212 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



plant mentioned in the treatise {vide Joiet, " Eoniania," xvi, 1887, pp. 589- 

 597). 



Ou comparing the extracts given by Camus with the text of the Dublin 

 copy, we find that the two MSS. agree well in geueral, tliough there are 

 numerous orthographic and verbal diflerences. At times the iJublin MS. gives 

 a more correct reading than the Modena one. Thus, in the article Apiv/m, 

 where the Modena text has the corrupt ' Et jc Pkntaire ai/ rev. par cxjxrience' 

 (Camus, he. cit., p. 60), the Dublin MS. reads correctly ^ Et jc P/ateaire,' etc. 

 (f. 5a, col. 2, line 14). The addition in the Modena MS. of the words 

 ' un Houvd (tcleitr appelU Gentil ' not found in the original Latin of Platearius, 

 in the chapter Suldancu (Camus, p. OG), does not occur in the J)ublin copy 

 (f. 187abi ; but another interpolation not in the I>atin, in the article 

 Spinacc/iM, * un aiUeiir nppclU Tacuiii' (Camus, p. 66), does occur (f. 187b, 

 col. 2, 1. 7). It is worthy of note that the form ' ccpcrimaUateur' which 

 occui-8 in the Modena .MS. in the article Coronaria (Camus, p. 67), appears in 

 the Dublin copy (f. 60b, col. 1, 1. 31) as ' t-vperimoUcur.' 



The treatise contains the names and descriptions of nearly 500 plants. 

 It is thus easy to realize its interest and value to students of mediaeval 

 French lexicography and to those of the history of botany. The name of 

 the Frencli translator is unknown. His language (a.s judged from the 

 Dublin and Modena .MSs.) suggests that he is to be assigned to the late 

 fourteenth or to the early Hfteenth century (Camus, p. 67), and to Northern 

 Fiance.' 



Signor Camus, whose merit it is to iiave Ijeen the first to make known this 

 paxticulai- vei-sion of the work of Plat«arius,- has stated (loc. vU., pp. 5.3, 54-55> 

 that the Modena copy is the only one in existence at the present day, for a 

 second one, which he had learned to have been formerly preserved in the 

 Royal Libi-ary ut Koenigsberg, had been noted as missing since the year 1858, 

 and no trace of it had ever been discovered. This view is, however, not 

 accurate, for, in addition to the Modena copy and to the Dublin copy 

 described above, numerous MSS. of the work are in existence. Thus the 

 Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris possessed in 1878 no less than eleven copies, 

 all of the fifteenth century, which are enumerated in the inventory of the 

 late M. Delisle (" Inventaire des MSS. Fran9ais de la Bibliotheque Nationale," 

 tome ii, Paris, 1878, pp. 227-229), and since 1878 a twelfth has been added 



■ Camus (p. 68) sutes that the dialect of the Modena us. is that of Central France, 

 but according to M. Joret (" Romania, xvi, 1887, p. 591), "ce manuscrit est I'oeuvre d'un 

 Baa-Nonnand." 



» For the date of Plateahua, cf. V. Roee, " Egidii Corboliensis Viaticus," Lipsiae, 

 I'Mi, p. XIII. 



