The Jeweller’s Window Ancient Beliefs About The Hedgehog

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30152, 8 June 1963, Page 8

The Jeweller’s Window Ancient Beliefs About The Hedgehog

[Specially written for ’The PrW by ARNOLD WXLLI

'THE hedgehog, hedgepig 1 furzepig Cvuzpeg” in' dialect) or urchin has lost its old Anglo-Saxon name with long “j.” It is one of nature’s witticisms, a successful joke, not a mere sport or “lusu<s naturae.” It is at home in any temperate climate, abounds in New Zealand. not only in city gardens but even in the high Alps, where I have seen it in the beds of rocky torrents. The ancients knew and domesticated the hedgehog, probably as modern housewives and gardeners have done, to control the cockroach in the kitchen and the snail and the slug in the garden. In my young days there was a standing advertisement in “The Exchange end Mart” by Fitch, Pitsea. Essex, of hedgehogs at Is 6d It is accused of attacking prultry and it sometimes does so. for one was killed by my wife in my Fendalton garden after it had slaughtered two or three of her chickens while the furious mother, imprisoned in the coop, could only screech and call for help. The old naturalists had much to say about the hedge, hog. some of it no doubt true, some of it hardly so. In ancient Rome it was commercially quite important, as Pliny tells us. for the skin was used for teasing wool and was in great demand, sometimes “cornered” by cunning merchants so that, as Pliny says, “great frauds and great profits resulted, there is no subject on which the Senate has more frequently passed decrees.”

Less credible is the belief, mentioned by both Pliny and Aristotle, that the hedgehog could “foretell the weather ar.d alter the opening of its burrow when the wind is going the change from northeast to south.” It was said to pierce an apple with its quill and take another in its mouth and then climb a tree and hide in a hollow. It could eject a corrosive fluid, soak its skin and thus bamboozle the hunter for it knew why the skin was wanted and thus made it useless, • Even the wisest of old writers on natural hjstory seem to have had the notion that all hunted animals know WHY they are being hunted ■ by men and act accordingly. I wonder how many hedgehogs die annually under the wheels of the Motorists on New Zealand roads.

Controversy •’Stemming it with heart? of controversy,” from Shakespear's ' Juhus Caesar,” show? how the Word was stressed in the 16th century- that is t< say that in verse it was stressed on “cont—” and pos. sibly also on ’’—vers—” but not' possibly on “ —trov—". All authorities. British and American, new and old. prescribe the stressing of the first syllable: "CONTroversy.” But people now very often say “conTßOVersy” which no dictionary recognises though Daniel Jones in his Pronouncing Dictionary records it as an alternative (not preferred).

It is hard to say When “conTßOVersy” first appeared. I have heard it from British speakers as well as from locals for perhaps 20 years, rather less than more The BBC. includes the word in the list of recommended doubtful pronunciations of 1935. stressed on "cont—.“ so the stressed “—trov—” was pretty certainly to be heard at that time. Anyhow, once introduced, it spread rapidly as weeds do. and now it s seriously challenging the

traditional "CONTroversy ” Whether “CONTroversy" will hold its own time only can show.

The question arises, why is this changed stressing now entering the field after about 400 years? I find ft very hard to answer this question, us look at the behaviour ( ,f the other words of the same or a similar group. We shall find that as a general rule the stress falls on the third syllable in such words as ‘‘contradiction,’’ “contraversial,” “contraceptive.” “contravention,” “contribution." etc But “CONTroversy." stressed on the first, is ao exception; it seems to stand quite alone. “ConTßOVersy" is. I think, paralleled by one word only: that is “extravagant.” Th s has come about because “v” is so feeble an obstacle, you can’t possibly say "con-

TRADiction.” or "inTEßJaction." can you? But I cannot regard this fact as an explanation, only as a probable line of reasoning which might lead to results. Any discussion of ft could only lead to CONTroversy or. as the heretics say. “conTßOVersy.” Jaguar A correspondent finds fault with what he takes to be “the modern pronunciation” of “jaguar” as "jag-you-are” (his spelling) instead of “jag-war” he thinks that this is “contrary to the derivations.” I should agree that "jagwar” is a better pronunciation than “jaguar” with the “u” as “ew,” but “jaguar” is not distinctively “modern” both pronunciations have been current. an<i both allowed' by authorities, for a long time. As for the derivations, certainly the "u’ as “w” is nearer to the Spanish-spelt original as “ew.” The word is American-Indian, spelt, as Spanish "yaguara” or “jaguara” and pronounced with "gu” as “w.” “yawara.’ so that our pronunciation. whether as “gwar” or “gewar.” is not accurate Spanish “gu” is naturally and excusably pronounced in English ae “gw” or "gew”; so we have it in Nicaragua. Paraguay. Uruguay, etc We are, as usual, inconsistent in our treatment of the ‘gu” in these names and both “gw” and “gew” are tn use. It would, of course, be unreasonable to demand the Spanish pronunciation. 1 suppose that we maltreat Spanish more cruelly than any

other language Some peop.e do make an effort to improve matters in respect of Dm Juan and Don Quixote So we may sometimes hear Dm “Hooahn" or Don "Keehotay.’’ but these afe generally regarded as pedantic <«r affected or, shall I say? Keehottic.