Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 1.djvu/499

 ii s. i. J E is, mo.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

491

I cannot answer M. GAIDOZ'S query very decisively, and know nothing of the etymo- logical question ; but I may say that my own impression is that lorwerth = Edward is comparatively modern. lorwerth was a common name in Wales in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but I know no instance of it as = Edward. Edward the Confessor is called Edward in ' Brut y Saeson ' (' Myv. Arch.,' ii. 511), in 'Brut lenan Brechf a ' (ib.), and in 'Buchedd Grufudd Ab. Cynan * (ib., p. 583). Again, in 1617 Dr. John Davies writes of a MS. "a serif enasid peth ohonaw ynghylch amner Ed. 2 ac Ed. 3 " ; and Edward as the name of private persons is common in Welsh poetry. On the other hand, Alun (1797-1840) speaks of lorwerth II. He wrote a cywyeld entitled ' Gene- digaeth lorwerth II.' H. I. B.

The Welsh translation, or Cymric substi- tution, of lorwerth instead of English Edward appears to belong to quite a modern date, probably not before the recent time of Edward VII. Its derivation is very dubious, compared with the well-established original sense of Edward = Anglo-Saxon Eadweard, i.e., guardian of wealth. lorwerth in Welsh is, however, not the oldest form of this name ; for we find in one of the earliest mediaeval Welsh texts, viz., in the Critical Edition of the ' Mabinogion ' by Prof. J. Rhys and Dr. Gw. Evans (Oxford, 1887) that it was at first spelt lorwoerth, though the later text of the ' Bruts,' edited in 1890 by the co-operation of the same two authors shows throughout the usual present spelling lorwerth (in eight different places). It occurs, likewise, once in the monumental edition of the ' Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales r by Aneur-Owen (printed, as a volume of the Public Records of the King dom, in 1841), where the original form of the name, " loruert uab Madauc," is ren- dered in the translation " lorwerth, the son of Madog " (p. 389). H. KREBS.

M. GAIDOZ says that he asks an historical question ; but is it not also an etymological one ? Jorwerth was the name of a Prince of Wales centuries before an English Prince of Wales was created. Is it correct to suppose that the personal name Edward was Welshified into Jorwerth ? I think not. Jorwerth was a Prince of Wales in 1067, and it is not difficult to arrive at the meaning of Jorwerth VII.. i.e., Prince of Wales VII. (Edward VII).

As a fact, does not brenin = King, and Cyntaf = first ? If I mistake not, Jorwerth

was the last hereditary Prince of Wales (proper).

Surely the personal name of a Welsh prince, who lived a century or two before a Prince of Wales was created by an English king, was not, or is not supposed to be, the Welsh for Edward.

ALFRED CHAS. JONAS.

Thornton Heath.

In the thirteenth century Jorwerth is usually latinized as Gervasius. This evi- dence has, of course, no philological value, as may be seen by comparing the English forms of Irish Christian names ; it merely implies an imagined similarity in sound. Edward is " Etwart " in the ' Brut y Tywy- sogion.' C. J.

WILLIAM GINGER (11 S. i. 425). Three Gingers were successively booksellers to Westminster School. The first of them, William Ginger, succeeded his master, Benjamin Barker of Great College Street, Westminster, as the School bookseller in 1764, and died 10 Feb., 1803, aged seventy- six. He was succeeded by his son, William Ginger, who died 26 Feb., 1830. The second William was succeeded by his son, Godfree William Ginger, who was born 23 June, 1808, and retired at Christmas, 1874, having served the School forty-four years.

Shortly after his retirement, G. W. Ginger assumed the surname of Godfree.

I shall be glad to obtain the date of his death, if any correspondent of ' N. & Q.' can give it me.

I might perhaps add that Joseph Welch, the original compiler of ' Alumni West- monasterienses,' was the assistant for nearly forty years of the second William Ginger, and that he died in 1805. G. F. R. B.

MONUMENTS TO AMERICAN INDIANS : CRISPUS ATTUCKS (10 S. xii. 87, 230, 358 ;

II S. i. 37, 235). I think that the extract I gave from The Boston Gazette showing Attucks was a mulatto was fair comment on MR. ALBERT MATTHEWS' s previous state- ment that he thought it had never been ascertained with certainty whether Attucks was an Indian or a negro or of mixed Indian and negro blood. The quotation seems to dispose of At tucks' s claims to be reckoned as pure Indian or pure negro. I did not deny that he might be of mixed Indian and negro blood, and the evidence MR. MAT- THEWS gives in his last reply that such mulattos were slaves accounts for Attucks's movements being so carefully noted. I am surprised at such a statement, but entirely