Chapter 3

_Judas' Bell, Judas' Candle_ (Vol. i., pp. 195. 235. 357.).--Some time since I asked the meaning of a Judas' Bell, and your learned correspondent CEPHAS replied that it was only a bell so christened after St. Jude, the apostle. However, it may have been connected with the Judas' tapers, which, according, to the subjoined entries, were used with the Paschal candle at Easter. May I trust to his kindness to explain its purport?

"_Reading Parish Accompts_.

"1499. Itm. payed for making leng' Mr. Smyth's molde wt. a Judas for the Pascall--vJd."

"_St. Giles' Parish Accompts_.

"A.D. 1514. Paid for making a Judas for Pascall iiijd."

"_Churchwardens' Accompts of S. Martin, Outwich_.

"1510. Paid to Randolf Merchaunt Wex Chandiler for the Pascall, the tapers affore the Rode, the Cross Candelles, and Judas Candelles--viiijs. iiijd."

"_St. Margaret's, Westminster._

"1524. Item payed for xij. Judacis to stand with the tapers--O ijd. O"

MACKENZIE WALCOTT, M.A., Oxon.

_Dozen of Bread; Baker's Dozen._--In the _Chronicle of Queen Jane, and of Two Years of Queen Mary_, lately printed for the Camden Society (Appendix iv. p. 112.), it is stated that, amongst other particulars in the accounts of the Chamberlain of Colchester, at which place Mary was entertained on her way to London, there is:--"For xxxviii. _dozen of bread_, xxxixs." In the language of the county from which I write, "a dozen of bread" was (and I believe is yet) used to express either one loaf, value twelvepence or two loaves, value sixpence each: and even when the sizes and price of the loaves varied, it was used to express the larger loaf, or the two smaller loaves. A dozen of bread was also divided into six twopenny, or twelve penny loaves.

But in the quotation above, thirty-eight dozen of bread are charged thirty-nine shillings; whereas the extra one shilling, cannot be divided into aliquot parts, so as to express the value of each of the thirty-eight dozen of bread.

What was a dozen of bread in 1553?

What is a _baker's dozen_, and why so called?

P.H.F.

_Kongs skuggsia._--Is anything, precise known of the date and origin of the Icelandic Kongs skuggsia.

F.Q.

_Coins of Gandophares._--Coins of Gandophares, an Indian prince, are described by Prinsep, _Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal_, and in Wilson's _Asiana_. The name is met with in the legends of St. Thomas can it be found elsewhere?

F.Q.

_Satirical Medals._--Is any printed account to be found of a very elaborately executed series of caricature medals relating to the revolution of 1688?

F.Q.

* * * * *

REPLIES.

GAUDENTIO DI LUCCA.

(Vol. ii., p. 247.)

The work entitled _The Adventures of Sig. Gaudentio di Lucca_ was published at London in 1737, in 1 vol. 8vo. It purports to be a translation from the Italian, by E.T. Gent but this is a mere fiction. The work is evidently an English composition. It belongs to the class of _Voyages Imaginaires_, and its main object is to describe the institutions and manners of the Mezoranians, an Utopian community, supposed to exist in the centre of Africa. Sig. Gaudentio is able, by an accident, to visit this people, by the way of Egypt, and to return to Europe; he resides at Bologna, where he falls under the suspicion of the Inquisition, and having been brought before that tribunal, he describes his former life, and his adventures in the country of the Mezoranians.

A second London edition of this work, of the date of 1748, is mentioned in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for Jan. 1777. There is an edition in 12mo., printed at Edinburgh, 1761. And there is another London edition, in 8vo., of the year 1786. Copies of the editions of 1737 and 1786 are in the British Museum.

There are two French translations of the work. One is of the date 1746, under the title of _Mémoires de Gaudentio di Lucca_. The second, of 1754, by M. Dupuy Demportes, speaks of the first having been made by an Englishman named _Milts_; but the person and name appear to be fictitious. The first translation is said by Barbier, _Dict. des Anonymes_, No. 11,409, to have been revised by the Chevalier de Saint Germain, who made additions to it of his own invention. The second translation is reprinted in the collection of _Voyages Imaginaires_, Amsterdam et Paris, 1787, tom. vi.

An anonymous writer in the _Gent. Mag._ for Jan. 1777, vol. xlvii., p. 13., speaking of Bishop Berkeley, says that "the _Adventures of Signor Gaudentio di Lucca_ have been generally attributed to him." The writer of the note added to the _Life of Berkeley_ in Kippis's _Biogr. Brit._, 1780, vol. ii. p. 261., quotes this statement, and adds that the work is ascribed to him by the booksellers in their printed catalogues. This writer thinks that the authorship of Bp. Berkeley is consistent with the internal evidence of the book but he furnishes no positive testimony on the subject. {299}

In a letter from Mr. J.C. Walker to Mr. Pinkerton, of 19 Jan., 1799 (published in Pinkerton's _Literary Correspondence_, vol. ii., p. 41.), Lord Charlemont is referred to as believing that Gaudentio di Lucca is founded in fact; that Bishop Berkeley, when he was at Cairo, conversed with persons who had attended a caravan, and that he learned from them what he narrated in the account of Gaudentio. This passage is cited in Southey's _Common-place Book_, p. 204; but the work is manifestly fictitious, and it does not appear that Berkeley, though he twice visited the Continent, was ever out of Europe.

The date of the publication of Gaudentio is quite consistent with the authorship of Berkeley, who died in 1753; but the notice in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ only proves the existence of a rumour to that effect; and the authentic _Life of Berkeley_, by Dr. Stock, chiefly drawn up from materials communicated by Dr. R. Berkeley, brother to the Bishop, and prefixed to the collected edition of his work (2 vols. 4to. Lond., 1784), makes no allusion to Gaudentio. There is nothing in the contents of this work which renders it likely that the authorship should have been carefully concealed by Bp. Berkeley and his family, if he had really been the author. The literary execution of Gaudentio is good; and it is probable that the speculative character of the work, and the fact that Berkeley had visited Italy, suggested the idea that he had composed it. The belief that Bishop Berkeley was the author of _Gaudentio di Lucca_ may therefore be considered as unauthorised.

The copy of the edition of _Gaudentio_ of 1786, which is preserved in the British Museum, contains in the title-page the following note, in pencil:

"Written originally in English by Dr. Swale of Huntingdon. See _Gent. Mag._ 1786."

The _Gentleman's Magazine_ for 1786 does not, however, contain any information about the authorship of _Gaudentio_; and the name of Dr. Swale appears to be unknown in literary history. At the same time, a positive entry of this sort, with respect to an obscure person, doubtless had some foundation. On the authority of this note, Dr. Swale is registered as the author of Gaudentio in the printed catalogue of the British Museum Library, whence it has passed into Watt's _Bibl. Brit._ Perhaps some of your correspondents, who are connected with Huntingdon, may be able to throw some light on Dr. Swale.

Lastly, it should be added, that the writer of the article "Berkeley," in the _Biographic Universelle_, adverts to the fact that _Gaudentio di Lucca_ has been attributed to him: he proceeds, however, to say that--

"The author of a Life of Berkeley affirms that Berkeley is not the author of that book, which he supposes to have been written by a Catholic priest imprisoned in the Tower of London."

I have been unable to trace the origin of this statement; nor do I know what is the _Life of Berkeley_, to which the writer in the _Biogr. Univ._ refers. The Life published under the direction of his family makes no allusion to Gaudentio, or to the belief that it was composed by Bishop Berkeley.

The _Encyclopédie Méthodique_, div. "Econ. pol. et dipl." (Paris, 1784), tom. I. p. 89., mentions the following work:--

"La République des Philosophes, ou l'Histoire des Ajaoiens, relation d'un voyage du Chevalier S. van Doelvett en Orient en l'an 1674, qui contient la description du Gouvernement, de la Religion, et des Moeurs des Ajaoiens."

It is stated that this romance, though composed a century before, had only been lately published. The editor attributed it to Fontenelle, but (as the writer in the _Encycl. Méth._ thinks) probably without reason. The title of Berkeley to the authorship of Gaudentio has doubtless no better foundation.

L.

[Dunlop, _Hist. Fiction_, iii. 491., speaks of this romance as "generally, and I believe on good grounds, supposed to be the work of the celebrated Berkeley;" adding, "we are told, in the life of this celebrated man, that Plato was his favourite author: and, indeed, of all English writers Berkeley has most successfully imitated the style and manner of that philosopher. It is not impossible, therefore, that the fanciful republic of the Grecian sage may have led Berkeley to write _Gaudentio di Lucca_, of which the principal object apparently is to describe a faultless and patriarchal form of governnent." The subject is a very curious one, and invites the further inquiry of our valued correspondent.--ED.]

* * * * *

ON A PASSAGE IN "THE TEMPEST."

I was indebted to MR. SINGER for one of the best emendations in the edition of Shakspeare I superintended (vol. vi. p. 559.), and I have too much respect for his sagacity and learning to pass, without observation, his remarks in "NOTES AND QUERIES" (Vol. ii., p. 259.), on the conclusion of the speech of Ferdinand, in "The Tempest," Act iii., Sc. 1.:--

"But these sweet thoughts do even refresh my labours; Most busy, least when I do it."

This is the way in which I ventured to print the passage, depending mainly upon the old copies. In the folio, 1623, where the play for the first time appeared, the last line stands:

"Most busie lest, when I doe it;"

and in that of 1632,

"Most busie least, when I doe it:" {300}

so that the whole merit I claim that of altering the place of a comma, thereby, as I apprehend, rendering the meaning of the poet evident. The principle upon which I proceeded throughout was that of making as little variation as possible from the ancient authorities: upon that principle I acted in the instance in question, and I frequently found that this was the surest mode of removing difficulties. I could not easily adduce a stronger proof of this position, than the six words on which the doubt at this time has been raised.

Theobald made an important change in the old text, and his reading has been that generally adopted:--

"Most busy-less when I do it."

In restoring the old text I had, therefore, to contend with prepossession, against which, it seems, the Rev. Mr. Dyce was not proof, although I only know it from MR. SINGER'S letter, never having looked into the book in which I suppose, the opinion is advanced.

One reason why I should reject the substitution of "busy-less," even if I had not a better mode of overcoming the difficulty, is properly adverted to by MR. SINGER, viz. that the word was not in use in the time of Shakspeare. The only authority for it, at any period, quoted in Todd's Johnson, is this very (as I contend) corrupted passage in the Tempest; I have not met with it at all in any of the older dictionaries I have been able to consult; and unless the Rev. Mr. Dyce have been more fortunate, he was a little short-sighted, as well as a little angry, when he wrote his note upon mine. Had he taken more time to reflect, he might have found that after all Theobald and I are not so much at odds, although he arrives at his end by varying from, and I at mine by adhering to, the ancient authorities. In fact, I gain some confirmation of what, I believe, is the true meaning of Shakspeare, out of the very corruption Theobald introduced, and the Rev. Mr. Dyce, to my surprise, supports. I should have expected him to be the very last man who would advocate an abandonment of what has been handed down to us in every old edition of the play.

The key of the whole speech of Ferdinand is contained in its very outset:--

"There be some sports are painful, and their labour Delight in them sets off;"

and the poet has said nearly the same thing in "Macbeth:"

"The labour we delight in physics pain."

It is because Ferdinand delights in the labour that he does not feel it irksome:

"This my mean task Would be as heavy to me as odious; but The mistress which I serve quickens what's dead, And makes my labours pleasure."

He, therefore, tells us, at the close, that his labours are refreshed by the sweet thoughts of her; that, in fact, his toil is no toil, and that when he is "most busy" he "least does it," and suffers least under it. The delight he takes in his "mean task" renders it none.

Such I take to be the clear meaning of the poet, though somewhat obscurely and paradoxically expressed--

"Most busy, least when I do it;"

and when Theobald proposed to substitute

"Most busy-less when I do it,"

he saw, though perhaps not quite distinctly, that such was the poet's intention, only, as I have said above, he arrived at it by altering, and I by adhering to, the poet's language. I may be allowed to add that I came to my conclusion many years before I was asked to put my name to an edition of Shakspeare, which interrupted one of the most valuable friendships I ever formed.

MR. SINGER will see at once that my interpretation (which I consider quite consistent with the character of Shakspeare's mind, as well as quite consistent with the expressions he has used throughout the speech of the hero), steers clear of his proposal to alter "busie lest," or "busie least," of the folios of 1623 and 1632, to _busyest_ or _busiest_; although everybody at all acquainted with our old language will agree with him in thinking, that if Shakspeare had used "busiest" at all, which he does not in any of his productions, he might have said _most busiest_ without a violation of the constant practice of his day.

J. PAYNE COLLIER.

September 24. 1850.

* * * * *

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 {301} _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 {302} 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."