Q. Dec´orus or deco´rus, which?

A. Webster authorizes both, giving preference to the latter. The former has the advantage of placing the accent on the root syllable, a rule that is very helpful in settling questions of pronunciation, and conforms to usage in the accentuation of cognate words, as “dec´orate,” “dec´oration,” etc. We prefer it.

Q. What is the meaning of “liberal,” in the phrases, “liberal education,” and “liberal religious views?”

A. An education extended much beyond the practical necessities of our every-day business and social life, is liberal. It is not a possession belonging alone to the alumni of colleges and universities. Any person of culture, who, with or without the aid of teachers, has mastered the curriculum of studies prescribed by colleges, or its equivalent, is liberally educated. In the best sense, a man of “liberal religious views” is generous, freely according to others the right to their opinions on all subjects about which good men may differ. He is not creedless, but not bigoted; and cordially approves “things that are most excellent,” wherever they are found. The claim to great liberality, set up by those who have no rule of faith, and no views they are willing to formulate, does not seem well founded.

Q. Where is the line, “Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife” found? and should not the word “madding” be “maddening?”

A. The line is from Gray’s Elegy (73). The adjective “mad” is made a causative verb, without the usual suffix, “en.” We do not find the form in prose, and would not use it.

Q. Are there any books purporting to prove scientifically the immortality of the soul?

A. If by “scientifically,” the querist means, as we suppose, rationally, philosophically, our answer is, yes, very many. More books have been written upon this one subject than one could read carefully in a lifetime. Several thousand distinct works, written in Greek, Latin, English, and the principal languages of Europe, have been catalogued by Ezra Abbott. The catalogue itself, published as an appendix to Alger’s “Doctrine of a Future Life,” would make a respectable volume, containing, as it does, a list of more than five thousand books, by almost as many authors, who discuss, more or less satisfactorily, the great problem of the soul. Some propose, not argument, but only a history of the doctrine of a future, immortal life as held by the different races of men, with various shades of opinion respecting it. Some doubt, some disbelieve, and some, discarding all rational processes, accept the dogma as a matter of faith alone, lying beyond the field of our reason. But many Christian writers, thankful for the “more sure word of prophecy,” and that “life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel,” hold also that outside the realm of faith, it is a fit subject for rational investigation, and as capable of proof or demonstration as other moral and psychical problems. Perhaps most of the works named in the catalogue consulted, treat of the soul and its immortality in connection with other principles and facts of the religious systems accepted by the authors, and are too voluminous for common use. Drew’s “Essay on the Immateriality and Immortality of the Soul” founded wholly on psychological and rational principles is regarded a masterpiece of metaphysical argument—clear, logical, satisfactory.

Q. Is the expression “as though” ever correct?

A. “Though” is often used in English, taking the place of the conditional if, especially in the phrases as though and what though, which interchange with as if and what if; e. g.:

Other examples need not be given. These approve the expression as correct, though not much used at present.

Q. Will the firing of cannon over water bring a dead body at the bottom to the surface; if so, why, or how?

A. The concussion or violent agitation of the water may loosen a body slightly held at the bottom, when, if specifically lighter than water, it will rise.

Q. In “Recreations in Astronomy,” p. 163, it is said 192 asteroides have been discovered, with diameters from 20 to 400 miles; and on the next page it is “estimated” that if all these were put into one planet, it would not be over 400 miles in diameter. How can that be?

A. Allowing, as the author does, that the density of the masses remains the same, it would, of course, be impossible. We have not the means at hand to either verify or correct the diameters given, and can not locate the error.