is proved to be no inconsiderable encouragement and assistance. A more serious difficulty arises from the circumstance, that the bookselller used more than one language, and none always correctly. Still it may be presumed he was not so ignorant as to make a blunder in spelling his own name. And the first words of the manuscript are these: "+In nomine domini amen ego Johannes dorne, &c. &c." (In noie domi ame ego Johanes dorne, &c.) From the inspection of a close copy now lying before me, in which all the abbreviations are retained, and from my own clear recollection, I am enabled to state that, to my full belief, the name of "dorne" is written by the man himself in letters at length, without any contraction whatever; and that the altered form of it, "Domr," as applied to that particular person, exists nowhere whatever, except in page 75. of No. 5 of the "NOTES AND QUERIES."

The words "henno rusticus" (heno rusticus) are found twice, and are tolerably clearly written in both cases. Of the "rusticus" nothing need be said; but the first n in "henno" is expressed by a contraction, which in the MS. very commonly denotes that letter, and sometimes the final m. How frequently it represents n may be judged from the fact that in the few words already quoted, the final n in "amen," and the first in "Johannes," are supplied by it. So that we have to choose between "henno" and "hemno" rusticus (rather a clown than a gentleman, whatever 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 perfectly 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 actually 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 I have done; though perhaps 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 difficulties 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 it 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. Dec. 5, 1849.

[We have inserted the foregoing letter in compliance 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 obscure points in that very curious document. The following communication from a valued correspondent, in answering W.'s Query as to Henno Rusticus, confirms the accuracy of his reading.]

HENNO RUSTICUS.

The query of your correspondent W. at p. 12, No. 1. regards, I presume, Henno Comediola Rustico Ludicra, nunc iterum publicata; Magdeburg, 1614, 8vo.? If so, he will find it to be identical with the Scænica Progymnasmata h. e. Ludicra Præexercitamenta of Reuchlin, first printed at Strasburg in 1497, and frequently reprinted during the first part of the sixteenth 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 himself 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 prudent reasons, dissuaded its performance. It being known, however, that a dramatic exhibition was intended, not to disappoint those who were anxiously expecting it, Reuchlin hastily availed himself of the very amusing old farce of Maistre Pierre Patelin, and produced his Scænica Progymnasmata, in which the Rustic Henno is the principal character. It varies much, however, from its prototype, is very laughable, and severely satirical upon the defects of the law and the dishonesty of advocates.

Its popularity is evinced by the numerous editions; 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 Reuchlin. 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:—

"Ibi Comoediam scripsit, Capitis Caput plenam nigri salis & acerbitatis adversus Monachum, qui ejus vitæ insidiatus erat. Ibi & alteram Comoediam edidit fabulam Gallicam, plenam candidi salis; in qua forensia sophismata præcipue taxat. Hanc narrabat hac occasione scriptam & actam esse. Cum alteram de Monacho scipsisset, fama sparsa est de agenda Comoedia, quod illo tempore inusitatum erat. Dalburgius lecta, illius Monachi insectatione, dissuasit editionem & actionem, quod eodem tempore & apud Philipum Palatinum Franciscanus erat Capellus, propter potentiam & malas artes invisus nobilibus & sapientibus viris in aula. Intellexit periculum Capnio & hanc Comoediam occultavit. Interea tamen, quia flagitabatur actio, alteram dulcem fabellam edit, & repræsentari ab ingeniosis adolescentibus, quorum ibi extant nomina, curat."

Mr. Hallam (Literat. of Europe, vol. i. p. 292., 1st ed.), misled by Warton and others, gives a very defective and erroneous account of the Progymnasmata Scænica, which he supposed to contain several dramas; but he concludes by saying, "the book is very scarce, and I have never seen it." Gottsched, in his History of the German Drama, merely says he had seen some notice of a Latin drama by Reuchlin. Hans Sachs translated it into German, after his manner, and printed it in 1531 under the title of Henno.

S.W.S.

Mickleham, Dec. 1. 1849.

MYLES BLOMEFYLDE—ORTUS VOCABULORUM.

Sir,—In reference to the Query of BURIENSIS in No. 4. of your periodical, as to the parentage of Myles Blomefylde, of Bury St. Edmund's, I beg to contribute the following