Magnum in Parvo: The Advantage of Small Stature [pp. 216-224]

Magnum in Parvo.
Saxon possessions, and when the change
was made from the English Edgar the
Small, into the Norman Jean Le Petit, we
may say that petty larceny was committed
upon the Saxon names also. We utterly
deny, however, that any honor ought to
accrue to the holders of these names;
they only indicate that the title was given
to some needy adventurer, as a cloak for
his sin, or a proof that he had stolen a
possession not his own, and had either
adorned his person with the altered name
of the former proprietors, or with the de signation of the estate.
It would be far better to call the leader
by the name of William the Burglar and
designate his chief associates by names
in character with their occupations, or
with the fates which they at least deserved. We might then have, Sir John Handcuff, Duke Snatchall, the Marquis of Gallows, Sir Henry Jailbird, Herbert Ruinorphan, Sir Guy De Slaughter, James Le
Brute, the Earl of No lowell, Sir Hamen
De Hanghigh, Roger HIlardheart, Sir William Mashhead, Sir George Plunderer,
Walter Devilsown, Sir Thomas Hellgoer,
the Duke of Murder, Sir Richard Stabbing, Viscount Stealland, Henry Starvepoor, Marmaduke Doublefist, Robert Hithard, Frank Teartoplins, Walter Merciless, John Lovegain, the Count of Splithead, and Sir Henry Noquarters.
Such should be the titles of those who
pride themselves on their noble descent,
from the nameless and name-acquiring
followers of Duke William. We return
to the more ancient and honorable names
of the early Saxons. And we especially
speak of those derived from some bodily
peculiarity, and chiefly those which indicate a degree of smallness in the person
spoken of.
And here we must guard the reader
from an error into which he may fall, unless our friendly pen comes to his aid.
True we write with a genuine goose quill,
yet this will be more suitable, and in fact
very appropriate to the object in view.
What we wish to caution against is this,
that no one must suppose because thename
given was one which has a meaning of
smallness, littleness, &c., that it therefore
follows as a matter of course that the per
son so named was small in body or mind We mean that it does not necessarily fol low. Indeed, the terms used were doubt less used as terms of endearment, dimi nutions implying admiration and respect.
Most commonly the name was given from
the possession of an entirely opposite
quality to that which it was designed to
express. On the principle so well known,
of lucus a non lucendo. hence a man
might be called Short, Small or Little, because of his great strength or stature;
and as a means of distinguishing him from
men of ordinary power and size. This
we can prove historically as well as from
our own experience; and we will do so,
after we have called the reader's attention
to one fact that stands out peculiar and
unexplained, unless the assertion we have
just made be true.
It is this; there must have been some
tall and large men in ancient times when
names were given to different persons,
and then, as now, they were probably
few in number compared with the man of
men. This being admitted, whence comes
it that we have no such names as Mr.
Large, Mr. Big, Mr. Tall among us.
How happens it that there is scarcely
any name indicating great size or stature,
when there are so many to indicate the
opposite condition of body? We do not
admit the name Tallman as any proof, for
we doubt not that it was originally Tellman, from a talking propensity possessed
by the former ancestors of that family.
Nor does the name of Mr. Stout at all invalidate our position, inasmuch as a small
man may be thick and stoutly formed as
well as, and far more likely than, a tall
one.
The fact remains uncontrovertible, unless our explanation be received. And
now to the proof; Alexander of Macedon
was called the Great, although we are
positively informed that he was a man of
small stature; Frederick of Prussia was
a little fellow, and the Great Napoleon
was well called Le Petit Corporal, standing no more than five feet, four inches,
"boots and all," as Tom Thum says. We
might multiply these by way of additional
proof; but we will only detain the reader
from the continuance of the general sub
1856.]
217