Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 6.djvu/104

 82 NOTES AND QUERIES. [9"°S. vi. Am.4, 1900. April 26, 1776” (three days after_ the duchess’s conviction), and bearing the signa- ture “ Elizabeth, Duchesse de Kingston,” without, apparently, any susgcion that this was the letter mentioned by ' orace Walpole. In this oversi ht he is followed by Cunning- ham (see his ed., vol.  333). Theduchesss letter (accordin to ernon Sm1th’s note) was in the handwriting of Kirgate, Horace Wal ole’s secretar and printer. It_was, no dougt, a cop of the letter received by Horace Walpolse from Italy. The absence of any address (also commented on by) Yernon Smith) points to the likelihood of its emg the enclosure spoken of by Horace Walpole. It should therefore be printed, not as a separate letter, but as an addition to Horace Wa pole’s letter to Lady OS80l& of 25 June, 1776. _ In August, 1776, orace Walpole received from Madame du Deffand a copy of a letter written by Voltaire to the Comte d’Argental, consisting of a violent attack on Shake- speare, some of whose plays had recently appeared in a French trans ation. Madame du Deifand speaks of it as “une lettre de Voltaire, que je vous prie de montrer a peu de personnes, car is ne veux pas qu’on dise que c’est par moi qu’el e est devenue publique en Angleterre.” A co y of Voltaire’s letter was enclosed by Walpolre in a letter (undated) to Mason, which is printed with the “enclosure” by Mitford in his edition of the corres ondencc of Mason and Walpole (vol. i. p. 2595: and by Cunningham in his edition of Walpole’s ‘Letters’ (vol. vi. p. 374). Mitford and Cunnin ham both print this undated letter and endlosure as if they were part of Wal- le’s letter to Mason of 17 Sept. 1776. That lellster, however, obviously ends with the following sentence :- “I could send you a véraltry scurrilous letter against Shakespeare_by _ oltalre; but it is_not worth sending, if it did [mc] you don’t deserve it at my hands, so adieu !” It is strange that Mitford and Cunningham should have printed as an enclosure in the above letter a paper which Walpole dis- tinctly intimates he is not going to send. The letter dated 17 Sept. and the undated one must consequently be printed as inde- pendent letters. It appears that Walpole’s next dated letter to Mason (8 Oct., 1776) after that of 17 Sept. was written in reply to one from Mason, in which the latter announced his intention of erecting a cenotaph to Gray with an epit-aph in verse upon it. Horace Walpole writes :- “I answer your letter incontinently, because I am charmed with your idea of the cenotaph for Gray, and would not have it wait a moment for my approbation.” Further on in the same letter he writes :- “Voltaire has lately written a letter against Shakespeare ...... and it is as downright Billingsgate as an apple-woman would utter if you overturned her wheelbarrow.” Mason’s letters to Walpole for this period are missing but two facts are clear: (1) that Walpole had only just (8 Oct.) been informed by 1 ason of his intention to erect a ceno- taph to Gray ; (2) that Voltaire’s letter had not at this eriod been communicated to Mason by Wal)pole. That the undated letter enclosing Vol- taire’s letter was written later than that of 8 Oct, and should therefore be placed after it, is apparent from the facts that Wal le is now for the first time sending Vol)t(.ire’s letter to Mason, and, further, that he is b that time familiar with Mason’s plans with regard to the proposed cenotaph to Gray. He writes :- “I have a mind to ‘provoke you, and so I send igou this silly torrent o ribaldry,_ may the sgirit of cpe ...... animate you to unish this worst of unees, a genius turned fool witlh envy. I have a mind to ge a dunce too, and alter one line of your epitaph,” C It is diiiicult to fix on the precise place for this undated letter. It may, however, be inserted between letters of 2 1 ov., 1776, and 13 Nov., 1776 (Nos. 1,613 and 1,614in Cunning- ham’s ed.). A passage at the end of Walpole’s letter to the Rev. W. Mason of 17 Jan., 1778 (No. 1,701, Cunningham’s ed., vol. vii. p. 21), was evidently written, not in January, 1778, as printed by Mitford and Cunningham, but in the following March. This passa e should be treated as a separate letter. It refers throughout to a sermon preached by Mason in York Minster before the Archbisho of York on the occasion of the General Fast which was observed on 27 Feb., 1778. The first mention of this sermon occurs in a letter of Mason to Walpole of 6 Feb., 1778 (‘ Correspondence of Walpole and Ma.son,’ edited by Mitford, vol. i. p. 332). Mason writes : “I am now fully occupied in writing a Fast Sermon for York Minster.” Again, on 23 Feb. (p. 342) he says, “ I am deeply enga ed in my Fast Sermon which is to be preacged on I‘riday, and not half finished yet.” In his letter to Mason of 4 March 1778 (Cun- ningham’s ed., vol. vii. p. 37), Walpole writes, “I am impatient to see your sermon.” The sermon, therefore, was not known to Horace Walpole on 4 March. The passage, or rather letter, under dis- cussion begins as follows : “ I return you the