologies:
- One scholar linked it to amorce (French for "gunpowder primer"), suggesting it meant "to prime (a weapon)."
- Another derived it from Latin mordere ("to bite"), proposing it meant "to indulge in biting thoughts of slaughter."
- Both were wrong—the original manuscript clearly said nurse.
Literary Device:
- Bathos (anticlimax): The grand etymological theories collapse when the truth is mundane (a misprint).
- Satire of Scholarship: Wheatley pokes fun at over-intellectualizing simple errors.

D. "Polien" (Not Fully Explained in the Excerpt, but Implied)

Though not detailed here, polien is another ghost word, likely a misreading or misprint that entered dictionaries.
Its inclusion reinforces the pattern: once a word is printed, it gains a life of its own.

4. Themes in the Excerpt

The Authority of Print vs. Reality
- Dictionaries and books are assumed to be correct, even when they’re wrong.
- Example: Abacot remained in dictionaries after being debunked.
Human Credulity and Confirmation Bias
- People prefer inventive explanations (morse as "to bite") over admitting ignorance.
- Example: Scholars invented etymologies for morse rather than questioning its existence.
The Persistence of Error
- Blunders outlive corrections because they become embedded in culture.
- Example: Knise was debunked in 1809 but remains a famous case study.
The Role of Humor in Exposing Folly
- Wheatley’s witty tone makes the subject engaging while critiquing scholarly arrogance.
- Example: Calling knise a "charming word" is ironic—it’s a nonsense term.
The Fragility of Language
- Words are not fixed; they can be created, distorted, or killed by human error.
- Example: Ghost words show how language is a human construct, not an absolute system.

5. Literary Devices Used

Device	Example	Effect
Irony	"A perfectly ignorant man has not sufficient knowledge to make a blunder."	Highlights how partial knowledge leads to bigger mistakes than ignorance.
Personification	"A literary blunder often has an extraordinary life."	Makes errors seem alive and stubborn, emphasizing their persistence.
Satire	Scholars inventing etymologies for morse.	Mocks overconfidence in scholarship.
Anecdote	Sydney Smith’s knise blunder.	Makes abstract ideas concrete and entertaining.
Paradox	Blunders require knowledge to exist.	Challenges the assumption that more knowledge = fewer errors.
Humor	"A Dædalean instrument of torture called a knise."	Engages the reader while exposing absurdity.

6. Significance of the Excerpt

Historical Insight into Lexicography
- Shows how dictionaries evolve and how errors get corrected (or not).
- Dr. Murray’s work on the OED is contrasted with Webster’s inclusion of abacot, highlighting competing standards.
Critique of Scholarly Overconfidence
- Wheatley warns against blind trust in authority, even in academia.
- Example: The morse etymologies show how scholars can be wrong despite their expertise.
The Psychology of Error
- Explores why people clinging to mistakes even after corrections.
- Cognitive dissonance: People prefer elaborate explanations (morse as "to bite") over admitting a simple error.
Relevance to Modern Misinformation
- Parallels today’s "fake news"—once a false idea spreads, it’s hard to correct.
- Example: Social media misinformation behaves like ghost words—repeated until believed.
Literary Humor as a Teaching Tool
- Wheatley’s witty style makes the topic accessible and memorable.
- Example: The knise anecdote is funny and instructive, showing how errors snowball.

7. Conclusion: Why This Excerpt Matters

Wheatley’s excerpt is more than a collection of funny mistakes—it’s a meditation on human fallibility, the power of print, and the persistence of error. By examining ghost words and absurd etymologies, he reveals:

How easily falsehoods become "fact" when repeated.
The dangers of uncritical trust in authority (even dictionaries).
The humor in scholarly blunders, which makes the lesson palatable.

His work remains relevant today, as misinformation, fake news, and urban legends follow the same patterns as abacot and knise—once an idea takes root, it’s hard to kill.

Final Thought:

Wheatley’s message is a timeless warning: Question what you read, even (or especially) when it comes from a "reliable" source. The history of literary blunders is, in many ways, a history of human credulity—and the comedy that follows.

Questions

Question 1

The passage’s discussion of abacot and knise primarily serves to illustrate which of the following paradoxes about human knowledge and error?

A. The more authoritative a source, the more likely it is to perpetuate errors without scrutiny.
B. Linguistic errors are inherently more damaging to scholarship than errors in other disciplines.
C. The pursuit of precision in language inevitably leads to the creation of new ambiguities.
D. Corrections to errors are only effective when they are as widely disseminated as the original mistake.
E. The very mechanisms that preserve and transmit knowledge are also the ones that immortalise falsehoods.

Question 2

In the context of the passage, the etymological explanations proposed for morse (e.g., deriving it from amorce or mordere) function as:

A. legitimate scholarly contributions that, while incorrect, demonstrate the creativity of linguistic analysis.
B. examples of how misprints can inadvertently enrich a language by introducing new semantic layers.
C. satirical illustrations of the human tendency to impose meaning on the meaningless rather than admit ignorance.
D. evidence that even absurd etymologies can contain kernels of historical truth if examined closely enough.
E. proof that the original manuscript of The Monastery was likely altered after Scott’s death to fit these theories.

Question 3

The passage’s tone when describing the persistence of abacot in dictionaries despite Dr. Murray’s correction is best characterised as:

A. resigned acceptance of the inevitable decline of linguistic rigor.
B. wry amusement at the absurdity of institutional inertia in the face of evidence.
C. indignant criticism of lexicographers who prioritise tradition over accuracy.
D. nostalgic longing for an era when dictionaries were infallible authorities.
E. clinical detachment, treating the phenomenon as an inevitable quirk of linguistic evolution.

Question 4

Which of the following statements about the relationship between blunders and ignorance is most strongly supported by the passage?

A. Blunders are more likely to occur in highly specialised fields where knowledge is fragmented.
B. Ignorance is the primary cause of blunders, as it prevents individuals from recognising their mistakes.
C. The most persistent blunders are those that arise from collective ignorance rather than individual error.
D. Blunders and ignorance exist in an inverse relationship: one cannot exist without the absence of the other.
E. A blunder requires a foundation of partial knowledge, whereas ignorance precludes the possibility of error.

Question 5

The passage’s structure—moving from a general definition of blunders to specific examples like knise and morse—primarily serves to:

A. demonstrate how abstract theoretical claims about error are manifested in concrete, often humorous, real-world cases.
B. argue that philological blunders are uniquely resistant to correction compared to other types of literary errors.
C. illustrate the historical progression of linguistic errors from minor misprints to fully accepted ghost words.
D. contrast the rigidity of early lexicography with the flexibility of modern approaches to language.
E. reveal that the most enduring blunders are those that flatter the intellectual vanity of scholars.

Solutions and Explanations

1) Correct answer: E

Why E is most correct: The passage explicitly states that blunders arise from "a confusion of two or more things" and require some knowledge to occur. The examples of abacot and knise demonstrate how mechanisms of knowledge preservation (dictionaries, printed reviews) also immortalise errors. This aligns with E’s claim that the systems designed to transmit knowledge (e.g., dictionaries) are the same ones that perpetuate falsehoods. The passage’s focus on the persistence of these errors despite corrections (e.g., abacot remaining in dictionaries) underscores this paradox.