TORRENT OF PORTYNGALE.

v

§ 1. The manuscript from which the following romance of Sir Torrent of Portugal is taken, is a folio volume on paper, of the fifteenth century, preserved in the Chetham Library at Manchester.

A description of this volume is given by Halliwell in his Account of the European MSS. in the Chetham Library at Manchester, Manchester, 1842, page 16, and by Prof. Koelbing in his Englische Studien, vii. 195. The only edition of this romance that we have hitherto had was done by Halliwell. As he had, besides his own transcript, another copy made by Madden, his text is a pretty accurate one, and therefore the results of Prof. Koelbing’s collation, printed in his Englische Studien, vii. 344 ff., concern, for the most part, things of little importance, except one very curious passage, l. 88, where Halliwell renders the quite correct reading of the MS., p la more de dewe = par l’amour de dieu, by Pericula more bedew[n]e. Also, from l. 1720, the counting of the lines is wrong by 100 lines.

A few short fragments of a printed edition were found by Halliwell in the Douce Collection, Bodleian Library, Oxford, and added to his work as an Appendix. They contain the following passages of the MS.:

A seventh fragment, of which not much more than the rhyming words are preserved, was omitted by Halliwell, and was printed for the first time in Prof. Koelbing’s collation.

This Chetham MS. contains the romance in a very debased and corrupt form, so that the original reading in many passages can hardly be recognized.1 The scribe, who copied the poem from an older MS., lived (no doubt) at a far later period than the poet; he did not therefore understand a great many old expressions, and these he used to supplant by words of his own; he also transposed and even omitted many lines, and spoiled the rhyme, because he had not the slightest idea of the nature of the stanza in which the poem is composed. Halliwell did not trouble himself about the restoration of the true readings; he merely reproduced the traditional text, even where it would have been very easy to do more, though many passages are hopelessly corrupt; still worse is the fact, that he did not recognize the metre as the tail-rhymed twelve-line stanza, for he prints six-line stanzas.

In consequence, the whole of the philological work on the text had still to be done, and a new edition was plainly necessary; the more that this poem, though not written in the best period of romance poetry, treats of a legendary subject widely spread in the Middle Ages, and is nearly related to another poem, Syr Eglamour of Artois.

In this and the following section, all line numbers are active links. To reduce visual chaos, link highlighting has been turned off. This may be overridden by your personal browser settings.

The stanza of twelve lines was probably first employed in the north of England; at least it would be difficult to prove the existence xi of a poem composed in this metre in the southern part of the country; therefore it is beforehand probable that the romance of Torrent was composed either in some part of the Midlands or in the North. In order to determine the dialect more precisely, we restrict ourselves to a careful consideration of the rhymes.

Before entering on an inquiry into the sources of the romance, it may be expedient to give a short account of its contents.

If we take a survey of the poem, we shall recognize in its conception a harmonious plan and a certain unity of action, which, as in most of the romances, is founded on the hero and the interest he affects us with (See Ten Brink, Engl. Literat., I. p. 317). In the centre of the action is placed Torrent’s love of Desonelle; for all the various combats that he undertakes against dragons and giants, against the prince of Arragon and King Calamond, are undertaken solely to gain him Desonelle. Even his expedition against the infidels and the fighting with his son are designed by Providence to make him find again his lost love. Halliwell (Preface, p. vii), therefore, is not right in deeming the romance ‘a rambling poem of adventures without much plot.’ The length and tediousness of the episodes may have prevented him from recognizing the unity of the whole. At the same time, however, it must be admitted that the poem cannot rank with the masterpieces of romantic poetry written in the same metre, like Amis and Amiloun, Ipomadon, Kyng of Tars, Octavian, either in the invention of plot or in the dissection of passions. The diction is so swelled with stereotyped phrases, and so surfeited with trivialities, that we may justly suppose the poem to have been composed at a period when romantic poetry had passed its best time, and had begun to decay. As to the authorship of the poem, it was probably composed by a monk. It is an easy thing to show peculiarities in the course of the story which are essentially monkish. As the romance begins and ends with a benediction, in xxi the same way each deed and each adventure of the hero is introduced and finished by long prayers. Moreover, the poet points frequently to a direct interposition of Heaven (ll. 675, 1568, 1948); he describes the anguish and sorrow that Desonelle feels about her children’s baptism (ll. 1892-1896 and 2074-76); he mentions emphatically Communion and Confession (1272 and 2139), Masses (756 and 813); he finally praises the Emperor for founding churches and abbeys (l. 2658). On the other side, we find very few of those marks which characterize the works of minstrels: the poet seldom predicts the fates of his heroes to excite the attention of his auditors; he mentions only by the way the performances of the gleemen, and nowhere speaks of the rewards that they get.

Passing to a special inquiry into the origin of the story of Torrent, I cannot persuade myself that it is of the poet’s own invention, as that would be the only instance of a Middle-English romance not being taken from foreign originals (except, of course, Chaucer’s Sir Thopas, which was written to ridicule this whole branch of poetry), whilst slight alterations or additions were frequently introduced by the translators. A French original of the romance is supposed by Halliwell to have existed (Preface, vi). He says, ‘It is probably, like the second copy of the romance of Horn, a modernized version of an older English romance, which was itself translated from the French. I have not been able to discover any traces of the French original, but there are some singular allusions to its origin in the poem itself. I allude to the frequent references to the Book of Rome.3 This term was applied to the French language, in which most of the old romances were originally written.’ As for me, I don’t think that we can much rely upon references of this kind, because they are common to all of these Middle-English romances. Of a somewhat greater weight is perhaps the fact that one or two of the proper names are French; and even the oath, ‘par l’amour de dieu,’ is worth mentioning. After all, there is no evident proof as to the French origin. But there is no doubt that xxii the story of Torrent in its principal features—the adversities of a family separated by misfortunes, the mother robbed of her children by wild beasts, at last united again—proceeded from the old Eustache legend.4-5 Therewith another motive is combined, that of the woman innocently condemned, on which motive a large stock of legends is founded; for instance, those of Crescentia, Sibilla, Oliva, Genovefa, Griseldis and Octavian legends. Upon this motive and its old origin from India, see Streve, ‘The Octavian legend,’ Erlangen Dissert., 84.

I will consider first the legend of Eustache in its original version. According to the Greek Martyr Acts, which were probably composed in the eighth century, this saint was before his baptism a captain of Trajan, named Placidus. As he one day hunted in the forest, the Saviour appeared to him between the antlers of a hart, and converted him. Placidus changed his name into Eustache, when he was baptized with his wife and sons. God announced to him by an angel his future martyrdom. Eustache was afflicted by dreadful calamities, lost all his estate, and was compelled to go abroad as a beggar with his wife and his children. As he went on board a ship bound for Egypt, his wife was seized by the shipmaster and carried off. Soon after, when Eustache was travelling along the shore, his two children were borne away by a lion and a leopard. Eustache then worked for a long time as a journeyman, till he was discovered by the Emperor Trajan, who had sent out messengers for him, and called him to his court. Reappointed captain, Eustache undertook an expedition against the Dacians. During this war he found his wife in a cottage as a gardener,—the shipmaster had fallen dead to xxiii the ground as he ventured to touch her,—and in the same cottage he found again his two sons as soldiers: herdsmen had rescued them from the wild beasts, and brought them up. Glad was their meeting again! But as they returned to Rome, they were all burnt in a glowing bull of brass by the Emperor’s order, because they refused to sacrifice to the heathen gods.

This legend, which reminds us at once of the story of Job, has been incorporated in almost all mediæval collections of legends, and upon it are founded some mediæval poems, which are enumerated by H. Knust in his splendid work Dos Obras Didácticas y dos Leyendas, Madrid, 1878; cf. R. Köhler, Zeitschrift für rom. phil. III, p. 272 ff., Varnhagen, Anglia, III, p. 399 ff.; two latin versions are edited by the same, Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum XXIV, p. 241 ff., and XXV, p. 1 ff.

English legends of Eustache are to be found

(1) In Ælfric’s Passiones Martyrum; see Horstmann, Altenglische Legenden, Second series, Heilbronn, 1881, p. xli.

(2) In the South-English collection, l.c. p. xlviii.

(3) In the Northern collection, pp. lxi and lxiv. Herrig’s Archiv 57, p. 262 ff.

(4) In the Scottish collection of legends, said to be Barbour’s. Cf. Barbour’s Legendensammlung, ed. C. Horstmann, Heilbronn, 82, ii. p. 12.

(5) In the old Engl. translation of the Legenda aurea, see Horstm., l.c., p. cxxxv. Caxton’s edition of the legend, No. 196.

(6) The complete text of the legend printed in Horstmann’s above-mentioned collection, Altengl. Legendensamml., p. 211 ff.

(7) St. Eustas, by I. Partridge, see Gibbs’ above-mentioned edition, and Horstm., l.c. p. 472 ff.

With this legend are connected, more or less, the following poems, which it is necessary to speak of in turn:

(1) The Pseudo-Chrestien epic poem, Guillaume d’Engleterre.6

(2) The two Middle High German poems, Die gute Frau,7 and (3) Der Graf von Savoyen.8

(4) The romances of Isumbras; (5) of Octavian; (6) last, Syr Eglamour of Artois, and (7) Sir Torrent of Portugal.

The first five have been treated by Holland in his book, Chrestien de Troies, Tübingen, 1854.

According to Holland’s opinion, all of these are derived from the legend of Eustache. He has not exactly inquired into each of them, but restricts himself to a detailed account of their contents. A critical inquiry into these poems, except the romance of Octavian, has been recently published by J. Steinbach: Der einfluss des Crestien de Troies auf die altenglische literatur. Leipzig, 1886, p. 41 ff. As to the French and the two German poems, it may be sufficient to refer to this exhaustive essay, since it is only by the same legendary origin that they are connected with Sir Torrent; otherwise they are quite different.

But of the English romances of Sir Isumbras and of Octavian it is necessary to treat more minutely. Isumbras was edited first by Utterson in his Select Pieces of Early Popular Poetry, London, 1817; secondly by Halliwell in The Thornton Romances, from the Lincoln MS. A. i. 17. A critical edition of this poem has long been promised by Prof. Zupitza.

In this romance the legend of Eustache can be most clearly recognized. Its contents are, indeed, somewhat transformed according to the taste of the later Middle Ages: the Roman captain is changed into a Christian knight, who performs wonders in fighting against the infidels; he finds his wife as queen of a heathen country; they end their lives as mighty princes, and so on. The legendary style has been supplanted by the romantic diction,9 but the leading features remain the same. In his above-mentioned essay, xxv pp. 46-48, Steinbach concludes, from a detailed comparison of the contents, that the author of Isumbras did not derive his story from the epic poem, Guillaume d’Engleterre, but from an original which bore a still greater resemblance to the legend of Eustache, and, at the same time, contained many of those additions which are to be found in all versions of the legend. Whether this original was composed in Latin, French, or Anglo-Norman, Steinbach does not pretend to determine.

To Isumbras I join a few remarks on the romance of Octavian, which was edited by Halliwell for the Percy Society, The Romance of the Emperor Octavian, London, 1844; and by Sarrazin, Zwei mittelengl. Versionen der Octaviansage, in Koelbing’s Altengl. Bibliothek, Band III. As for its contents, cf. Sarrazin, as above, p. xviii ff. Concerning the origin of the story, he agrees in general with Holland, only he shows a still nearer connection between Isumbras and Octavian, taking the former for a mere imitation of the latter. This opinion, however, cannot be proved. As I cannot enter into detail, I only observe that the contents of Octavian are a great deal more complicated and copious than those of Isumbras, which is simple in its plot and style, and shows the nearest resemblance to the old Eustache legend, whilst Octavian is a refined and adorned version of the legendary tale with considerable change in the plan. Isumbras, of course, bears a strict resemblance to Eustache, but not to the Emperor Octavian, who has but little of the character of a suffering saint, as he does not become an outlaw himself, nor is to lose his earthly goods. Even those of his adventures which are conformable to the original—the separation from his family, the rape of the children, the final reunion—are exhibited in a different manner.

The principal contents of the romance of Octavian bear internal evidence of its later origin, as it treats chiefly of the adventures and exploits of Florent, Octavian’s son; especially in the second half of the story, exploits of Florent so prevail that the romance might justly bear his name on the title instead of his father’s. I therefore believe that Sarrazin’s opinion, that Isumbras is nothing but a bad imitation of Octavian, is wrong; and I am rather inclined to think the two poems were composed independently from each xxvi other, after French originals, as is evidently the case with Octavian, and probably with Isumbras. See Halliwell, Thornt. Rom., p. xviii. Sarrazin, moreover, supposes, p. xlv, both poems to be due to the same author, in consequence of the conformity of the dialect and style, and of some literal coincidences. But the fact that both of these romances are written in the same dialect is not sufficient to prove the identity of the authors, nor is the style, which is nearly stereotyped in all of these romances. As to the literal coincidences, only three of the nine passages quoted by Sarrazin seem to me to be of any importance. See Octavian, notes on ll. 382, 397, 481. But even these only show that the writer of Octavian knew Isumbras, or vice versâ.

As to the relation between Octavian and our poem, these two romances have no other affinity than the same legendary origin, and the motive of the woman innocently persecuted, which may very well have been introduced independently by two different authors. In all other particulars they are quite different.

The heroes bear little resemblance to their legendary models; in Octavian the Emperor of Rome; in Torrent the young, hardy knight who encounters marvellous struggles to win the hand of his spouse. Also in the treatment of the other motive, each romance has taken its own course. In Octavian, Florence is calumniated by her mother-in-law; in Torrent, Desonelle is persecuted by her father. The causes are consequently quite different: there the jealousy of the mother-in-law against the mighty Empress; here Calamond’s hatred against Torrent. These differences, now only alluded to, cause a great number of others, and produce a general difference of the two poems, which renders the opinion of a nearer connection between them altogether illusory.

Of all the poems mentioned above, the last, Syr Eglamour of Artois, is most nearly related to Sir Torrent, a fact found out by Halliwell,10 who, however, thought that there was no necessity for xxvii him to prove a similarity which would be at once detected by the reader; still, he takes it for certain that the romance of Torrent is younger than and partly founded on Sir Eglamour. As he gives no proof for this opinion, it will be worth while to enter once more into this question, in order to see whether he is right or not.

Upon it, the MSS. do not help us. The earliest MS. that can have contained Sir Eglamour is the parchment one of the Duke of Sutherland,11 written about the end of the 14th century. The other four MSS. of it12 are still later. The only MS. of Sir Torrent belongs to the 15th century, so that neither of these romances can be traced very far back.

Sir Eglamour was printed several times in the beginning of the 16th century, and edited anew by Halliwell from the Cambridge MS. in his well-known collection. To judge from the numerous readings of the Lincoln, Cotton, and Cambridge MSS. which he has quoted, the Lincoln MS. shows best the original dialect, and offers in several passages a reading preferable as to rhyme and meaning.13 Even slight differences in the contents occur now and then.14

The metre and probably the dialect are the same in both romances; they are composed in the tail-rhymed twelve-line stanzas, and written in a North Midland dialect. In both of them the style is alike swelled with the habitual phrases; only the long prayers and pious reflections so frequent in Torrent are not to be met with in Eglamour. On the other hand, the poet is wont to predict the fates of his heroes (ll. 204, 951); he often demands attention (ll. 15, 39, 343, 634, 904); he never omits, in describing the festivals, to mention the performances of the minstrels, and to praise the liberality of the lords. These characteristics render it probable that the author of Eglamour was a minstrel, not a clerk or monk, as I suppose the author of Sir Torrent to be.

I now pass on to compare the contents of the two poems. The principal features of the plot are the same in both. A young knight who seeks the hand of a princess engages to win her by valiant exploits. The princess’s father opposes his wooing, jealous as he is of the hero’s renown. The knight vanquishes all the giants and other monsters against which he is told to fight, and at length gains his spouse. A few weeks after their marriage, he sets out again on adventurous expeditions. While he stays abroad, his wife is delivered of twins. Her father sends her to sea in a leaky boat; she lands on a foreign shore, where her children are carried off by wild beasts; but they are saved in a marvellous manner, and brought up at royal courts, whilst she herself lives for a long time at a foreign court. As the hero, when he comes home again, doesn’t find her, he goes into the Holy Land to fight with the infidels. After various adventures he finds his wife and children after a tournament at a foreign court. They return home gladly, and celebrate their nuptials by great festivals. The cruel father is duly punished.

On entering into details, however, we find considerable discrepancies between the two romances. First, the names are altogether different. (Eglamour = Torrent. Crystyabelle = Desonelle. Prynsamour = Calamond. Organata = Gendres. Degrabelle = Antony fice Greffoun.) The stage of the plot is in Eglamour Artois, Rome, and Egypt; in Torrent Portugal, Norway, and Calabre. Only the Holy Land is mentioned in both. There the children are carried off by wild beasts, saved by princes and brought up; there the hero fights against the infidels.

The differences of the plot itself are the following:

1. Eglamour confesses his love to Crystyabelle before his deeds; a squire is the go-between in his suit; Eglamour finds love in return. In Torrent Desonelle does not know that she is adored by the hero till after his first exploit. See ll. 109, 448.

2. Accordingly, Eglamour, setting out on adventures, receives two greyhounds and a sword of St. Paul from Crystyabelle as presents, whereas Torrent gets an ambler from his lady love, but not till after his first deed.

3. Prynsamour charges Eglamour with three deeds by which he xxix is to gain Crystyabelle. Torrent is obliged to undertake not less than five combats.

4. In Torrent the combats of the hero are enlarged and adorned by additions not to be found in Eglamour. The latter does not release the daughters and sons of kings, nor does he find precious swords in the castles of the giants, nor is he deceived by a king’s counterfeit letter, which causes Torrent a dangerous struggle and the rivalry of a foreign prince. Only in Eglamour (ll. 40-48) some knights are mentioned who came to win Crystyabelle by jousting, but were all vanquished by Eglamour.

The greatest differences are found in the second halves of the stories.

5. Crystyabelle has one child by Eglamour; Desonelle has two by Torrent.

6. Crystyabelle is driven away into Egypt, where she is graciously received by the king. Desonelle finds refuge in the court of the king of Nazareth.

7. Degrabelle, the son of Crystyabelle, is saved and brought up by the king of Israel; the sons of Desonelle by the kings of Greece and Jerusalem.

8. The father of Crystyabelle is not punished like Calamond in Torrent, immediately after the hero’s return, but he dies at the end of the poem, throwing himself down from the battlements.

9. Degrabelle is sent, when fifteen years old, into Egypt by his adoptive father to sue for a spouse. In a joust he gains the hand of his mother and marries her. On the very wedding-day the mother recognizes her son by his escutcheon, and the marriage is instantly dissolved. Quite differently does the story run in Sir Torrent. Leobertus, fifteen years old, marches by order of the king of Jerusalem against his father, and takes him prisoner, but at length solicits his release.

10. The tournament, which in both poems compasses the reunion of the separated family, is brought on in a different manner. In Eglamour Degrabelle himself proposes the hand of his mother as the prize in the next tournament, to which his father comes. In Torrent Desonelle, hearing of the victories of the strange knight, supposes xxx him to be her spouse from his arms, and at her request a tournament is arranged. (Her hand seems to have been likewise the prize, as may be gleaned from l. 2440.)

11. At the very end of the poems two slight differences are to be noted: in Eglamour, Degrabelle marries Organata, daughter of the king of Sidon, whereas the sons of Torrent return into Greece and Jerusalem. Eglamour is crowned prince of Artois; Torrent is elected Emperor of Rome.

From this comparison we may conclude that Torrent is not directly founded upon Eglamour, or vice versâ; the differences are too great to justify the supposition that either is drawn from the other. Especially is the opinion of Halliwell, which I mentioned above, to be rejected: Sir Torrent cannot be founded on Sir Eglamour, simply because it agrees more closely with the old legendary tale than Syr Eglamour does, and has preserved some essential features not to be found in Eglamour, in which these are supplanted by others. Desonelle, for instance, has two children according to the old legend, Crystyabelle one; Torrent must fight and suffer in heathen lands like Eustache, whereas Eglamour appears as a mere knight-errant. Further, neither in the Eustache legend nor in Torrent do we find the history of the son who marries his mother, which motive the poet may have taken from the legend of Pope Gregory, or perhaps from the tale of Syr Degaré.

But how can the resemblance of the leading features and the discrepancies in particulars be explained? I think the most probable conjecture is, that an old poem, now lost, existed, with which the authors of Sir Eglamour and of Sir Torrent were acquainted; but not having a MS. of it, or knowing it by heart, both of them made up their minds to rewrite the story in a well-known metre, changing, omitting, adding whatever they liked, even filling up the gaps in their memories by invention. Both of them recollected the first half of the story better than the second.

That this poem was an English one seems to be shown by a good many verbal coincidences in both poems; these I accordingly suppose to have belonged to the lost original. They are, indeed, too frequent to be counted simply amongst the large stock of conventional xxxi phrases which are to be met with in every poem of this kind. Here they are:—

Perhaps some more light will be thrown on this question when we get the much-wanted critical edition of Sir Eglamour; but I fear that the ‘secret history attached to the source of these romances’ will even then remain to be unravelled. What I have proposed has no title to a better name than a conjecture.

As to the only MS. in which this romance has come down to us, I have mentioned before that it is exceedingly corrupt; many conjectures, more or less sure, were necessary in order to restore metre, rhyme, and meaning; the greater part of them seemed worthy to be entered in the text, the rest being offered in the notes. No attempt has been made to introduce a uniform character of dialect, considering the quite unsettled state of orthography in early times. The only exceptions are where the sounds are fully determined by the rhyme. In general the orthography of the MS. has been reproduced as accurately as possible. The contractions used by the scribe are expanded and printed in italics. At the beginning of a new period, or a proper name within the line, capitals have been introduced. From l. 1200, where the numeration of my text no longer coincides with that of Halliwell’s edition, the line-numbers of the latter are added in brackets.

The fragments which I have added as an appendix to the text have been consulted in all cases of difficulty, and proved of no little service in correcting the blunders of the manuscript; they contain indeed a somewhat better text than the MS., though they are by no means free from clerical errors. A detailed comparison gives the following result:

In fifty-one lines the text of the fragments is evidently correcter than the MS.:

Cf. 489, 498, 507-10, 512-15, 822, 825, 831, 833, 834, 837, 845, 848, 851, 929, 932, 933, 935, 947, 948, 951, 952, 958, 965, 968-70, 1807, 1808, 1810, 1827, 1828, 1831, 1834-36, 1844, 1854, 1866.

Forty-eight lines are coincident: 468, 470, 474, 479, 480, 486, 487, 495, 499, 501, 504, 505, 520, 823, 832, 842, 844, 846, 917, 918, 921, 922, 927, 928, 936, 938, 953, 957, 962, 1809, 1813-17, 1819-21, 1823, 1830, 1832, 1838, 1847, 1850, 1851-52, 1863, 1865.

In ninety-one lines it is doubtful which reading is to be considered as the original one:

Cf. 467, 475, 476, 478, 481, 482, 488, 496, 497, 500, 506, 511, 516-20, 821, 824, 826, 827, 829, 830, 835, 838-41, 843, 847, 850, 919, 920, 923, 925-26, 930-31, 934, 937, 939, 940-43, 945, 946, 949, 950, 954, 955, 959, 960-61, 963, 964, 966, 967, 1811, 1812, 1818, 1822, 1825, 1826, 1829, 1837, 1840, 1842, 1843, 1845-46, 1848-49, 1853, 1855-62, 1864.

In eleven lines the text of the MS. is superior to that of the fragment:

Cf. 488, 503, 820, 849, 924, 1824, 1833, 1839.

As to the sixth fragment, 1014-36, and the beginning of the first (in Halliwell’s edition the third), 462-64, in which, as above mentioned, not much more than the rhyming words are preserved, they have nearly the same relation to the MS. as the other ones.

In the following passages they correct the rhymes of the MS.: 1017, 1018, 1028, 1033. Coincident rhymes: 1014, 1015, 1019, 1026, 1027, 1032, 1034-36. Undecided: 1020, 1021, 1023-24, 1029-30, 462-64. The rhymes of the MS. are preferable in ll. 1016, 1022, 1025, 1031.

I need only add, that all the discrepancies between the MS. and the fragments, however numerous they may be, concern, for the most part, things of little importance; they are caused especially by the frequent change of synonymous terms, by the difference of expletive words and phrases, the transposition of words, the change of tenses, and so on. But as there is nowhere any essential difference to be traced, we may conjecture with great probability that the early printed edition of the romance was taken from a manuscript which was pretty nearly related to the Manchester MS., though somewhat more correctly written.

I gladly take the present opportunity of acknowledging my very great obligation to Prof. Koelbing, from whom I have received ample assistance throughout the whole of this work. It would be absolutely impossible to me entirely to discriminate his part from mine. He carefully revised the introduction, notes, and the glossary, before they went to press, and after they came from it, and he looked several times through the proofs of the text. Nor am I less indebted to Mr. Joseph Hall at Manchester, who not only kindly read the proofs of the text with the MS. in the Chetham Library, but also contributed some valuable notes, which are marked by his name. The Director has added the head-lines and side-notes.