May 10. 1S51.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



375 



in liis Mo}Lthlij Review of November 1689, attri- 

 buteil the work to D'AUais (or Vairasse). He 

 alleged three reasons for this belief: 1. The ru- 

 mour current in France ; 2. The fact that Allais 

 sold the book, as well as his French grammar ; 

 3. That a comparison of the two works, in respect 

 of style and character of mind, renders it most 

 probable that both are by the same author. The 

 testimony of Thomasius is important, as the date 

 of its publication is only ten years posterior to the 

 publication of the last part of the French version. 



Leclerc, in a review of the Schediasma of Heu- 

 mann, in the Bibliothique Ckoisie, published in 

 1712 (tom. XXV. p. 402., with an addendum, 

 tom. xxvi. p. 4G0.), attests positively that Vairasse 

 was the author of the work in question. He says 

 that Vairasse (or, as he spells the name, Veiras) 

 took the name of D'Allais in order to sell his 

 book. He had this fact from persons well 

 acquainted with Vairasse. He likewise mentions 

 that Vairasse was well known to Locke, who gave 

 Leclerc an account of his birthplace. Leclerc adds 

 that he was acquainted with a person to whom 

 Vairasse wished to dedicate his book (viz. the His- 

 toire des Scvairc/nbes), and iclio possessed a copy of 

 it, loilh a species of dedication, luritten in his hand. 



This testimony is so distinct and circumstantial, 

 as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the con- 

 nexion of Vairasse with the French version. The 

 difficulty as to the authorship of the English ver- 

 sion still, however, remains considerable. The 

 extensive alterations introduced in the French 

 edition certainly render it probable that two dif- 

 ferent writers were concerned in the work. The 

 words of Leclerc respecting the information re- 

 ceived from Locke are somewhat ambiguous ; but 

 they do not necessarily imply that Locke knew 

 anything as to the connexion of Vairasse with the 

 book, though they are not inconsistent with this 

 meaning. Locke had doubtless become acquainted 

 with Vairasse during his residence in England. 

 Considering the length of time which Vairasse 

 passed in England, and the eminence of the per- 

 sons with whom he is said to have had relations 

 (viz. the Duke of York, Lord Clarendon, and 

 Locke), it is singular that no mention of him should 

 be discoverable in any English book. 



The error, that the work in question was written 

 by Algernon Sidney, appears to have arisen from 

 a confusion witii the name of Captain Siden, the 

 imaginary traveller. Fabri(;ius (^Bihliogi-nph. 

 Antiq., c. xiv. § 10. p. 491.) mentions fciduey and 

 Vairasse as the two most probable claimants to the 

 authorship. 



Hume, in his Essay on Polygaw.y and Divorces, 

 refers to the History of the Saourainhians, and calls 

 it " an agreeable romance." L. 



WAS THERE AN " OUTER TEMPLE IN THE POS- 

 SESSION OF THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAKS OR KNIGHTS 



OF ST. JOHN ? — (Vol. iii., p. 325.) 



I have great pleasure in complying with the 

 very proper request of jMr. Foss, and give my 

 authority at once for stating in ihe. Hand-hook for 

 London that the so-called " Outer Temple" was a 

 part of the Fleet Street possession of the Knights 

 Templars or Knights of St. John, or was in any 

 manner comprehended within the New Temple 

 property off Fleet Street and Temple Bar. My 

 authority is Sir George Buc, whose minute and 

 valuable account of the universities of England is 

 dedicated to Sir Edward Coke. Buc's words are 

 these : — 



" After this suppression and condemnation of the 

 Templers, their house here in Fleete Street came to 

 the handes and occupation of diuers Lordes. For 

 our Antiquaries and Clironologers say, that after this 

 suppression Sir Thomas Plantagenet Earl of Lan- 

 caster (and Cousin to tlie King then raigning) had it, 

 but beeing after attainted of treason, hee enioyed it but 

 a short time. 



" Then next Hugh Spencer Earle of Glocester got into 

 it, but he also was soone after attainted, and executed for 

 Treason. After him Andomare de Valence, a noble- 

 man of the great house of Lusignan, and Earle of Pem- 

 brooke, was lodged in it for a while. But this house 

 was ' Eqiius Seiunus ' to them all : and (as here it ap- 

 peareth) was ordayned by God for other better uses, 

 and wherennto now it serueth. After all these noble 

 tenants and occupants were thus exturbed, dead, and 

 gone, then certaine of the reuerend, ancient professours 

 of the LawcF, in the raign of King Edward the Third, 

 obtained a very large or (as I might say) a perpctuall 

 Lease of this Temple, or (as it must bee understood) 

 of two parts thereof distinguished by the names of the 

 Middle Temple and the Inner Temp!e, from the fore- 



sayd loannitcs But the other third part, called 



the Outward Temple, Doctor Stapleton, Bishop of 

 Exceter, had gotten in the raign of the former King, 

 Edward the Second, and conuerted it to a house for 



him and his successors, Bisho|)s of Exceter of 



whom the late Earle of Essex purchased it, and it is 

 now called Essex house : hauing first beene (as I haue 

 sayd) a part of the Templers' house, and in regard of 

 the scituatlon thereof, without the Barre, was called 

 the Outward or Utter Temple, as the others, for the 

 like causes, were called the Jliddle Temple and the 

 Inner Temple." — Sir George Bue, in Stow by Howes, 

 ed. 16;51, p. 1068. 



This seems decisive, if Buc is to be relied on, as I 

 think he is. But new facts, such as Mr. Foss's 

 researches and Mr. Burtt's diligence are likely to 

 bring to light, may upset Bue's statement alto- 

 gether. 



I must join Mb. Foss in his wish to ascertain 

 xvhen the names Inner Temple and Middle Temple 

 were first made use of, with a further Query, which 

 I should be glad to have setlleil, when the See 

 of Exeter first obtained the site of tlie so-called 



