Notes and Queries, Number 188, June 4, 1853

The first time I saw this device was in a most curious MS. on "Memorial Trophies and Funeral Monuments, both in the old Churches of London before the Fire, and the Churches and Mansions in many of the Counties of England." The MS. is written by Henry St. George, and will be found in Lansd. MSS. 874. The arms and tombs are all elaborately and carefully drawn, with their various localities, and the epitaphs which belong to them; and the whole is accompanied with an Index of Persons, and another of Places.

At p. 28. this device of a man combating a lion is represented associated with a shield of arms of many quarterings, showing the arms and alliances of the royal family of Stuart, and is described as having formed the subject of a window in the stewards house adjoining the church of St. Andrew's, Holborn. In the Catalogue of the Lansdowne MSS. is a long and interesting note on this device, with references to the various works where it may be found, to which I have had access at the Museum, and find them correct, and opening a subject for investigation of a most curious kind.

The figure of the knight, in this drawing, differs considerably from that on Dr. Barrett's seal. He is here represented on foot, dressed in the chain mail and tunic of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, with a close-barred helmet, with a broad flat crown, such as was worn in France in the time of Louis IX., called St. Louis. The lion is in the act of springing upon him, and he is aiming a deadly blow at him with a ragged staff, as his sword lies broken at his feet. The figure is represented as fighting on the green sward. From a cloud over the lion proceeds an arm clothed in chain mail, and holding in the hand, suspended by a baldrick, a shield bearing the arms of France (modern[3 - I say modern, for the ancient arms of France were Azure, semée of fleurs-de-lis, as they are represented in old glass, when quartered with those of England by our Henries and Edwards.])—Azure, three fleurs-de-lis or. On a scutcheon of pretence in the centre, Argent, a lion ramp. gules, debruised with ragged staff, proper. This device forms the 1st quarter of the quarterings of the Stuart family.

In this device there is no figure of a lizard, dragon, or chimera, whichever it is, under the horse's feet, as represented in the seal of D'Albini.

I could much extend this reply, by showing the antiquity of this device, which by a long process of investigation I have traced as connected with the legendary songs of the troubadours; but I think I have said sufficient for the present, in reply to Senex.

In addition to the above, I may mention a seal of a somewhat similar character to that of D'Albini, representing a knight on horseback, with his sword in his hand, and his shield of arms, which are also on the housings of the horse, under whose feet is the dragon: on the reverse is the combat of the knight with the lion. The knight is holding his shield in front, and holding his sword in his left hand. This seal is that of Roger de Quincy, earl of Winchester, and appended to a deed "m.cc. Quadrigresimo Quinto." It occurs in Harl. MSS. 6079. p. 127.

    E. G. Ballard.

Pray request Senex to withdraw every word he has said about me. I do not recollect that I ever said or wrote a word about the Seal of William D'Albini; and I cannot find that my name occurs in Dr. Barrett's volume.

    Edw. Hawkins.

"WILL" AND "SHALL."

(Vol. vii., p. 356.)

The difficulty as to the proper use of the auxiliaries shall and will, will be found to arise from the fact, that while these particles respectively convey a different idea in the first person singular and plural, from that which they imply in the second and third persons singular and plural, the distinction has been lost sight of in the amalgamation of both; as if they were interchangeable, in one tense, according to the old grammatical formula I shall or will. With a view of giving my own views on the subject, and attempting to supply what appears to me a grammatical deficiency, I shall proceed to make a few remarks; from which I trust your Hong Kong correspondent W. T. M. may be able to form "a clear and definite rule," and students of English assisted in their attempts to overcome this formidable conversational "shibboleth."

The fact is simply thus:—Will is volitive in the first persons singular and plural; and simply declarative or promissory in the second and third persons singular and plural. Shall, on the other hand, is declaratory or promissory in the first person singular and plural; volitive in the second and third singular and plural. Thus, the so-called future is properly divisible into two tenses: the first implying influence or volition; the second (or future proper) intention or promise. Thus:

When the above is thoroughly comprehended by the pupil, it will be only necessary to impress upon his mind (as a concise rule) the necessity of making use of a different auxiliary in speaking of the future actions of others, when he wishes to convey the same idea respecting such actions which he has done, or should do, in speaking of his own, and vice versâ. Thus:

I will go, and you shall accompany me.

(i. e. it is my wish to go, and also that you shall accompany me.)

I shall go, and you will accompany me.

(i. e. it is my intention to go; and believe, or know, that it is your intention to accompany me.)

The philosophical reason for this distinction will be evident, when we reflect upon the various ideas produced in the mind by the expression of either volition or mere intention (in so far as the latter is distinguishable from active will) with regard to our own future actions, and the same terms with reference to the future actions of others. It will be seen that a mere intention in the first person, becomes influence when it extends to the second and third; we know nothing, à priori (as it were) of the intentions of others, except in so far as we may have the power of determining them. When I say "I shall go" (j'irai), I merely express an intention or promise to go; but if I continue "You and they shall go," I convey the idea that my intention or promise is operative on you and them; and the terms which I thus use become unintentionally influential or expressive of an extension of my volition to the actions of others. Again, the terms which I use to signify volition, with reference to my own actions, are but declaratory or promissory when I speak of your actions, or those of others. I am conscious of my own wish to go; but my wish not influencing you, I do, by continuing the use of the same auxiliary, but express my belief or knowledge that your wish is, or will be, coincident with my own. When I say "I will go" (je veux aller), I express a desire to go; but if I add, "You and they will go," I simply promise on behalf of you and them, or express my belief or knowledge that you and they will also desire to go.

It is not unworthy of note, that the nice balance between shall and will is much impaired by the constant use of the ellipse, "I'll, you'll," &c.; and that volition and intention are, to a great extent, co-existent and inseparable in the first person: the metaphysical reasons for this do not here require explanation.

I am conscious that I have not elucidated this apparently simple, but really complex question, in so clear and concise a manner as I could have wished; but, feeling convinced that my principle at least is sound, I leave it, for better consideration, in the hands of your correspondent.

    William Bates.

Birmingham.

Brightland's rule is,—

"In the first person simply shall foretells;
In will a threat or else a promise dwells:
Shall in the second and the third does threat;
Will simply then foretells the coming feat."

(See T. K. Arnold's Eng. Gram. for Classical Schools, 3rd edit., p. 41.; Mitford, Harmony of Language; and note 5. in Rev. R. Twopeny's Dissertations on the Old and New Testament.)

The inconsistency in the use of shall and will is best explained by a doctrine of Mr. Hare's (J. C.  H.), the usus ethicus of the future. (See Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. ii. p. 203., where the subject is mentioned incidentally, and in illustration; and Latham's English Language, 2nd edit., p. 498., where Mr. Hare's hypothesis is given at length. Indeed, from Latham and T. K. Arnold my Note has been framed.)

    F. S., B. A.

Lee.

INSCRIPTIONS IN BOOKS

(Vol. vii., p. 127.)

Your correspondent Balliolensis, at p. 127. of the current volume of "N. & Q.," gives several forms of inscriptions in books. The following may prove interesting to him, if not to the generality of your readers.

A MS. preserved in the Bibliothèque Sainte Généviève—it appears to have been the cellarer's book of the ancient abbey of that name, and to have been written about the beginning of the sixteenth century—bears on the fly-sheet the name of "Mathieu Monton, religieux et célérier de l'église de céans," with the following verses:

"Qui ce livre cy emblera,
Propter suam maliciam
Au gibet pendu sera,
Repugnando superbiam
Au gibet sera sa maison,
Sive suis parentibus,
Car ce sera bien raison,
Exemplum datum omnibus."

An Ovid, printed in 1501, belonging to the Bibliothèque de Chinon, has the following verses:

"Ce present livre est à Jehan Theblereau.

"Qui le trouvera sy lui rende:
Il lui poyra bien le vin
Le jour et feste Sainct Martin,
Et une mésenge à la Sainct Jean,
Sy la peut prendre.

"Tesmoin mon synet manuel, cy mis le x

jour de avril mil v

trente et cyns, après Pasque."

Here follows the paraphe.

School-boys in France write the following lines in their books after their names, and generally accompany them with a drawing of a man hanging on a gibbet:

"Aspice Pierrot pendu,
Quòd librum n'a pas rendu;