A
passage in _The Alchemist_ (Act i. Sc. 1) will have put him on the
right track. [But Dr. Murray notes that Gifford's story, as given
above, has not hitherto been substantiated from any independent
source, and is so far open to doubt.]

{104} [These are quite distinct words, though perhaps distantly
related.]

{105} If there were any doubt about this matter, which indeed there is
not, a reference to Latimer's famous _Sermon on Cards_ would
abundantly remove it, where 'triumph' and 'trump' are
interchangeably used.

{106} [Dr. Murray does not regard these words as ultimately identical.]

{107} ['Rant' (old Dutch _ranten_) has no connection with 'rend'
(Anglo-Saxon _hrendan_) (Skeat).]

{108} On these words see a learned discussion in _English Retraced_,
Cambridge, 1862.

{109} [These are quite unconnected (Skeat).]

{110} [Neither are these words to be confused with one another.]

{111} The appropriating of 'Franc_e_s' to women and 'Franc_i_s' to men
is quite of modern introduction; it was formerly nearly as often
Sir Franc_e_s Drake as Sir Franc_i_s, while Fuller (_Holy State_,
b. iv, c. 14) speaks of Franc_i_s Brandon, eldest _daughter_ of
Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk; and see Ben Jonson's _New Inn_,
Act. ii, Sc. 1.

{112} [Not connected.]

{113} ['Sad' akin to 'sated' bears no relationship to 'set'; neither
does 'medley' to 'motley'.]

{114} [On the connection of these words see my _Folk and their
Word-Lore_, p. 110.]

{115} [Not connected, see Skeat.]

{116} Were there need of proving that these both lie in 'beneficium',
which there is not, for in Wiclif's translation of the Bible the
distinction is still latent (1 Tim. vi. 2), one might adduce a
singularly characteristic little trait of Papal policy, which once
turned upon the double use of this word. Pope Adrian the Fourth
writing to the Emperor Frederic the First to complain of certain
conduct of his, reminded the Emperor that he had placed the
imperial crown upon his head, and would willingly have conferred
even greater 'beneficia' upon him than this. Had the word been
allowed to pass, it would no doubt have been afterwards appealed
to as an admission on the Emperor's part, that he held the Empire
as a feud or fief (for 'beneficium' was then the technical word
for this,