Jax. 7. 1854.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



and places — a revision of the punctuation — and 

 a strict conformity, as to general orthography and 

 accentuation, with the Dictionnaire de V Academie 

 francaise, as edited in 1835. The substance of 

 the avis of 1713 might be stated in a preface; and 

 the avertissement of 1746, a clever composition, 

 would serve as an introduction and memoir of the 

 author. Those who doubt its value may consult, 

 the Grand dictionnaire historique, and the Bio- 

 graphic universelle. As one hundred and sixty 

 persons are noticed in the work, brevity of anno- 

 tation is very desirable. It would require much 

 research. The manuscript notes of sir William 

 Musgrave would, however, be very serviceable — 

 more so, I conceive, than the printed notes of M. 

 Horace Walpole. 



As the indications of a projected re-impression 

 may be fallacious, I shall conclude with a word of 

 advice to inexperienced collectors. Avoid the jolie 

 edition printed at Paris by P. A. Didot, par ordre 

 de monseigneur le comte d'Artois, in 1781. It is 

 the very worst specimen of editorship. Avoid also 

 the London edition of 1792. The preface is a 

 piratical pasticcio ; the verbose notes are from 

 the most accessible books ; the portraits, very un- 

 equal in point of execution, I believe to be chiefly 

 copies of prints — not d'apres des tableaux origi- 

 naux. The most desirable editions are, 1. The 

 edition of 1760; 2. That of 1772, as a curiosity; 

 3. That edited by M. Renouard, Paris, 1812, 18°. 

 2 yols.j 4. That edited by M. Renouard in 1812, 8°. 

 with eight portraits. The latter edition forms part 

 of the CEuvres du comte Antoine Hamilton in 3 vols. 

 It seldom occurs for sale. Bolton Cokney. 



THE "ANCREN RIWLE." 



The publication of this valuable semi-Saxon or 

 Early English treatise on the duties of monastic 

 life, recently put forth by the Camden Society, 

 under the editorship of the Rev. James Morton, 

 is extremely acceptable, and both the Society and 

 the editor deserve the cordial thanks of all who 

 are interested in the history of our language. As 

 one much interested in the subject, and who many 

 years since entertained the design now so ably 

 executed by Mr. Morton, I may perhaps be al- 

 lowed to offer a few remarks on the work itself, 

 and on the manuscripts which contain it. Mr. 

 Morton is unquestionably right in his statement 

 that the Latin MS. in Magdalen College, Oxford, 

 No. 67., is only an abridged translation of the 

 original vernacular text. Twenty-three years ago 

 I had access to the same MS. by permission of the 

 Rev. Dr. Routh, the President of Magdalen Col- 

 lege, and after reading and making extracts from 

 it*, I came to the same conclusion as Mr. Morton. 



* At p. viii. of Mr. Morton's preface, for "yerze" 

 (eye), my extracts read " yze." 



It hardly admits, I think, of a doubt ; for even 

 without the internal evidence furnished by the 

 Latin copy, the age of the manuscripts containing 

 the Early English text at once set aside the sup- 

 position that Simon of Ghent (Bishop of Salisbury 

 from 1297 to 1315) was the original author of the 

 work. The copy in Corpus Christi College, Cam- 

 bridge, I have not seen, but of the three copies in 

 the British Museum I feel confident that the one 

 marked Cleopatra C. vi. was actually written be- 

 fore Bishop Simon of Ghent had emerged from the 

 nursery. This copy is not only the oldest, but 

 the most curious, from the corrections and alter- 

 ations made in it by a somewhat later hand, the 

 chief of which are noticed in the printed edition. 

 The collation, however, of this MS. might have 

 been, with advantage, made more minutely, for at 

 present many readings are passed over. Thus, at 

 p. 8., for uraceote the second hand has congoun ; 

 at p. 62., for herigen it has preiscn ; at p. 90., for 

 on cheajle, it reads o mu[>e, &c. The original hand 

 has also some remarkable variations, which would 

 cause a suspicion that this was the first draft of 

 the author's work. Thus, at p. 12., for scandle, 

 the first hand has schonde ; at p. 62., for haldeliche 

 it reads bradliche; at p. 88., for nout for, it has 

 anonden, and the second hand aneust ; at p. 90., for 

 sundei-liche it reads sunderlepcs, &c. All these, 

 and many other curious variations, are not noticed 

 in the printed edition. On the fly-leaf of this 

 MS. is written, in a hand of the time of Edward I., 

 as follows : " Datum abbatie et conventui de Leghc 

 per Dame M. de Clare." The lady here referred 

 to was doubtless Maud de Clare, second wife of 

 Richard de Clare, Earl of Hereford and Glou- 

 cester, who, at the beginning of the reign of Ed- 

 ward I., is known to have changed the Augus- 

 tinian Canons of Leghe, in Devonshire, into an 

 abbess and nuns of the same order ; and it was 

 probably at the same period she bestowed this 

 volume on them. The conjecture of Mr. Morton, 

 that Bishop Poore, who died in 1237, might have 

 been the original author of the Ancren lliwle, is 

 by no means improbable, and deserves farther 

 inquiry. The error as to Simon of Ghent is due, 

 in the first place, not to Dr. Smith, but to Richard 

 James (Sir Robert Cotton's librarian), who wrote 

 on the fly-leaves of all the MSS. in the Cottonian 

 Library a note of their respective contents, and 

 who is implicitly followed by Smith. Wanley is 

 more blamable, and does not here evince his usual 

 critical accuracy, but (as remarked by Mr. 

 Morton) he could only have looked at a few 

 pages of the work. The real fact seems to be 

 that Simon of Ghent made the abridged Latin 

 version of the seven books of the Riivle now pre- 

 served in Magdalen College, and this supposition 

 may well enough be reconciled with the words of 

 Leland, who says of him, — 



" Edidit inter eastern, libros septem de Vita Solitaria, 



