The Word Infortuner (Vol. iv., p. 328.).

—J. C. W. enquires, "Is infortuner to be found in any old Dictionary?" I would state that I have not been able to find it; but in Cockeram's English Dictionarie, 1639, I find "Infortunate, unhappy;" and in Bailey's Dictionary, vol. i. 1753, "Infortunate, unhappy, unlucky;" "Infortune, misfortune," referred to Chaucer; "Infortunes, an astrological term, applied to Saturn and Mars, because of their unfortunate influences;" "Infortunid, unfortunate," referred to Chaucer; and in vol. ii of Bailey's Dictionary, 1727, I find "Infortunateness, unhappiness, unluckiness." It is singular that Cockeram gives "infortunate" in his first alphabet, which, he says, in his preface, "hath the choicest words now in use, wherewith our language is enriched." "Unfortunate" he places in the second alphabet, which, he says, "contains the vulgar words." Neither Cole's English Dictionary, 1685, nor Blount's Glossographia, 1670, nor Phillips' World of Words, 1678, contain the word "unfortunate" in any of its terminations or applications. Mr. Halliwell, in his Dictionary of Provincial Words, gives the word "Infortune, misfortune," deriving it from the Anglo-Norman.

Whilst referring thus to our early lexicographers, allow me to allude to an anecdote respecting, Dr. Adam Lyttleton, who, when compiling his Latin Dictionary, announced the verb "concurro" to his amanuensis; the latter, imagining, from an affinity of sound, that the first two syllables gave the English meaning of the verb, said, "Concur, I suppose, sir." To which the Doctor peevishly replied, "Concur, condog." The scribe wrote down what he supposed his employer dictated, and the word "condog" was inserted, and stands as one interpretation of "concurro" in the first edition of the Dictionary; it is, of course, expunged from subsequent ones. I give this statement as I find it in print. I do not vouch for its correctness, not having the first edition of the Dictionary to refer to. Strange to say, however, "condog" was regarded as a synonym, or rather as an equivalent to "concur," long before the date of the first edition of Dr. Lyttleton's Dictionary. In Cockeram's Dictionarie, before referred to, sixth edition, 1639, I find the second alphabet, among the words which the author calls vulgar, the verb "to agree" defined "Concurre, cohere, condog, condiscend." Cockeram's Dictionary was evidently a work of some authority in its day; it was dedicated to Sir Richard Boyle, and reached to, at least, a sixth edition, which edition is announced in the title-page as "revised and enlarged," and therefore "condog" did not owe its place in it to the error of an amanuensis or transcriber. The book, although small, contains much curious matter, to which I may, perhaps, hereafter refer. In his "premonition to the reader," he says, "where thou meetest with a word marked thus +, know you that it is now out of use, and only used of some ancient writers." Among these words thus marked as obsolete in 1639, I find, on casually opening the book, the following, "abandon, abate, bardes, insanity." He also defines Troy weight as "a pound weight of twelve ounces, wherewith bread, precious stones, gold and silver are weighed." Blount also (1670), and Cole (1685), say bread was sold by Troy weight; the latter adds medicines to the articles sold by that standard. Cowell, in his Law Dictionary(1708), says, "Electuaries, and medicinal things, and brede, are to be weighed by Troy weight;" Bayley, in 1753, says, "Gold, silver, drugs," &c., are weighed by Troy weight, but does not enumerate bread. Can any of your readers inform me when bread was first directed to be sold by Troy weight, and when it ceased to be so?

P. T.

Stoke Newington.