Page:Once a Week Volume 5.djvu/319

ment which, for the moment, reigned in the sacred precincts of the great court of the province. We terminated our narration by expressing the hope that, with a view to the tranquillity of our future existence, the council might decree the faithless swain to restore to Polyxene the ring "that she did give him;" and we requested that, in the event of their sage deliberations resulting in this happy conclusion, the restoration might be effected through the instrumentality of our own dragoman, whom, we stated, we would previously instruct to attach to the restoration this condition: that its fair owner should never again invade the sanctity of our summer parlour.

At this request the Caimakam placed the point of one forefinger to his temple—the finger being held quite horizontal, and retained in position for a brief space. Glancing round, we perceived that other Mussulman members of the council were engaged in a like telegraphy; looking at each other and saying, "Did you understand?"—reminding understand?"—reminding us how invariably with the Turks this same gesture accompanies the perception or suspicion of a hidden meaning, or the detection or appreciation of some secret design.

We now took our leave and retired, and the issue of our mission proved to be satisfactory.

Recent New York newspapers have announced the death of Gulian C. Verplanck. He was not only the intimate friend of Washington Irving, but he assisted him in his literary work, "Salmagundi; or, the Whim-whams and Opinions of Launcelot Langstaff," which was published with Washington Irving's name on the title-page; but was known to be the joint production of Irving, James K. Paulding, and Verplanck. Yet, although Washington Irving was the presiding genius of the work, he was far from assuming the credit of all the articles contained in it; and his own productions are given under his pseudonym of "Launcelot Langstaff"—a name, by the way, which is omitted from Mr. Olphar Hamst's "Handbook of Fictitious Names." Paulding wrote the social articles ascribed to "Anthony Evergreen, Gent.;" and Verplanck penned the critical essays supposed to be written by "William Wizard, Esq." In the "Introduction" to the work, Washington Irving says:—"As everybody knows, or ought to know, what a salmagundi is, we shall spare ourselves the trouble of an explanation; besides, we despise trouble as we do everything that is low and mean, and hold the man who would incur it unnecessarily as an object worthy our highest pity and contempt."

From which we may infer that the author had really very hazy ideas as to the meaning or nature of salmagundi; and that to venture upon an explanation of its mysteries was to intrude upon troublesome, not to say unsafe, ground. And, in this respect, the admirable author of "The Sketch Book" showed his wisdom and discretion.

For it is remarkable how widely people differ as to the meaning of "salmagundi," and to what diversities of opinion etymologists are carried in their endeavours to affix the proper signification to the curious word. Washington Irving, I may observe, was not the first author to make use of the word as the title of a collection of miscellanies. The "Salmagundi" of which he was the editor was published in 1811; but it had been anticipated by at least one work—though the one was in prose, the other in verse; this was the "Salmagundi: a Miscellaneous Combination of Original Poetry," published in quarto, in 1791, without an author's name. Its editor, however, is known to have been the Rev. George Huddesford, M.A., of New College, Oxford, and Vicar of Loxley, Warwickshire, who died in 1809, aged fifty-nine. It is a humorous production, and most of its contents were written by himself. He was also the author of "Topsy-turvy," "Bubble and Squeak," "Crambe Repetita," and other works of a like nature.

As to the meaning of the word "salmagundi," all are agreed that it is a dish of something; though they disagree as to what that something is. The majority, however, decide that fish, more especially salt fish, must be a leading ingredient. The dictionary-makers are all at loggerheads on the subject; and, when lexicographers differ, how shall students agree? Ménage, in 1694, explained salmigondi as a sort of ragout or pot-pourri; and gave as its derivation salgami-conditus, contracted into salmi-conditus, and further contracted to salmigondi. The ancients, he further explained—and a like explanation is given by Facciolatus and Forcellinus—gave the name of salgama to apples, pears, figs, raisins, turnips, radishes, cucumbers, grapes,