26 NOTES AND QUERIES. [12 s. vm. JAN. s, 1021. 1908, by the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Aber- deen). Kingstown, Dublin, on the jetty are two stones, forming part of the harbour wall boundary, recording the first and last -visits of the queen, the inscriptions are ; V.R. 1849. V.B. 1900. Medical Examination Hall, Strand (12 S. iii. 15). Particulars are desired of the Victoria memorials at Newport, I.O.W., and in -the grounds of Woodlands (Luttrelstown), Dublin (obelisk). J. ARDAGH. 27 Hartismere Road, Walham Green, S.W.6. THE PRINCE OF WALES IN AUSTRALIA : THE TITLE DUKE OF CORNWALL. In con- mection with the visit of the Prince of Wales to Australia there is an incident relating to his titles which should be put on record in *N. & Q.' An official instruction was issued as to the manner in which His Royal Highness was to be described in addresses presented to him, and in the addresses prepared before his arrival the direction was followed. In these there is no mention of the "Duke of Cornwall." In fact in certain quarters where greater knowledge should
- have existed it was asserted that the Prince
was not the Duke of Cornwall. When His Royal Highness reached Victoria Sir Langdon Bonython, K.C.M.G., a well-known Cornish- man, directed attention to the omission by a letter in the Melbourne Argus. He em- phasized the points that the "Duke of 'Cornwall " is not a mere title, but very much more than that, and that "the eldest son of the King is Duke of Cornwall," being made Prince of Wales. Correspondence followed with the result that the Prime Minister of Australia received from Lieut. - -Col. Grigg (Secretary to the Prince of Wales) .a communication in which he said : "The Prince of Wales has observed |that some discussion has taken place regarding the omission of the title of ' Duke of Cornwall' from the list of titles prefixed to the addresses presented to him here. His Royal Highness very much regrets that owing to some error in the original communication forwarded to this country on the matter, the title -of ' Duke of Cornwall,' of which he is very proud, .has not appeared in the addresses hitherto received by him. He directs me, therefore, to ask you to 'have the proper list of titles, which I attach, -circulated to all concerned." The following is the list referred to : His Royal Highness Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, Princ* of Wales and Earl of Chester in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, Duke of Cornwall in the Peerage of Eng- land, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, and Baron of Renfrew in the Peerage of Scotland, Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of Scotland, K.G., GLC.M.G., G.C.V.O., G.M.B.E., and M.C. From the above list the words in italics in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, Duke of Cornwall, were omitted, the consequence being that the addresses prepared in accordance with the original instruction contain an absolute misstatement. His Royal Highness is not " Prince of W r ales and Earl of Chester in the Peerage of England." He is "Duke of Cornwall in the Peerage of England," and "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. ' ' AN AUSTRALIAN CORNISHMAN. Melbourne. PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. Sir Richard C. Jebb, M.P., Regius Professor of Greek (1902), writes in chap. xvi. of the ' Cambridge Modern History,' vol. i. p. 581, headed 'The Classical Renaissance ' : "Mention is due here to the important part which both these eminent men [Sir John Cheke and Sir Thomas Smith I bore in a controversy which excited and .divided the humanists of that age. The teachers from whom the Scholars of the Renaissance learned Greek pronounced that language as Greeks do at the present day. In 1528 Erasmus published at Basel his dialogue De recta Latini Grecique Sermonis Pronuntiatione. His protest was chiefly directed against the modern Greek iotasism : i.e., the pronunciation of several different vowels and diphthongs with the same sound, that of the Italian . He rightly maintained that the ancients must have given to each of these vowels and diphthongs a distinctive pound ; and he urged that it was both irrational and inconvenient not to do so. He also objected to the modern Greek mode of pronouncing certain consonants. His reformed pronunciation name to be known as the ' Erasmian ' ; while that used by modern Greeks was called, the 'Reuchlinian,' because Reuchlin (whom Melanchthon followed) had upheld it. About 15g5, Thomas Smith and 3 John Cheke then young men of about twenty examined the question for themselves, and came to the conclusion that Erasmus was right. Thereupon Smith began to use the ' Erasmian ' pronunciation in his Greek lectures though cautiously at first ; Cheke and others supported him ; and the reform was soon generally accepted. But in 1542, Bishop Gardiner, the Chancellor of the University, issued a decree, enjoining a return to the Reuchlinian mode. Ascham has described, not without humour, the discontent which this edict evoked. After Elizabeth's accession, the 'Erasmian' method was restored." Arising out of this passage I should be glad to know : (1) Do the words "as Greeks do at the present day " mean in 152835 or in 1902 ? The phrasing is somewhat obscure. (2) If in the former, what was the
