Dec. 8. 1849.] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
89 
we have to choose between “henno” and “hemno” 
rusticus (rather a clown than a gentleman, what- 
ever was his name; and perhaps the treatise, if | 
ever found, will prove to treat merely on rural 
affairs). And although it may turn out to be per- 
fectly true that “homo rusticus” was the thing 
meant, as your correspondent suggests, still that 
is not the question at issue; but rather, amidst 
the confusion of tongues and ideas which seems to 
have possessed poor Dorne’s brain, what he actu- 
ally wrote, rather than what he should have 
written. 
Admitting, however, for supposition’s sake, that 
your correspondent is right, that the man was 
named Dormer, and the book Homo rusticus — is 
there any one who will obligingly favour me with 
information respecting these, or either of them ? 
One word more, and [ have done; though per- | 
haps you will think that too much has been said | 
already upon a subject not of general interest; 
and indeed I cannot but feel this, as well as how 
painful it is to differ, even in opinion, with one 
towards whom nothing can be due from me but 
respect and affection. But the direct inference 
from your correspondent’s remarks (although it 
is fully my persuasion he neither designed nor 
observed it) is, that my difficulties are no diffi- 
culties at all, but mistakes. To these we are all 
liable, and none more so than the individual who 
is now addressing you, though, it is to be hoped, 
not quite in the awful proportion which has been 
imputed to him. And let it stand as my apology 
for what has been said, that I owe it no less to my 
own credit, than perhaps to that of others, my 
kind encouragers and abettors in these inquiries, 
to vindicate myself from the charge of one general 
and overwhelming error, that of having any thing 
to do with the editing of a MS. of which my 
actual knowledge should be so small, that out of 
three difficulties propounded from its contents, 
two should be capable of being shown to have 
arisen from nothing else but my inability to read 
it. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, W. 
Trin. Coll. Oxon. Dee. 5. 1849. 
[We have inserted the foregoing letter in compli- 
ance with the writer’s wishes, but under a protest: 
because no one can entertain a doubt as to his ability 
to edit in a most satisfactory manner the work he has 
undertaken ; and because also we can bear testimony 
to the labour and conscientious painstaking which he 
is employing to clear up the various obseure points in 
that very curious document. The following commu- 
nication from a valued correspondent, in answering 
W.’s Query as to Henno Rusticus, confirms the accu- 
racy of his reading. ] 
HWENNO RUSTICUS. 
The query of your correspondent W. at p. 12. 
N 0. 1. regards, I presume, [enno Comediola Ius- 
tico Ludicra, nunc iterum publicata; Magdebure, 
1614, 8vo.? Ifso, he will find it to be identical 
with the Scenica Progymnasmata h. e. Ludicra 
Preexercitamenta of Reuchlin, first printed at 
Strasburg in 1497, and frequently reprinted during 
the first part of the 16th century, often with a 
commentary by Jacob Spiegel. 
A copy, which was successively the property of 
Mr. Bindley and Mr. Heber, is now before me. 
It was printed at Tubingen by Thomas Anselm in 
1511. I have another copy by the same printer, 
in 1519; both in small 4to. 
Reuchlin, while at Heidelberg, had amused him- 
self by writing a satirical drama, entitled Sergius 
seu Capitis Caput, in ridicule of his absurd and 
ignorant monkish opponent. This he purposed to 
have had represented by some students for the 
amusement of his friends; but Dalberg, for pru- 
dent reasons, dissuaded its performance. It being 
known, however, that a dramatic exhibition was 
intended, not to disappoint those who were anx- 
iously expecting it, Reuchlin hastily availed him- 
self of the very amusing old farce of Maistre 
Pierre Patelin, and produced his Scenica Progym- 
nasmata, in which the Rustic Henno is the prin- 
cipal character. It varies much, however, from 
its prototype, is very laughable, and severely sati- 
rical upon the defects of the law and the dishonesty 
of advocates. - 
Its popularity is evinced by the numerous edi- 
tions; and, as the commentary was intended for 
the instruction of youth in the niceties of the 
Latin language, it was used as a school-book ; the 
copies shared the fate of such books, and hence 
its rarity. It is perhaps the earliest comic drama 
of the German stage, having been performed before 
Dalberg, Bishop of Worms (at Heidelberg in 
1497), to whom it is also inscribed by Reuchilin. 
It seems to have given the good bishop great 
pleasure, and he requited each of the performers 
with a gold ring and some gold coin. Their names 
are recorded-at the end of the drama. 
Melchior Adam gives the following account : — 
“ Tbi Comeediam seripsit, Capitis Caput plenam nigri 
salis & acerbitatis adversus Monachum, qui ejus vite 
insidiatus erat. Ibi & alteram Comeediam edidit fubu- 
lam Gallicam, plenam candidi salis; in qua forensia 
sophismata precipue taxat. Hane narrabat hae occa- 
sione scriptam & actam esse. Cum alteram de Mo- 
nacho scripsisset, fama sparsa est de agenda Comeedia, 
quod illo tempore inusitatum erat. Dalburgius lecta, 
illius Monachi insectatione, dissuasit editionem & acti- 
onem, quod eodem tempore & apud Philipum Palati- 
num Franciseanus erat Capellus, propter potentiam & 
malas artes invisus nobilibus & sapientibus viris in 
aula, Intellexit periculum Capnio & hane Comeediam 
occultavit. Interea tamen, quia flagitabatur actio, 
alteram duleem fabellam edit, & representari ab in- 
geniosis adolescentibus, quorum ibi extant nomina, 
curat.” 
Mr. Hallam (Literat. of Europe, vol. i. p. 292., 
