Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 2.djvu/148

142 the 1632 Folio of the Shakespeare plays, "Printed by Tho. Cotes for William Aspley," and in the A-1 copy in the New York Public Library. In this 'Epitaph,' which is usually ascribed to Milton, we read: "What neede that his hallow'd Reliques [the plays] should be hid under a starre-ypointed pyramid?" But in all, or almost all, the other issues of the plays which were brought out in 1632, "starre-ypointed pyramid" appears as "starre-ypointing pyramid."

"Starre-ypointing" is an absurd word—grammatically impossible, because y, like the German ge, is a prefix of the past participle, as we find in yclept, yclad, ychained, &c.

For more than a hundred years schoolmasters have set their scholars the task of "pointing out" the grammatical blunder in Milton's 'Epitaph,' intending that they should "point to" the absurdity of "ypointing," which is quite an impossible Word. These worthy pedagogues, however, never seem to have thought of declaring that the learned and accurate author of the 'Epitaph' could not by any possibility have made the ridiculous grammatical blunder which they attributed to him, but must of necessity have originally written, quite correctly, "ypointed." When I have put the matter before learned grammarians, and asked them whether they really believed it possible that the accurate and learned Milton could, by a "blunder," have written "starre-ypointing," they have said in every case, "No, we do not! It is impossible." But in 'Elementary Lessons in Historical English Grammar,' by the Rev. Richard Morris, LL.D., 1891, on p. 166, we read:—

And in the "Clarendon Press Series" 'Milton,' by R. C. Brown, M.A. (1875), we read in 'Notes on the Nativity Ode,' i. 258:—

Why had not these worthy men sense enough to perceive that the grammatically impossible word "starre-ypointing" could not have been an accidental "blunder," but must have been "purposefully" written to attract attention?

I am having 1,000 full-size facsimile copies made of the leaf in my own copy, which I am sending to all the principal libraries in the world. I am also having a second block prepared, so that any readers of 'N. & Q.' can have a perfect copy if they will send one shilling or its equivalent to the Artistic Reproductions Co., 17, Fleet Street, London, E.C.



general tone of the articles in The London Journal was educational, the sensational being confined to the stories, in which, however, there is nothing to offend. The guilty persons always get punished. I do not know a single weekly paper or magazine of the present day that makes such endeavours to improve its readers as did the Journal up to the time I am concerned with it in this note.

The London Journal that I knew ceased some years ago; but it was continued in several different forms, until with the issue dated 27 Jan., 1912, it finally disappeared as a separate publication after the title had been kept up for sixty-five years. It was merged in another weekly paper, full of interest and amusement, called Spare Moments, belonging to the same publishers, Messrs. C. & W. Bradley & Co. of Fetter Lane. They have been kind enough to answer some of a series of questions I put to them, whence I learn that they have a complete set of The London Journal, and also possess the woodblocks of the illustrations, from which good proofs could still be taken. Gilbert's illustrations in the reprints in book-form were printed from stereotype copies.

Probably there is not another set besides that at the National Library. The volumes would be of little use in a public library, I believe, on account of the brittleness of the paper, which would soon fall to pieces. Now the paper of Charles Knight's Penny Magazine is as good as ever. Unfortunately, the latter was comparatively short-lived, and had to resort to three different "series" during its fourteen years from 1832 to 1846. It had no romances, and appealed to a much more educated class than the readers of The London Journal. Both did much towards the encouragement of education. 