Читать книгу: «Notes and Queries, Number 49, October 5, 1850», страница 6

GRAY'S ELEGY

Perhaps the HERMIT of HOLYPORT will be satisfied with proofs from GRAY himself as to the time and manner of the first appearance of the Elegy.

GRAY thus writes to Dr. Wharton, under the date of "Dec. 17, 1750." [I quote Mason's "Life" of its Author, p. 216.]

"The stanzas" [which he afterwards called Elegy at the suggestion of Mason] "which I now enclose to you have had the misfortune, by Mr. [Horace] Walpole's fault, to be made still more public," &c.

The next letter in Mason's publication is a letter from "Mr. Gray to Mr. Walpole" (p. 217.), and is dated "Cambridge, Feb. 11, 1751," which runs thus:—

"As you have brought me into a little sort of distress, you must assist me, I believe, to get out of it as well as I can. Yesterday I had the misfortune of receiving a letter from certain gentlemen (as their bookseller expresses it) who have taken the Magazine of Magazines into their hands: they tell me that an ingenious poem, called 'Reflections in a Country Church-yard,' has been communicated to them, which they are printing forthwith; that they are informed that the excellent author of it is I by name, and that they beg not only his indulgence, but the honour of his correspondence, &c.... I therefore am obliged to desire you would make Dodsley print it immediately from your copy, but without my name, &c. He must correct the press himself … and the title must be 'Elegy written in a Country Church-yard.' If he would add a line or two to say it came into his hand by accident, I should like it better … If Dodsley do not do this immediately, he may as well let it alone."

Dr. Johnson (Life of Gray) says:

"His next production, 1750, was his far-famed Elegy," &c.

The Doctor adds:

"Several of his [Gray's] pieces were published, 1753, with designs by Mr. Bentley, and that they might in some form or other make a book, only one side of each leaf was printed. I believe the poems and the plates recommended each other so well, that the whole impression was soon bought."

It contains six poems, one being the Elegy. I have before me a copy of this collection, which is folio. The plates are clever, and very curious; a copy was sold at the Fonthill sale for 3l. 4s.! The copy, admirably bound, which I quote, was bought at a bookseller's front-window stall for 4s. The title of this collection is "Designs by Mr. R. BENTLEY, for six poems by Mr. J. GRAY."

According to the title-page, it was "printed for R. DODSLEY, in Pall Mall, MDCCLIII.," two years previously to the date to which your correspondent refers. This (1753) collection gives the line,—

 
"Save where the beetle wheels his droning flight."
 

In the Elegant Extracts (verse), ed. 1805, which, it must be needless to mention, was prepared by the able and indefatigable Dr. Vicesimus Knox, the accomplished scholar gives the line—

 
"Save where the beetle wheels his drony flight."
 

Dr. Johnson's Dictionary does not insert the word "droning" or "drony;" but among his Illustrations attached to the verb "to drone," there are two from Dryden, each, it may be seen, using the word "droning." There is no quotation containing the word "drony." Gray's language is:

 
"Save where the beetle wheels his droning flight,
And drowsy tinklings lull the distant folds."
 

Johnson's second quotation from Dryden may be worth repeating, as showing that Gray's language is not wholly different from his predecessor's:—

 
"Melfoil and honeysuckles pound,
With these alluring savours strew the ground,
And mix with tinkling brass the cymbal's droning sound."
 

It is perhaps hardly worth noticing, that there is not uniformity even in the title. Johnson calls it, Elegy in the Church-yard; Dodsley (1753) styles it, Elegy written in a Country Church-yard.

A HERMIT AT HAMPSTEAD.

Gray's Elegy (Vol. ii., p. 264.).—The HERMIT OF HOLYPORT is referred to the 4to. edit. of the Works of Gray, by Thos. Jas. Mathias, in which, vol. i. at the end of the Elegy, in print, he will find "From the original in the handwriting of Thos. Gray:

 
"'Save where the beetle wheels his droning flight.'"
 

From the autograph the Elegy appears to have been written in 1750; and the margin states, published in Feb. 1751, by Dodsley, and went through four editions in two months; and afterwards a fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth, ninth and tenth, and eleventh; printed also in 1753, with Mr. Bentley's designs, of which there is a second edition; and again by Dodsley in his Miscellany, vol. iv.; and in a Scotch collection, called the Union. Translated into Latin by Chr. Anstey, Esq., and the Rev. Mr. Roberts, and published in 1762; and again in the same year by Rob. Lloyd, M.A. The original MS. of the above will be found among the MSS. of Thos. Gray, in the possession of the Masters and Fellows of Pembroke House, Cambridge.

W.S.

Richmond, Sept 21. 1850

BISHOPS AND THEIR PRECEDENCE

(Vol. ii., p. 254.)

Arun is not right, in reference to this Query, in saying that the precedence of bishops over the temporal barons is regulated by the statute of 31 Hen. VIII. The precedence of bishops over the temporal lords is not regulated by the Act of 31 Hen. VIII. for placing the lords. They may have originally been summoned to sit in parliament in right of their succession to certain baronial lands annexed to, or supposed to be annexed to their episcopal sees; but as some of the temporal peers were also summoned in right of lands held of the king per baroniam, that is not a satisfactory reason why they should take precedence of temporal barons.

The precedency must have been regulated by some other laws, rules, or usage than are presented by the Act of 31 Hen. VIII. The Archbishop of Canterbury precedes the Lord Chancellor; the Archbishop of York the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal; and all bishops precede barons. This precedency, however, is not given by the statute. The Act provides only, in reference to the spiritual peers, that the Vicegerent for good and due ministration of justice, to be had in all causes and cases touching the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and for the godly reformation and redress of all errors, heresies, and abuses in the Church (and all other persons having grant of the said office), shall sit and be placed in all parliaments on the right side of the parliament chamber, and upon the same form that the Archbishop of Canterbury sitteth on, and above the same archbishop and his successors; and next to the said Vicegerent shall sit the Archbishop of Canterbury; and then, next to him, on the same form and side, shall sit the Archbishop of York; and next to him, on the same form and side, the Bishop of London; and next to him, on the same side and form, the Bishop of Durham; and next to him, on the same side and form, the Bishop of Winchester; and then all the other bishops of both provinces of Canterbury and York shall sit and be placed on the same side, after their ancienties, as it hath been accustomed.

There is nothing here to show in what order they are to rank among the great officers, or other temporal peers; nor is the precedency given to the Lord Chancellor over the Archbishop of York.

By the Act of Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the archbishops of that kingdom have rank immediately after the Archbishop of York, and therefore before the great officers (excepting only the Lord Chancellor), as well as above dukes; and the Irish bishops immediately after those of England.

It may be rightly stated that the high spiritual rank of the bishops is a reason for giving them precedence over the temporal lords sitting as barons; but has that reason been assigned by any writer of authority, or even any writer upon precedence?—the Query suggested by E. (Vol. ii., p. 9.) Lord Coke does not assign that reason, but says, because they hold their bishopricks of the king per baroniam. But the holding per baroniam, as before observed, would equally apply to the temporal lords holding lands by similar tenures, and sitting by writ, and receiving summons in ancient times in virtue of such their tenure.

The precedence of bishops over barons was clearly disputed in the reign of King Henry VI., when Baker says in his Chronicle (p. 204.), judgment was given for the lords temporal; but where the judgment, or any account of the dispute for precedence, is to be found I cannot say. That is what your correspondent G. inquired for (Vol. ii., p. 76.).

C.G.

Your correspondent ARUN (Vol. ii., p. 254.) states, on the authority of Stephen's Blackstone, that—

"Bishops are temporal barons, and sit in the House of Peers in right of succession to certain ancient baronies annexed or supposed to be annexed to their episcopal lands."

This position, though supported by Lord Coke in more places than one (see Coke upon Littleton, 134. a, b; 3 Inst. 30.; 4 Inst. 44.), and adopted by most other legal text-writers on his authority, cannot, it is conceived, be supported. It seems to be clearly ascertained that bishops sat in the great councils of this and other kingdoms not ratione baroniarum but jure ecclesiarum, by custom, long before the tenure per baroniam was known. In the preambles to the laws of Ina (Wilkins' Leges Ang.-Sax. f. 14.), of Athelstan (ib. 54.), of Edmund (ib. 72.), the bishops are mentioned along with others of the great council, whilst the tenure per baroniam was not known until after the Conquest. The truth seems to be that

"The bishops of the Conqueror's age were entitled to sit in his councils by the general custom of Europe and by the common law of England, which the conquest did not overturn."—Hallam's Mid. Ag. 137-8, 9th ed.

Can any of your readers throw any light on the much disputed tenure per baroniam? What was its essential character, what its incidents, and in what way did it differ from the ordinary tenure in capite?

BARO.