Hugh David, a Welshman, who went out to America in the same vessel with William Penn, used to relate this curious anecdote of the state founder. Penn, he says, after watching a goat gnaw at a broom which lay on deck, called out to him, "Hugh, dost thou observe the goat? See what hardy fellows the Welsh are; how they can feed on a broom! However, Hugh, I am a Welshman myself, and will relate by how strange a circumstance our family lost their name. My grandfather was named John Tudor, and lived on the top of a hill or mountain in Wales. He was generally called John Penmunith, which in English is—John on the top of the hill. He removed from Wales into Ireland, where he acquired considerable property. Upon his return to his own country he was addressed by his friends and neighbours, not in the former way, but as Mr. Penn. He afterwards removed to London, where he continued to reside under the name of John Penn, which has since been the family name." David told this story to a Quaker, who wrote it down in these words, and gave the MS. to Robert Proud, the historian of Pennsylvania. The same David, in a copy of doggrel verses presented to Thomas Penn on a visit to Philadelphia in 1732, made an allusion to this descent. I quote four of the lines:
"For the love of him that now descended be,
I salute his loyal one of three,
That ruleth here in glory so serene,
I branch of Tudor, alias Thomas Penn."
This is at least curious. But I attach little credit to Mr. David's report. He certainly mistook or ill remembered Penn's words; as his grandfather was Giles Penn, and his ancestors for two generations before Giles are known to have been William.
The second note refers to Penn's descendants, and may claim a corner in your chronicle on more than one ground. William Penn was born in 1644: in 1844 his grandson, Granville Penn, well known as a writer on classical subjects, was still alive! The descendants of his first marriage with Miss Springett, six years ago were in the fifth and sixth generation after him; those by his second wife, Hannah Callowhill, in the second.
HEPWORTH DIXON.
ON THE WORD "PRENZIE" IN "MEASURE FOR MEASURE."
(Vol. iii., p. 401.)
I have read with attention the argument of your correspondent LEGES on the passage in Measure for Measure, in which the word "prenzie" occurs; and to much that he advances I should, like the modest orator who followed Mr. Burke, be contented to say "ditto." Nevertheless, as I cannot agree with him altogether, I beg permission to make a few remarks upon the question. The extent of my agreement with your correspondent will be shown in stating, that I think neither "priestly," "princely," nor "precise" to be the true word. We disagree, however, in the measure of our dislike; for of the three suggested corrections, "princely" is, to my mind, by far the best, and "precise," beyond all measure, the worst. Indeed, but that Mr. Knight has adopted the latter term, as well as Tieck, I should have regarded it as an instance of the difficulty in the way of the best qualified Germans of understanding the niceties of English meaning, or of feeling how far license might be tolerated in English versification. In adopting this term Mr. Knight appears to have forgotten that it has a special application as the Duke (Act I. Sc. 4.) uses it. Taken in connexion with the expressions "stands at a guard" and "scarce confesses," cautiously exact would appear to express the sense in a passage the whole spirit of which shows a scarcely disguised suspicion. The Duke, evidently, would not have been surprised, as Claudio was; and the expression appropriate to a close observer like the one, is a most unlikely epithet to have been chosen by the other. More fatal, however, is the destruction of the measure. Both instances go beyond all bounds of license. And though we may pass over the error in a critic so eminent even as Tieck, we need feel no compunction at exposing "earless on high" an Englishman who has pilloried so often and so mercilessly others for the same offence.