Part 4
"A ball from their infantry went through my jacket, Took the skin off my side, and made me racket. My sword-belt turned it, otherwise through it must have gone. The stroke was very severe, compare it to a sharp gore. Captain Fitzroy said, 'Harding is severely wounded; A ball has gone through his side: here it comes, rounded!' 'Stop,' said I, 'a minute; I shall be ready for another shot, I have now gotten my breath again, I will make them rot.' I then said to a gunner who was alleviating a gun, 'Which of those columns do you mean to make run?' 'That,' said he, pointing with his finger to a very large mass. A ball came that instant and turned him into brass. It cut him in two; he then turned as yellow as that metal. He was a strange sight to see, and appeared quite brittle."--P. 16.
H. B. C.
U. U. C.
* * * * *
DATES OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS OF THE PRETENDERS.
(Vol. viii., p. 565.)
Though it is much to be regretted that the dates in question are not recorded on the Stuart monument in St. Peter's, yet the deficiency is in part supplied by the cenotaph raised to the memory of his elder brother by Cardinal York, in his cathedral church at Frascati. From it we find that Charles Edward deceased on 31st January, 1788, at the age of sixty-seven years and one month. This date also fixes the year of his birth at 1720, and the month December; most probably the 28th, though often given as the 31st. We give a copy of the inscription below.
The date of the birth and decease of James III. is correctly given in "N. & Q.," Vol viii., p. 565.
An account of the sepulchral monument of the last of the Stuarts may interest the readers of "N. & Q." In the south aisle of St. Peter's, and against the first pier of the nave, is the monument of the Stuarts. It was sculptured by Canova to the memory of James, the old Pretender; Charles Edward, the young Pretender; and Henry Benedict, the Cardinal, who was known in Rome as Cardinal York. Part of the expense of the monument was defrayed by George IV., who sent a donation of fifty pounds for the purpose to Pius VII. The monument is built on to the masonry of the pier, of white marble, about fifteen feet high, and is in the form of the frustrum of a {178} pyramid, and surmounted above the entablature by the royal arms of England. Below the arms are profile portraits in bas-relief of James, Charles Edward, and Henry Benedict, surmounted by a festoon of flowers. Beneath the portraits is the following inscription:
"Jacobo III. Jacobi II. Magnæ Brit. regis filio, Karolo Edvardo, Et Henrico, decano Patrum Cardinalium, Jacobi III. filiis, Regiæ Stirpis Stuardiæ postremis. A.D. MDCCCXIX. Beati mortui, Qui in Domino moriuntur."
There is a representation of panelled doors, as if leading to a vault, below the inscription, though their sepulchre is not in this locality; a small triangular slab of marble surmounts the door, with the words "Beati mortui," &c. A weeping angel in bas-relief guards the doorway on each side; the head of each angel resting on the bosom, the wings drooping, the hands elevated, joined together, and resting on the end of an extinguished and inverted torch. The figures of the two angels are exquisitely beautiful, and among Canova's finest works.
The bodies, however, of these last representatives of a fallen line are not buried beneath this monument, but in the crypt under the dome, and in that portion of it called the "Grotto Vecchie." There, in the first aisle to the left on entering, against the wall, a tomb about six feet long by three broad contains all that remains of the ashes of the last of the Stuarts. Over it is a plain slab of marble, with an inscription to announce that this is the burial-place of "James III., Charles III., and Henry IX., Kings of England." Even in death this royal race has not abandoned the claim they were unable to enforce.
Opposite to this monument is the monument of Maria Clementina, daughter of James Sobieski, and grand-daughter of John Sobieski, King of Poland, wife of James III., and mother of Charles Edward and Henry Benedict. She married on 3rd September, 1719, and died at Rome on 18th January, 1735. The monument stands against the wall over the door leading to the staircase by which the public ascend to the cupola. Pietro Bracci carved the monument from the design of Filippo Barigioni, consisting of a pyramid of porphyry on a base of Porta Santa marble, the whole relieved by a ground of blue sky and clouds painted on the wall. Under the elevated pyramid is the sarcophagus of porphyry, above which are two marble statues, one of Charity, and the other of an infant, which support a circular medallion portrait in mosaic, of Maria Clementina, by Cav. Cristofori, from a painting by Lewis Stern. Drapery of Sicilian alabaster, with a fringe of gilded bronze, falls in ample folds on both sides of the sarcophagus, which is flanked by two angels, one holding a crown and the other a sceptre; and upon it the words are carved "Maria Clementina M. Britann. Fr. et Hibern. Regina." It was erected by the "Fabbrica di S. Pietro," at the cost of 18,000 scudi. There is another monument in Rome to Maria Clementina, and it is in the church of the SS. Apostoli, in the nave, upon the second pier on the right-hand side. It contains her heart, and consists of a circular urn of verde antico, surmounted by a crown, over which two angels hover, of white marble; and below, a tablet of rosso antico, bearing an inscription, thus:
"Mariæ Clementinæ Magnæ Britanniæ Etc. Reginæ, Fratres Min. Cons. venerabundi pp.
Hic Clementinæ remanent præcordia, nam cor Cælestis fecit ne superesset amor."
Charles Edward has also another monument in addition to the one in St. Peter's, namely, at Frascati, fourteen miles from Rome, of which see Cardinal York was bishop. Its position is to the left of the great entrance door; the inscription runs thus:
"Hic situs est Karolus Odoardus, cui pater Jacobus III., Rex Angliæ, Scotiæ, Franciæ, Hiberniæ, primus natorum, paterni juris et regiæ dignitatis successor et hæres, qui, domicilio sibi Romæ delecto, Comes Albanyensis dictus est. Vixit annos LXVII et mensem: decessit in pace [Chi-rho] pridie Kal. Febr. anno MDCCLXXXVIII.
"Henricus Card. Episc. Tusculan., cui paterna jura titulique cessere, Ducis Eboracensis appellatione resumpta, in ipso luctu amori et reverentiæ obsequutus, indicto in templum suum funere multis cum lacrimis præsens justa persolvit fratri augustissimo, honoremque sepulchri ampliorem destinavit."
Henry Benedict, or Cardinal York, was born at Rome on 6th of March, 1725. He was Bishop of Ostia and Velletri, Dean of the Sacred College, Vice-Chancellor of the Roman Church, Arch-priest of St. Peter's, and Prefect of the Fabric of St. Peter's. He deceased at Frascati in July, 1807. In the church at Frascati, on the left hand of the entrance into the sanctuary, there is a monument in his honour; but I have not a copy of the inscription.
It is needless to add that though all these monuments are made of the richest marbles, and at great cost, the effect produced by them as Christian sepulchral monuments is unsatisfactory in the extreme. The inscriptions upon them are in equally bad taste.
CEYREP.
{179}
* * * * *
"COULD WE WITH INK," ETC.
(Vol. viii., p. 648., &c.)
I agree with your learned correspondent MR. MARGOLIOUTH, that the authorship of the lines alluded to must be ascertained by comparing _the whole_, and not by a single expression. It seems to me highly probable that they were suggested, either by the Chaldee hymn quoted by your correspondent, or by the lines of Chaucer, quoted "N. & Q.," Vol. viii., p. 180. I cannot, however, agree that the popular lines in question are a are a translation of the Chaldee hymn. The improbability will appear, if we compare them (as given "N. & Q.," Vol. viii., p. 127.) with the following version of the hymn; which, although metrical, will be found sufficiently literal:
"To write the eternal power of God, no effort would suffice; Although, such writing to contain, the volume were the skies; Each reed a pen; and for the ink, the waters of the sea; And though each dweller on the earth, an able scribe should be."
This hymn, I admit, is more succinct than the popular lines; but at the same time I cannot but think that its author was indebted to the passage in the Koran ("N. & Q.," Vol. viii., p. 422.), immediately, or through Chaucer; who has not only the general sentiment as there found, but also--
"Eche sticke a pen, eche man a scrivener able."
I am equally convinced, that Mahomet himself took the thought from the passage in the New Testament, as suggested by your correspondent E. G. R. Each successive writer appears to have added something to what he borrowed. But when the Evangelist, John, had said, "_The world itself_ would not be able to contain the books that should be written," it was easy for one writer to suppose an inkstand capacious as the sea; and for another to supply parchment, pens, and scribes _ad libitum_. That the phrase in the Koran should _now_ be common in the East, is not wonderful, considering the extent to which Mahomedanism has prevailed there. After all, I do not think that the _additions_ are any very great improvements. Without disputing about tastes, I may say at least that, for my own part, I greatly prefer the simplicity of the original idea, as expressed by the beloved disciple.
J. W. THOMAS.
Dewsbury.
* * * * *
MACKEY'S THEORY OF THE EARTH.
(Vol. viii., pp. 468. 565.; Vol. ix., p. 89.)
A friend called on me this morning with the Number containing a notice of S. A. Mackey, supposing that, being a neighbour, I could furnish a few particulars of that extraordinary man. The whole of his MSS. came into my possession after his demise. Amongst these was a MS. of his Life, written by himself, and of which I took a faithful copy: which I have transcribed for gentlemen who wish to possess a copy. I am ready to furnish any gentleman with a copy, neatly written, book included, for 5s. It consists of fifty-two pages large demy 4to. The original is in the possession of a Mr. Brereton of Flitcham, near Lynn, Norfolk, to whom I sold all the MSS., Mr. Brereton being an intimate friend of S. A. Mackey.
I have on sale a copy of Mr. Mackey's _Works_, selected by Mr. Shickle, another intimate friend; neatly done up in coloured cloth. Also a copy of his _Mythological Astronomy_, with copious notes, in one hundred pages. Also, an Appendix of forty-eight pages. And another copy of the MS. Astronomy, with notes; but minus the Appendix.
I may as well inform you, that a friend of mine has in his possession a half-length full-size portrait of Mr. Mackey; admirably executed, and in prime condition, in a handsome frame. I believe it is for sale. I assure you, when I first saw it, I felt at the moment a kind of impulse to shake hands with my old friend and neighbour.
I shall feel great pleasure in answering any inquiries, so far as my knowledge extends. His Life is truly interesting; being that of a man born in sorrow, and cradled in adversity. Like him, I am a self-taught humble individual, and in my eighty-second year.
J. DAWSON.
15. Doughty's Hospital, Calvert Street, Norwich.
In July, 1830, Sampson Arnold Mackey delivered a course of six "astro-historical lectures" in a large room near the Philanthropic Institution. The attendance was full, considering the subject, and I was surprised at the admiration which many well-educated persons expressed for his strange theories, to which they seemed to give full assent. To me his calculations and etymologies appeared as good as those of Pluche, Sir W. Drummond, Volney, and Dupuis, but no better. I met him at the house of the late Dr. Wright, then resident physician to Bethlehem Hospital. He was quiet and unassuming; but so perfectly satisfied that he had proved his system, that though ready to explain, he declined to answer objections, or defend his opinions. As a remarkable example of "the pursuit of knowledge under difficulties," he excited sympathy, and I believe that he disposed of all the copies of his various works then unsold.
H. B. C.
U. U. Club.
{180}
* * * * *
DO CONJUNCTIONS JOIN PROPOSITIONS ONLY?
(Vol. viii., pp. 514. 629.)
As my name appears to have been referred to by two of your correspondents, MR. INGLEBY and H. C. K., in connexion with the above question, I request to be permitted to state my real views upon it, together with the grounds upon which they rest. In doing this I can only directly refer to the observations of H. C. K., not having seen those of MR. INGLEBY to which he makes allusion.
Admitting that there are many conjunctions which connect propositions only, I am unable to coincide with the view of my friend Dr. Latham and other grammarians, that the property is universal. And I agree with MR. INGLEBY, as quoted by H. C. K., in thinking that the incorrectness of that view may be _proved_. We possess the power of conceiving of any distinct classes of things, as "trees," "flowers," &c. And we possess the power of connecting such conceptions in thought, so as to form, for instance, the conception of that collection of things which consists of "trees and flowers" together. If we possess the power of _performing_ this mental operation, we have clearly also the power of _expressing_ it by a sign. This sign is the conjunction "and." It is assumed, what consciousness indeed makes evident, that the power of forming conceptions is antecedent to that of forming judgments expressed by propositions.
But even if we proceed to form a judgment, as "trees and flowers exist," it may still be shown that the conjunction "and" connects the substantives "trees," "flowers," and not propositions. For if we reduce the given proposition to the form, "trees exist and flowers exist," the conjunction becomes wholly superfluous. It adds nothing whatever to the meaning of the separate propositions, "trees exist," "flowers exist." Omit, however, the conjunction between the substantives in the original proposition, and the sense is wholly lost. What meaning can we attach, except by a convention, to the form of words "trees flowers exist." Now there is, I conceive, no more obvious principle in grammar than that the doctrine of the elements of speech should be founded upon the examination of instances in which they have a real meaning--in which their employment is essential, not accidental.
It is doubtless one of the consequences of the neglect of this principle, that the older grammarians have made it a part of the definition of a conjunction, that it is a word "devoid of signification" ([Greek: phônê asêmos]). See references in Harris, p. 240. Were the philosophy of grammar founded, as alone it truly can be, upon the laws of thought, I venture to think that such statements would no longer be accepted.
If the views which I have expressed needed confirmation, they would to my own mind derive it from the circumstance, that on applying to the original proposition that "mathematical analysis of logic" to which H. C. K. refers (not, I think, without a shade of scorn), it is resolved into the elementary propositions, "trees exist," "flowers exist," _unconnected by any sign_.
Let us take, as a second example, the proposition, "All trees are endogens or exogens." If the subject, "all trees," is to be retained, there is, I conceive, but one way in which the above proposition can mentally be formed. We form the conception of that collection of things which comprises endogens and exogens together, and we refer, by an act of judgment, "all trees" to that collection. And thus _the subject "all trees," remaining unchanged_, the conjunction "or" connects the terms of the predicate, as the conjunction "and" in the previous example connected those of the subject. I am prepared to show that this is the only view of the proposition consistent with its strictly logical use. If H. C. K. insist upon the resolution "any tree is an endogen, or it is an exogen," I would ask him to define the word "it." He cannot interpret it as "any tree," for the resolution would then be invalid. It must be applied to a _particular_ tree, and then the proposition resolved is really a "singular" one, and not the proposition whose subject is "all trees."
Not only do conjunctions in certain cases couple words, but in so doing they manifest the dominion of mental laws and the operation of mental processes, which, though never yet recognised by grammarians and logicians, form an indispensable part of the only basis upon which logic as a science can rest. And however strange the assertion may appear, I do not hesitate to affirm that the science thus established is a mathematical one. I do not by this mean that its subject is the same as that of arithmetic or geometry. It is not the _quantitative_ element to which the term is intended to refer. But I hold, with, I believe, an increasing school of mathematicians, that the processes of mathematics, as such, do not depend upon the nature of the subjects to which they are applied, but upon the nature of the laws to which those subjects, when they pass under the dominion of human thought, become obedient. Now the ultimate laws of the processes which are subsidiary to general reasoning, such as attention, conception, abstraction, as well as of those processes which are more immediately involved in inference, are such as to admit of perfect and connected development in a mathematical form alone. We may indeed, without any systematic investigation of those laws, collect together a system of rules and canons, and investigate their common principle. This the genius of Aristotle has done. But we cannot thus establish _general methods_. Above all, {181} we cannot thus establish such methods as may really guide us where the unassisted intellect would be lost amid the complexity or subtlety of the combinations involved. How small, for instance, is the aid which we derive from the ordinary doctrines of the logicians in questions in which we have to consider the operation of mixed causes and in various departments of statistical and social inquiry, in which the intellectual difficulty is almost wholly a logical one.
For the ground upon which some of these statements are made, I must refer to my recently-published work on the _Laws of Thought_. I trust to your courtesy to insert these remarks, and apologise for the undesigned length to which they have extended.
G. BOOLE.
Queens College, Cork.
* * * * *
ROBERT BLOET.
(Vol. ix., p. 105.)
Robert, Earl of Moreton, and Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, the Conquerors uterine brothers, both accompanied William, acting conspicuous parts on his invasion of England in 1066. The former died about 1090. Odo had been elected Bishop as far back as 1049. In 1088 he headed a conspiracy against William II.; but being defeated at Rochester, retired to Normandy. The time of his death is uncertain, but is supposed to have occurred in 1096.
The first notice of Robert Bloet's name, is as a witness to one of the charters of William II. to the monastery of Durham, granted in 1088 or 1089. He was appointed Chancellor in 1090, consecrated Bishop of Lincoln in 1093, and died in 1123.
These dates plainly prove that he was not "identical" with Robert, Earl of Moreton; and scarcely could be called cotemporary with him.
His supposed relationship to Odo is affirmed by Richardson, in his notes to Goodwin _de Præsulibus_, from an expression in his grant of the manor of Charleton to the priory of Bermondsey (Claud. A. 8., f. 118., MSS. Hutton); in which he says, "quod pro salute animæ Dom. mei Willelmi Regis, et _fratris mei_ Bajocens. Episcopi." If Odo be the Bishop here intended, the meaning of "fratris mei" may be translated, not in the natural, but in the episcopal sense, as brother of his order. But the grant is probably a forgery, or its date of 1093 incorrect, for at that time Odo was in exile; and Bloet would have scarcely ventured to insult the king, from whom he had just received rewards and advancement, by coupling with his the name of one who had been banished as a traitor.
For farther particulars, allow me to refer your correspondent MR. SANSOM to _The Judges of England_, vol. i. p. 103.
EDWARD FOSS.
* * * * *
PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.
_A Hint to the Photographic Society._--It has been objected to this Society, that beyond the establishment of its _Journal_, and the forming of an Exhibition, it has done very little to promote the improvement of the beautiful art it was specially intended to advance. Such objections are very easily urged; but those who make them should at least propose a remedy. It is in no unfriendly spirit that we allude to these complaints; and we well know how difficult it is for a body like the Photographic Society to take any important step which shall not be liable to misconstruction. We would however suggest, that among those endeavours which it would become the Society to make, there is one which might at once be taken, namely, to secure for the photographic public a good paper. The want of such an article is hourly felt. If the Photographic Society, following the example of the _Society of Arts_, should appoint a Committee to take this matter into consideration, to define clearly and unmistakeably the essentials of a good _negative_ paper for calotypes (for perhaps it would be well to keep to a _good negative_ paper), and offer a premium for its production, a very short time would elapse before specimens of such an article would be submitted for examination. It is clear that the premium need be one only of small pecuniary value; for the fact of a maker having produced such an article as should gain the prize, would secure him an ample recompense in the enormous demand which would instantly arise for a paper which should be stamped with the public approval of a body entitled to speak with so much authority on such a subject as the Council of the Photographic Society.
_Test for Nitrate of Silver._--The READER OF PHOTOGRAPHIC WORKS, who in Vol. ix., p. 111., asked for information as to how he might know whether nitrate of silver was pure, can detect any impurities with which that salt is likely to be contaminated, by applying a few simple tests to an aqueous solution of it. The impurities which nitrate of silver most frequently contains are nitrate of copper, nitrate of potash, and free nitric acid. It is also sometimes intentionally adulterated with nitrate of lead. The presence of a salt of copper is detected by the solution assuming a blue colour when mixed with an excess of ammonia. To detect nitrate of potash, hydrochloric acid should be added to the solution in sufficient quantity to precipitate the whole of the silver. The liquid should then be freed from the precipitate by filtration, and evaporated; if nitrate of potash is present, a fixed residue will remain after evaporation. The presence of a salt of lead is detected by adding a few drops of sulphuric acid to the solution of nitrate of silver, which precipitates the lead as sulphate if present. It is, however, necessary to dilute the acid with a considerable quantity of water, and, if any precipitate forms, to allow it to subside previous to using it as a test for lead, as ordinary sulphuric acid is frequently contaminated with sulphate of lead, which is soluble in the strong, but not in dilute, acid.