Notes and Queries, Number 213, November 26, 1853

Misquotation.—In an article entitled "Popular Ballads of the English Peasantry," a correspondent of "N. & Q." (Vol. v., p. 603.) quotes as "that spirit-stirring stanza of immortal John," the lines:

"Jesus, the name high over all," &c.

These lines were not written by John, but by Charles Wesley. Here is the proof:

1st. A hymn of which the stanza quoted is the first, appears (p. 40.) in the Collection of Hymns published by John Wesley in 1779; but in the preface he says, "but a small part of these hymns are of my own composing."

2nd. In his Plain Account of Christian Perfection, he says:

"In the year 1749, my brother printed two volumes of Hymns and Sacred Poems. As I did not see them before they were published, there were some things in them which I did not approve of; but I quite approved of the main of the hymns on this head."—Works, vol. xi. p. 376., 12mo. ed. 1841.

3rd. The lines quoted by your correspondent form the ninth stanza of a hymn of twenty-two stanzas (which includes the six in John Wesley's Collection), written "after preaching (in a church)," and published in "Hymns and Sacred Poems. In two volumes. By Charles Wesley, M.A., Student of Christ Church, Oxford. Bristol: printed and sold by Felix Farley, 1749." A copy is in my possession. The hymn is No. 194.; and the stanza referred to will be found in vol. i. p. 306.

    J. W. Thomas.

Dewsbury.

Epitaph in Ireland.—The following lines were transcribed by me, and form part of an epitaph upon a tombstone or mural slab, which many years past was to be found in (if I mistake not) the churchyard of Old Kilcullen, co. Kildare:

"Ye wiley youths, as you pass by,
Look on my grave with weeping eye:
Waste not your strenth before it blossom,
For if you do yous will shurdley want it."

    J. F. Ferguson.
Dublin.

Reynolds (Sir Joshua's) Baptism.—I have been favoured by the incumbent of Plympton S. Maurice with a copy of the following entry in the Register of Baptisms of that parish, together with the appended note; which, if the fact be not generally known, may be of interest to your correspondent A. Z. (Vol. viii., p. 102.) as well as to others among the readers of "N. & Q.":

"1723. Joseph, son of Samuel Reynolds, clerk, baptised July the 30th."

On another page is the following memorandum:

"In the entry of baptisms for the year 1723, the person by mistake named Joseph, son of Samuel Reynolds, clerk, baptized July 30th, was Joshua Reynolds, the celebrated painter, who died February 23, 1792."

Samuel Reynolds, the father, was master of Plympton Grammar School from about 1715 to 1745, in which year he died. During that period his name appears once in the parish book, in the year 1742, as "minister for the time being" (not incumbent of the parish): the Rev. Geo. Langworthy having been the incumbent from 1736 to 1745, both inclusive.

Query, Was Sir Joshua by mistake baptized Joseph? or was the mistake made after baptism, in registering the name?

    J. Sansom.

Oxford.

Tradescant.—The pages of "N. & Q." have elicited and preserved so much towards the history of John Tradescant and his family, that the accompanying extract from the register of St. Nicholas Cole Abbey, in the city of London, should have a place in one of its Numbers:

"1638. Marriages.—John Tradeskant of Lambeth, co. Surrey, and Hester Pooks of St. Bride's, London, maiden, married, by licence from Mr. Cooke, Oct. 1."

This lady erected the original monument in Lambeth churchyard upon the death of her husband in 1662. She died 1678.

    G.

Queries

GRAMMAR IN RELATION TO LOGIC

Dr. Latham (Outlines of Logic, p. 21., 1847, and English Language, p. 510., 2nd edition) defines the conjunction to be a part of speech that connects propositions, not words. His doctrine is so palpably and demonstrably false, that I am somewhat at a loss to understand how a man of his penetration can be so far deceived by a crotchet as to be blind to the host of examples which point to the direct converse of his doctrine. Let the learned Doctor try to resolve the sentence, All men are either two-legged, one-legged, or no-legged, into three constituent propositions. It cannot be done; either and or are here conjunctions which connect words and not propositions. In the example, John and James carry a basket, it is of course quite plain that the logic of the matter is that John carries one portion of the basket, and James carries the rest. But to identify these two propositions with the first mentioned, is to confound grammar with logic. The former deals with the method of expression, the latter with the method of stating (in thought) and syllogising. To take another example, Charles and Thomas stole all the apples. The fact probably was, that Charles' pockets contained some of the apples, and Thomas' pockets contained all the rest. But the business of grammar in the above sentence is to regulate the form of the expression, not to reason upon the matter expressed. A little thought will soon convince any person accustomed to these subjects that conjunctions always connect words, not propositions. The only work in which I leave seen Dr. Latham's fundamental error exposed, is in Boole's Mathematical Analysis of Logic; the learned author, though he seems unsettled on many matters of logic and metaphysics, has clearly made up his mind on the point now under discussion. He says:

"The proposition, every animal is either rational or irrational, cannot be resolved into, Either every animal is rational, or every animal is irrational. The former belong to pure categoricals, to latter to hypotheticals [Query disjunctives]. In singular propositions such conversions would seem to be allowable. This animal is either rational or irrational, is equivalent to, Either this animal is rational, or it is irrational. This peculiarity of singular propositions would almost justify our ranking them, though truly universals, in a separate class, as Ramus and his followers did."—P. 59.

This certainly seems unanswerable.

If Dr. Latham is a reader of "N. & Q.," I should be glad if he would give his reasons for adhering to his original doctrine in the face of such facts as those I have instanced.

    C. Mansfield Ingleby.

Birmingham.

THE CORONET [CROWN] OF LLEWELYN AP GRIFFITH, PRINCE OF WALES

A notice, transferred to The Times of the 5th instant from a recent number of The Builder, on the shrine of Edward the Confessor, after mentioning that "to this shrine Edward I. offered the Scottish regalia and the coronation chair, which is still preserved," adds, "Alphonso, about 1280, offered it the golden coronet of Llewelyn, Prince of Wales, and other jewels."

Who was Alphonso? And would the contributor of the notice favour the readers of "N. & Q." with the authority in extenso for the offering of this coronet?

The period assigned for the offering is certainly too early; Llewelyn ap Griffith, "the last sovereign of one of the most ancient ruling families of Europe" (Hist. of England, by Sir James Mackintosh, vol. ii. p. 254.), having been slain at Builth, Dec. 11, 1282. Warrington (Hist. of. Wales, vol. ii. p. 271.), on the authority of Rymer's Fœdera, vol. ii. p. 224., says: "Upon stripping Llewelyn there were found his Privy Seal; a paper that was filled with dark expressions, and a list of names written in a kind of cypher;" omitting, it will be observed, any reference to Llewelyn's coronet. That monarch's crown was probably obtained and transmitted to Edward I. on the capture, June 21, 1283, or shortly after, of his brother David ap Griffith, Lord of Denbigh, who had assumed the Welsh throne on the demise of Llewelyn; the Princess Catherine, the daughter and heir of the latter, and de jure sovereign Princess of Wales, being then an infant. Warrington states (vol. ii. p. 285.) that when David was taken, a relic, highly venerated by the Princes of Wales, was found upon him, called Crosseneych, supposed to be a part of the real cross brought by St. Neots into Wales from the Holy Land; and he adds that, besides the above relic, which was voluntarily delivered up to Edward by a secretary of the late Prince of Wales, "the crown of the celebrated King Arthur, with many precious jewels, was about this time presented to Edward," citing as his authorities Annales Waverleienses, p. 238.; Rymer's Fœdera, vol. ii. p. 247.

There are some particulars of these relics in the Archæologia Cambrensis; but neither that periodical, nor the authorities referred to by Warrington, are at the moment accessible to me.

    Cambro-Briton.

Minor Queries

Monumental Brass at Wanlip, Co. Leicester, and Sepulchral Inscriptions in English.—In the church of Wanlip, near this town, is a fine brass of a knight and his lady, and round the margin the following inscription, divided at the corners of the slab by the Evangelistic symbols:

"Here lyes Thomas Walssh, Knyght, lorde of Anlep, and dame Kat'ine his Wyfe, whiche in yer tyme made the Kirke of Anlep, and halud the Kirkyerd first, in Wirchip of God, and of oure lady, and seynt Nicholas, that God haue yer soules and mercy, Anno Dni millmo CCC

nonagesimo tercio."

Mr. Bloom states, in his Mon. Arch. of Great Britain, p. 210., that—

"There are, perhaps, no sepulchral inscriptions in that tongue (English) prior to the fifteenth century; yet at almost the beginning of it, some are to be met with, and they became more common as the century drew to a close."

Is there any monumental inscription in English, earlier than the above curious one, known to any of your correspondents?

    William Kelly.

Leicester.

Influence of Politics on Fashion.—Can any one of the numerous readers of "N. & Q." explain the meaning of the following passage of the note of p. 305. of Alison's History of Europe, 7th edition?—