184 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2" d S. IX. Mar. 10. '60. 



returned, left the place, pledged his watch at the 

 nearest pawnbroker's, and thus discharged the 

 reckoning. 



The prince after he became monarch of Poland 

 occasionally kept up an intercourse with Colonel 

 Frederick, and in one of his letters asked the 

 bitter if he remembered when they were " in 

 pawn at a London tavern." 



In the latter portion of his life this unfortu- 

 nate man was induced by an acquaintance to 

 accept two notes. The man who was a trading 

 justice at that time, died before the notes became 

 due, and Colonel Frederick, seeing that he should 

 be responsible without any pecuniary resource, 

 and apprehensive of confinement in a gaol, formed 

 the desperate design of shooting himself. 



" The Colonel (says the authority already quoted — 

 John Taylor's Records of my Life, ii.227.) hy his constant 

 reading of classic authors, had imbued his" mind with a 

 kind of Uoman indifference of life. He arose generally 

 very early in the morning, lighted the fire when the 

 season required it, cleaned his boots, prepared himself for 

 a walk, took his breakfast, then read the classical 

 authors until it was time to take exercise and visit his 

 friends. This even tenourof life might have continued for 

 many years, if he had not unfortunately put his hand to 

 the bills in question ; but the prospect of a hopeless 

 privation of liberty, and the attendant evils and horrors of 

 a gaol, operated so strongly upon his mind, habituated to 

 ancient Roman notions, as to occasion the dreadful ter- 

 mination of his life by suicide." 



A petition to the British Government to take 

 into consideration his condition, is still extant in 

 the handwriting of Colonel Frederick. It is dated 

 from Greek- street, 1783. 



It will ever be a disgrace to this country that 

 poor Theodore, who had actually been elected 

 King of Corsica by the people, and his son, should 

 have been suffered to live among us in beggary, 

 while Pascal Paolj, who had no such pretensions, 

 but more powerful friends, should have been 

 amply provided for. Edward F. Rimbaui.t. 



A QUESTION IN LOGIC. 



(2 nd S. ix. 25.) 



Four answers have been received. Among 

 theiu a part of the true connexion of the proposi- 

 tions is found : but in no one of them is it all to 

 be seen. That connexion is that the three pro- 

 positions are identical: each one of them mcans'as 

 much as either of the other two, and no more. 

 The three propositions are: 



1. A master of a parent is a superior. 



2. A servant of an inferior is not a parent. 



3. An inferior of a child is not a master. 



I might write a long chapter on the connexion 

 of these propositions. To avoid this, I will ad- 

 vert to only one of the difficulties which oft™ stand 

 in the way. In examining the logical dependence 

 pf two propositions, we have nothing to do with 



the question about the existence or non-existence 

 of the terms named in the propositions. If there 

 were no masters in existence, for example, or if a 

 certain individual had no master, the questions of 

 truth or falsehood, relation or want of relation, 

 which would thence arise, have nothing to do with 

 the logical connexion of the forms of enunciation 

 used. To get this difficulty clear out of the wav, 

 suppose every person mentioned to have both 

 masters and servants, superiors and inferiors, 

 parents and children. The reader will also re- 

 member that it was postulated that no such thing 

 as equality is to be allowed to exist. 



I have to show that each of the propositions 

 gives the two otheis. It will be enough to take 

 one, and from it to prove the other two. I shall 

 take the second, and from it prove the first and 

 third. 



From the second to prove the first. 



Assume the second. If then the master of a 

 parent were in any case an inferior, every servant 

 of the master of the parent would be the servant 

 of an inferior, and among them the parent himself. 

 That is, a parent would be the servant of an in- 

 ferior ; which contradicts the assumption. Con- 

 sequently, in no case "is the master of a parent 

 an inferior; which is the first proposition. 



From the second to prove the third. Assume 

 the second. If the inferior of a child of X were 

 a master of X, X would be the servant of the 

 inferior of a child of X. If that child be Y, the 

 parent of Y would be the servant of the inferior 

 of Y ; which contradicts the assumption. Hence 

 any inferior of a child is not a master. 



The reader may by similar steps prove 2 and 3 

 from 1, or 1 and 2 from 3. 



Next, what is the theorem which is here applied? 

 I cannot enunciate it without strange symbols. 

 If L represent a relation of any kind, let L-verse 

 represent its converse relation. Thus, when L 

 represents parent, L-verse represents child. If 

 X be an L of Y, then Y is an L-verse of X. 

 Again, when two relations are contrary — that is, 

 one or other existing in every case, but never 

 both — let them be denoted as in L and non-L. 

 The theorem is then as follows : — If a third re- 

 lation can always be predicated of the combina- 

 tion of other two, then the same may be said if 

 one of the combining relations be changed into its 

 converse, and the other two be controverted — 

 changed into their contraries — and made to 

 change places. That is, the three following asser- 

 tions are identical : — 



1 . Every L of an M is an X. 



2. Every L-verse of a non-N is a non-M. 



3. Every non-N of an M-verse is a non-L. 

 This theorem was stated, so far as I know for 



the first time, in my recently published Syllabus 

 of a proposed system of Logic. It belongs to the 

 forms of thought the analyses of which the logi- 



