Chapter XXXII: Part 32

But in reference to the supposed right of Middleton to these lines, we now find, in 1584, when Middleton was a boy, that the first of the two lines—or, if one chooses, the first two of the four, the words being in each half phrase inverted, possibly to vary the too great sing-song of the sentence—was copied by Scot as part of a known series of rhyming lines. Shakespeare, who wrote later, has the “Black spirits”, etc.; Middleton, in his _Witch_, where we find passages taken verbatim and almost verbatim from Scot, has these and the other rhymes given by Scot very slightly altered in i, 2, and the “Black spirits”, etc., with “Mingle, mingle”, and some of the other rhymes in v, 2. Hence they are neither Shakespeare’s nor Middleton’s. Whose then are they? Scot gives them as from W. W.’s booklet on the Witches at St. Osees, Essex. But certainly the lines, nor any of them, are not in that booklet. These things, however, are there. Ursula Kempe’s little boy deposes, and she herself, on promise from the Justice, Brian Darcie, Esq., of favour being shown her—which promise, by the way, both in her case and that of others, was carried out by their being hanged—that she had two he- and two she-spirits, the shes being Tyffen, in the shape of a white lamb, and Pigine, black like a toad; the hes, Tittie, like a little grey cat, and Jacke, black like a cat. Nor are these merely thus mentioned by each, but the old woman specifies their doings through three or four of the earlier pages (A 3, v—A 8). Mother Bennet’s spirits were two, Suckin, like a black dog, and Lyerd, redde like a Lyon (B 3, etc., B 7). Besides these, but less prominently brought forward, were these. Mother Hunt had two little things like horses, one white and one black, kept in a pot amongst black and white wool (A 5, v and 6). Ales Hunt had also two spirits, one white and one black, like little colts, and named Jacke and Robbin (C 3). Marg. Sammon had a Tom and a Robyn, but these were like toads. H. Sellys, aged nine, deposes that his mother had two imps, one Herculus sothe hons [_sic_] or Jacke, black, and a he, who, in the night, and in the likeness of his sister, pulled his younger brother’s leg and otherwise hurt him so that he cried out; the second, Mercurie, a she and white (D v). Ales Baxter says that the cow while being milked was viciously unruly, and that something like a white cat struck at her heart, so that she became so weak that she could not stand, and being found leaning against a style, was carried home in a chair (D 4, v). Ales Mansfield had given her by Margaret Grevell (elsewhere Gravell)—for these imps seem to have been given away without will of their own, like brute beasts, and being hungry were fed on milk, beer, bread, oats, hay, straw, and especially a sup of blood sucked from the body—two he- and two she-spirits, named Robin, Jack, William, and Puppet, alias Mamet, like black cats (D 6). Mother Eustace also had three imps, like white, gray, and black cats. Annis Dowsing, aged seven, base daughter of Annis Herd, tells B. Darcie that her mother had six Avices or Blackbirds, black speckled with white or all black. Also six imps like cows, but “as big as rattes”, one of which, black and white, and named Crowe, had been given to her, while Donne [? Dun], another, was red and white (G. 4. v). I have, perhaps, overlengthened this tale through wishing to show that these imps, besides being hungry, generally took a white or black, and sometimes a red or grey, colour, and because these notings from this unique book and authentic record might be otherwise acceptable. So much do the names and the notice of the colours of the imps strike a reader, that Bishop Hutchinson, in his Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft, 1718, says, p. 29, “An account of them was written by Brian Darcie, with the Names and Colours of their spirits.” But here an end after the remarks. First, that the chief witnesses, and leaders up to these confessions, were their own children of from 6¾ to 9 years of age. Secondly, that these confessions were, as plainly as possible, first made by some and then followed by others through promises of favour, promises lyingly carried out to condemnation and death. Thirdly, that, as shown by such instances as “[she] desired to speake alone with me, the said Bryan Darcey, whereupon I went into my garden”, etc., and by the frequent use of “before mee”—the initials W. W. were either fictitious, or not improbably those of his clerk, and that the real author was Brian Darcie, Esq., Justice of the Peace, who desired to gain favour from his kinsman, Lord Darcie, to whom the book was dedicated, or possibly, through him and it, the notice of her Majesty, as a clever, zealous, and trustworthy seeker-out of these old-new things.

It need hardly be added that ballading was then a profession, and that its professors seized upon anything of interest,—an atrocious murder, the last words of the murderer (spoken or not), unusual floods or storms, the effects of lightning, the cruise of an adventurous vessel, shipwrecks, the story of a strange fish “in forme of a woman from the wast upward”, that appeared “forty thousand fathom above water [or otherwise], and sang as followeth”. How then should the condemnation of some sixteen old women for horrible crimes escape being “balletted”? It was new, rare, came home to all, and was in more senses than one deadly. The very rhymes in Scot prove it, for they could not be Scot’s own words, and they have the very rhythm, or rather lilt, of a ballad. On looking calmly, therefore, at the evidence, I am convinced that neither Shakespeare nor Middleton could have been the one who tacked together these rhymes between 1582 and 1584, but that Shakespeare did here, as he sometimes did, and notably in Ophelia’s madness, quote such lines as “Black spirits and white”, etc., because the words suited his scene of devilish enchantment, and gave it reality; while Middleton, in a Magical Tragi-Comedy, gave, with very slight variation, the whole of the words quoted by Scot.

I trust my reader will not merely excuse it when it regards Shakespeare and _Macbeth_, if I go a little out of my present road and add the few words following. As it has been held that Middleton wrote “Black spirits”, etc., so it has been supposed that the lines on the “Touching for the Evil” were interpolated by Middleton or some other, because negative evidence seemed to show that James did not take upon himself this custom till a date much later than 1605. Lately, however, Prof. S. R. Gardiner has discovered that James “touched” and was almost compelled to “touch” as early as 1603. Its efficacy had been believed in, and was set forth in books; so that the very assumption of this prerogative proved its efficacy, and thus proved his rightful heirship to the English crown,—a proof, I suspect, not lost sight of by the astute counsellors who counselled its adoption, nor by James himself. And I think that he must be blind who cannot see how this, added to the other evidence set forth in the play, and to the true, though somewhat, and of purpose, indirectly exposed intent of _Macbeth_, proved both James’s heirship and set forth the certain overthrow of all such devilishly contrived plots,—such as, to name but three, the attempt at the Carse of Gowrie; the plot in which Raleigh was, or was supposed to be, concerned; and lastly, the gunpowder plot—as would alter the predestinate decree of Heaven, that James I and VI should be King of Great Britain. Unless, too, I am much mistaken, the fears of James were the direct or indirect instigators of Shakespeare’s play, and the cause of that autograph letter to the poet, for which no shadow of a reason can otherwise be assigned.

For convenience’ sake I here include some notings illustrative of either Shakespeare’s indebtedness to Scot, or of those beliefs and forms of expression which led both to write as they did.

P. 10. “They can pull down the moon.” This belief, derived from classic times, is authority for Prospero’s “A witch ... so strong That could control the moon” (v, i). So also ii, 1, 174.

——— “Corne in the blade.” There is frequent reference to this in Scot, as here and at pp. _A_ iiii, _v_, 49, 58, 63, 219, 221, 482, and elsewhere. But as Staunton saw, this is the nearest to _Macbeth’s_ “though bladed corn be lodged” (iv, 1). Also, though this happens more or less in several of the instances, yet especially here, the context agrees with the thoughts and context-words of _Macbeth_.

P. 33. “Anthropophagi and Canibals.” Associated synonymes probably suggested to both by the same heading in p. 1100 of Seb. Münster’s _Cosmography_ (Basil, 1550).

P. 42. “Never faile to danse.” An authority for the dancing of _Macbeth’s_ witches, and a probable authority for the dancing of the latter with broomsticks headed with brooms in their hands.

P. 54. The “Monarcho” of _L. L. Lost_ appears from this to have been a madman.

P. 64. “Rime either man or beast to death.” An extension of the Shakespearean and general belief that they rhymed (Irish) rats to death. _As You Like It_, iii, 2.

P. 77. “No power to occupy.” Proof that this last word was used in the sense of to use or be busied with, from which general use it came to be employed as common slang for a disreputable and vile using.

P. 170. “Chattering of pies and haggisters.” A haggister is the Kentish term for a pie, or magpie. The passage explains why Duncan (i, 5) is not welcomed by these, but by the ill-omened raven that is hoarse with croaking his approach. W. Perkins on _Witchcraft_, works, ed. 1613, says: “When a raven stands on a high place and looks a particular way and cries, a corse comes thence soon.”

P. 187. “A thousand for one that fell out contrary.” We would more correctly write—“A thousand that fell out contrary for one that fell out rightly or correctly.” But this and others are examples of what we would call a more than loose way of expressing oneself, though then it was allowable, for Scot was an educated and intelligent man, who wrote well. “Each putter out of five for one”, _Tempest_, iii, 2, is an almost exactly similar instance. The putting out of five for one is considered as one action, and is—_pace_ Dyce—the receiving, as Malone says, at the rate of five for one, the putter out being he who puts out in the hope of receiving five for one.

P. 212. “The blind man ... in killing the crow.” Green’s _Defence of Cony-Catching_, p. 70, ed. Grosart, gives this proverbial saying—“as blinde men shoote the crowe”. _Hamlet_, 4to., 1603, has the variant—“as the blinde man catcheth the hare”.

“A green silk curtain.” These words, also in Middleton’s _Witch_, i, 2, illustrate the custom which led Sir Toby (_Tw. N._, i, 4) to say, “Wherefore have these gifts a curtain before ’em? Are they like to take dust like Mistress Moll’s picture?” And these last words, by the way, prove that this same Moll had, for her own purposes, the portrait exposed in some painter’s shop, or painters’ shops, or rather free fronts, without a curtain.

P. 269. “If a soule wander ... by night.” Proof that the wandering of Hamlet’s father’s ghost was strictly in accordance with traditional folk-lore. So, p. 462, we have, “How common an opinion ... reveale their estate”; and p. 535, “They affirme ... soules of saints”.

P. 347. “Bodkin.” The text and margin show that this was used for a small dagger, and the woodcut on the next page that it was sometimes at least a rod-like and pointed weapon. Being thus shaped it was small, more easily carried at the waist, and less readily broken either by a bone or by an adversary’s stroke.

P. 382. “_Beliall._” This goes to show that he was “the other devil” whose name had escaped Macbeth’s porter. Its being less common in men’s and preachers’ mouths would account for his non-remembrance.

P. 416. “_Lignum aloes._” Against any argument drawn from the italic use of _Hews_ in Son. 20, and its not being italicised in its first use in the same line, nor anywhere else in Shakespeare, the fact that _Alloes_ appears in _The Lover’s Complaint_, as well as do other words in the Sonnets, has been brought forward. But without entering in detail into the question, I would note that three substantives, all names of vegetables, are here mentioned, and that this alone is placed in italics. So, in the Appendix II, 1665, pp. 67-8, we have a number of aromatics named, but this only, and only on its second occurrence, is with _Sperma Ceti_ placed in italics—the reason, I presume, being, that as a medicine, a more strange and less-known name to the commonalty, and a Latin one, it was treated as a quoted proper name.

P. 497. “He burned his booke.” A precedent, as was Acts ix, 19, for Prospero’s “I’ll drown my book”, when he left his island.

P. 498. “Bicause they want.” One example, among many, from Elizabethan and present authors, and from provincial use, where want = “be”, or “are without”. This in part explains _Macbeth_, iii, 6, where Lennox exclaims, “Who cannot want the thought?” The true difficulty lies in the use of the negative “cannot”. But while a more correct style would have “can”, the more colloquial and hasty use of the former was, I think, permissible, just as was the use of the double negative where it was not meant to be, as it usually was, emphatic. Moreover, it gives here a double or ambiguous sense, such as, I think, Lennox wanted to express.

P. 504. “One instant or pricke of time.” Illustrates somewhat differently than I think is usually explained, “the prick of noon”. _R. and Jul._, and other places.

P. 516. “Diverse shapes and forms.” Shakespeare follows this ruling when he makes Ariel and his co-spirits assume different shapes, though some modern critics find fault because he being on some occasions invisible, these changes are, in their opinion, unnecessary. But the appearance of these spirits, sometimes as invisible, sometimes as visible, sometimes in spirit form, sometimes as Juno or Ceres, sometimes as harpies, is not only in accordance with the then beliefs as to airy spirits, but to me, and to those who have seen their representatives, it is more pleasant to see them in forms appropriate to their office, besides bringing their spiritual existence and power more vividly before us. Critics here, as well as elsewhere, too often insist on considering Shakespeare as the author of books to be read, and not of plays to be acted and seen.

P. 518. “This devil Beelzebub.” So seems to have thought _Macbeth’s_ porter.

P. 520. “The cruell angel.” Here in Prov. 17 [11] we have one of the principles on which _Macbeth_ was planned and executed.

P. 533. “Soules appeare oftenest by night;... never to the whole multitude, also may be seene of some[,] and of some other in that presence not seene at all.” Here is proof of the folk-lore correctness of the ghost appearing only when Marcellus and Bernardo were alone on watch, and of his being afterwards invisible to the Queen in her own chamber, though visible to Hamlet while there in obedience to her summons.

Appendix II, p. 46, par. 8. “_But it is rarely known._” Though this is after Shakespeare’s time, the belief, in all probability, was in existence in his day, and shows how the writer of the first and unknown _Hamlet_ followed in _Hamlet’s_ ghost the beliefs of his day.

“_Feature._” An example of its being used for the make of a man, and not merely of the features of his countenance, to which it is now appropriated; but till I can find—and as yet I have found none, though I have looked out for it—an example of feature used for things inanimate, I cannot accept the interpretation of song or sonnet in Touchstone’s _As You Like It_, iii, 3, 3. Feature here, as any shape or proportions, is perfectly intelligible. Did it refer to verse we should expect “features”. From no man, as Touchstone is depicted by Shakespeare, could we less expect verse-making, and all his reference to it in this passage may readily have arisen from his reference to his new situation as like that of the _honest_ poet Ovid among the Goths. Had he been poetical and given her verses, he could not have explained to Aubrey that he, being a poet, only feigned to love her.

P. 198. “_Primus secundus._” This goes far to show—proves, I think—that the Clown’s “Primo, secundo, tertio is a good play” (_Tw. N._, v, 1), a passage on which no commentator known to me has touched, thinking it a merely jocular remark, is, in fact, taken from a well-known “play” or game. What the game was is unknown to me, but children still use various numerals, provincial or otherwise, mingled with rhyme, to settle anything, as, for instance, who shall hide in the game of hide and seek.

P. 471. “Biggins.” Shows, as does 2 _Hy. IV_, iv, 5, 27, that, if not nightcaps, they meant, among other significations, caps worn at night and in bed, and that “homely” was not a generic epithet.

Introd. Rainolde Scot’s Will “bank or pond”. I note this because it may possibly help to some future interpretation of Iris’s words in the _Tempest_, iv, 1, 64, “The banks with pioned ... brims.”

MIDDLETON’S “WITCH”.

————

P. 117. “_Marmaritin_”, etc. In i, 2, he copies these names, altering only their order for the sake of the verse, and probably for the same reason omitting “Mevais”.

“I could give thee
Chirocinata, adincantida,
Archimedon, marmaritin, calicia,
Which I could sort to villainous barren ends.”

P. 124. “Needles wherwith dead bodies are sowne or sockt into their sheetes.” [Noted amidst charms procuring love and hate.] In i, 2, following the marmaritin passage, we find—

“More I could instance
As, the same needles _thrust into their pillows_
That sews and socks up dead men in their sheets.”

This is the more noteworthy, as to sock a corpse seems to have been a Kentish phrase. “A privy gristle”, etc., as given by Middleton, was, I presume, one of the other things which, “for reverence of the reader”, Scot omits, though whence the former got it I know not.

——— Among other “toies which procure love” are, “a little fish called Remora”. In the same scene of the _Witch_, we find—

“_Hæc._ Thou com’st for a love charm now
* * * * * *
I’ll give thee a remora, shall bewitch her straight.
* * * * * *
... a small fish.”

——— Scot also gives “the bone of a greene frog, the flesh thereof being consumed with pismers or ants”. And Middleton’s Hecate adds—

“The bones of a green frog too, wondrous precious,
The flesh consum’d by pismires.”

——— “The haire growing on the nethermost part of a woolves taile ... the braine of a cat.” In ii, 2, Almachildes, speaking of love charms, says: “The whorsom old hellcat would have given me the brain of a cat ... and a little bone in the hithermost part of a wolf’s tail.” In the words “bone” and “hithermost” he may have erred in memory, or there may in the latter word have been a copyist’s error.

P. 153. Hecate, i, 2, enumerates “Urchins, Elves, Hags, [fairies] Satyrs, Pans, Fauns, Sylvans, Kitt-with-the-candlestick, Tritons, Centaurs, Dwarfs [giants], Imps [...], the Spoo[r]n, the Mare, the Man-i-the-oak, the Hellwaine, the Fire-drake, the Puckle!” [...]. These, except the omissions marked by ... and by [ ], are exactly those mentioned by Scot, and in the same order.

P. 184. Scot, from J. B. Porta. Neap., gives a receipt to be used by witches when they would transport themselves through the air. “℞ The fat of yoong children and seethe it [etc., etc.].... They put there, into Eleoselinum, Aconitum, Frondes populeas and Soote.... Another receipt.... ℞, Sium, acarum vulgare, pentaphyllon, the bloud of a flittermouse, solanum somniferum, & oleum.”

In i, 2, we have these bits almost verbatim—

“_Hec._ There take this unbaptised brat,
Boil it well; preserve the fat:
You know ’tis precious to transfer
Our ’nointed flesh into the air
In moonlight nights,
* * * * *
I thrust in eleoselinum lately,
Aconitum, frondes populeas and soot—
* * * * *
Then sium, acorum vulgare too,
Pentaphyllon, the blood of a flitter-mouse
Solanum somni_ficum_ et oleum.”

——— “By this means (saith he) in a moonlight night [see fifth line of i, 2, just quoted] they seeme to be carried through the air, to feasting, singing, dansing, kissing, colling, and other acts of venerie, with such youthes as they love and desire most.” In i, 2, just after the previous lines, are these—

“When hundred leagues in the air, we feast and sing,
Dance, kiss, and coll, use everything:
What young man can we wish to pleasure us,
But we enjoy him in an incubus.”

P. 186. “frier Bartholomæus” [Spinæus] saith that ... “the witches before they annoint themselves do heare in the night time a great noise [= band or troop] of minstrels, which flie over them, with the ladie of the fairies, and ... to their journie.” In iii, 1, Firestone says ... “Hark, hark, mother, they are over the steeple already, flying over your head with a noise of musicians.”

P. 222. “It is constantlie affirmed in _M. Mal._ that _Stafus_ ... had a disciple called _Hoppo_, who made Stadlin a maister witch, and could all when they list, invisiblie transferre the third part of their neighbors doong, hay, corne, &c: into their own ground, make haile, tempests, and flouds, with thunder and lightning.” Bodin also, bk. ii, c. 6; but he makes Hoppo and Stadlin co-disciples of Stafus and master witches. Compare i, 2, _ad init._ for Hoppo and Stadlin, while further on comes—

“Stadlin’s within:
She raises all your sudden ruinous storms
That shipwreck barks, and tear up growing oaks.
* * * * *
I’ll call forth Hoppo, and her incantation
Can straight destroy the young of all his cattle;
Blast vineyards, orchards, meadows; or in one night
Transport his dung, hay, corn, by reeks, whole stacks,
Into thine own ground.”

P. 244. “_A ab hur hus._” A charm against the toothache. Hence it is most probable, especially if the ! of “Puckle!” be in the original, that Hecate, after reaching that name, is interrupted by a sudden spasm of toothache, which she would exorcise by this “_A ab hur hus_”. The sudden pause, the contortions of her haggard visage, and the grotesque movements of the 117-year-old hag would greatly add to the comedy of the scene.

P. 542. When this mortal witch Hecate—not the Queen of Hell and of Witchdom, as was the Hecate of antiquity and of Shakespeare, and others in the middle ages, for, says one of the after writers given in the later editions of M. Mal., “Hecate artem magicam doceret”—uses in i, 2, the very rhymes spoken of under this page in the Shakespeare writings, some [ands] and [&c., his] being omitted, and “devil-lambe” being changed to “devil-ram”. In v, 2, she again mentions “Titty and Tiffin, Leaid and Robin”, and this time “Pucky”, for the rhyme’s sake. Hellwin and Prickle are—as shown by her other mention of them (see note, p. 153), as well as her mention of them elsewhere—mere copyists’ or printers’ errors for Hellwain and Puckle.

• • • • •

P. 222. One would here add the quotation from Ovid’s _Metam._ made by Hecate, the first line running in Scott, Middleton, Corn. Agrippa (_Occult Phil._, l. 1, c. 72), and in Bodin, Dæmono, l. 2, c. 2: “Cum volui ... ipsis mirantibus” instead of “Quorum ope cum ... mirantibus”; but that from the accidental dropping of the line “Vivaque saxa”, etc., in Bodin, and its omission also in Middleton, it would seem, as Dyce remarks, that Middleton took it from Bodin. In concluding, I would state that most, but not all, of these references are taken from Dyce’s _Middleton_.

EXTRACTS FROM WIER.

————

I.

Besides those noted by Scot in the margins, I have gathered the following from Wier, though very possibly some may have been overlooked. By far the greater number occur in the 12th Book of Scot; that is, they consist chiefly of various charms and illustrative tales.

I would not be understood, however, as thinking that Scot in all these cases copied from Wier, any more than I would assert that some later Astronomer Royal has quoted from Herschel, without mentioning him, the fact “that the earth revolves around the sun”. The reference in both to the _Homerica medicatio_ from Ferrerius (in Scot, Ferrarius) is a notable one in point, and two other instances will be found in Notes on the Text. I quite agree, also, with Prof. W. T. Gairdner when he says, _Insanity_, p. 61: “Nothing, however, is more evident than that Scot, however indebted to Wier (and both of them probably to Cornelius Agrippa...), was far in advance of either in the clearness of his views and the unwavering steadiness of his leanings to the side of humanity and justice.”

N.B.—“&c.” for the words following in the page has been omitted, as unnecessary.

P. 7. The reader may compare the first, and the first part of par. 2 of ch. 3 with Wier, _De Lamiis_, c. 5, “Quocirca eam”, etc., and judge whether the remembrance of this latter did not suggest Scot’s words.

P. 53. “One _Bessus_.” From Plutarch. Also given by Wier; but I have lost the reference.

P. 111. “_Chasaph._” Scot seems to have remembered Wier ii, 1, § 2, but not to have copied him. Wier gives Exod. 22, 18. οὐ περιβιὠσατε; Scot, οὔκ ἐπιζεώσετε, a variant I know not whence obtained, not being in the Oxford 1821 ed. of the Sept.

P. 123. “_Eusebius_ ... poison.” Wier iii, 38, § 2 and 4. Both call Lucilia Lucilla. Scot omits § 3 regarding Alphonso of Arragon.

P. 126. “This word _Ob_ ... _Ventriloqui_.” Wier ii, 1, § 12.

P. 177. “Onen ... to the interpretation of dreames.” Wier ii, 1, § 8, “aliquando observara somnia.”

P. 183. “The art ... in digging for monie [... omit]. There must ... treasure awaie.” Wier v, 11, § 1. Scot adds “bona” after “videre”.

P. 184. “℞ The fat ... impudentlie affirmed them” [close of ch.]. Wier iii, 17, § 2, 3. But from the first and last words of Scot’s chapter, he, as well as Wier, took these things from J. B. Porta, though he may have been led by Wier to consult Porta.

P. 230. “_Balsamus._” Scot’s words at the beginning of the chapter were suggested by Wier v, 9, § 4, though he has added some descriptive particulars; then these words are given by both, Wier adding that three Agnus Dei’s were sent by Pope Urban.

P. 231. “_A wastcote of proofe._” Wier v, 8, § 2. Scot’s “little virgine girl” is a “junioribus notæ castitatis puelles”, his “hat” is “galea”.

——— “_Gaspar._” These verses, with a longer proem, are in Wier v, 8 § 1.

P. 240. “_Homerica medicatio._” Wier v, 19, § 1. See note in its place. Wier quotes at length from Ferrarius, § 2, 3, and 4, gives his name rightly, and rightly reads in the present passage _verbis_, and not as Scot, _verbi_.

——— “_Nos habitat._” Wier v, 19, § 3, from Ferrarius.

P. 242. “For the falling evil ... no more.” Wier v, 8, § 2; but he finishes the charm with “In nomine [etc.]. Amen.”

P. 243. “_Ananizapta_”, v, 9, § 6. Wier gives _Ananisapta_, has “quæ” instead of “dum”, l. 1, and adds “contra febres a quodam nebulone ... offerantur”.

——— “Write upon a piece of bread” [for the bite of a mad dog]. This Scot gives from v, 8, § 6. But Wier has “... Khiriori essera ... fede”. Afterwards, “Vel hoc scriptum in papiro, aut pane, homini sive cani in os inseritur”. In the _O rex_, etc., there are crosses after each person of the Trinity, and a “prax” after Gaspar, while “I max” is “ymax”.

P. 244. “Against the toothache.” “_Galbes, etc.... persanate._” These two charms, omitting the intervening one, are in Wier v, 8, § 6, adding to the _persanate_ one, “hoc scriptum appenditur”. The second, “At saccaring”, etc., is given v, 4, § 2.

——— “Let a virgine”, v, 8, § 3. Wier preceding this with the words, “Ita antiquitas credebat, verbascum cum sua radice tusum, vino aspersum, folioque involutum, & in cinere calefactum, strumisque impositum, eas abigere, si hoc fecisset virgo jejuna jejuno, & manu tangens supino dixisset.”

P. 246. “A gentlewoman”, v, 18, § 1. But the charm is a versification, probably by Scot himself, of a German prose sentence, and it was given and the story told “a viro Ecclesiastico, non infimi nominis Theologo”. Scot evidently thought that this description of the perpetrator of so indecorous a jest might better be omitted, even though he were a German.

——— “_To open locks_.... Take a peece ... _Amen_”, v, 11, § 2; but “hinder” is anteriore. The essential part of the words just marked as omitted is in v, 11, § 3.

——— “_A charme to drive ... house._” This and the marginal note are in v, 14, § 4. But Wier places “vel” between each of the Bible sentences, therefore Scot’s “this sentence” should have been “any of these sentences”.

P. 247. “_Another for the same_”, v, 14, § 2, beginning “Item”. Scot has shortened his “fiftlie”, and omitted that the beggar must pray with all attention. Also in his haste he omits that the conjuror gave doses of rhubarb and other herbs twice daily.

P. 247. “The sicke man”, v, 23, § 6. Wier gives the words of the “gospell” that is to be carried about his neck—“Hoc genus dæmonii non ejicitur, nisi jejunio & oratione”—taken, though apparently by memory only, from Matt. 17, 20, Vulg. The names in Scot’s margin are in Wier, Gualterio, Bernhardo.

Pp. 247-8. “This office or conjuration.” The paragraph is from v, 22, § 6, with a slight condensation of the first words.

P. 248. “_A charme for the bots_”, v, 4, § 8. Scot only omitting the “sanctus” before “Job”.

P. 249. “There are also”, v, 4, § 7. Wier commences—“Vidi, haud ita pridem apud magnæ authoritatis virum nobilem, librum conscriptum execrabilem, flammis dignissimum, plenum exorcismis, frequenti crucis consignatione, & ex sancta Scriptura formulis in nomine Patris [etc.] finitis, contra equorum non modo morbos quoslibet,” etc. But he has not “as it ... Rome.”

——— “Item, the Duke of Alba”, v, 4, § 5. “Equo item Vice-regis in sacello suum fuisse locum ubi celebraretur Missa. Continebat & dux exercitus vexillum in manu, quamdiu sollennibus ritibus idipsum uti campanæ solent, baptizaretur. Ornabat & hunc actum effigies D. Virginis Mariæ cum filiolo in eodem volans, & duæ complicatæ manus ad stipulantium morem.”

——— “That wine”, v, 4, § 9. Scot omitting after eager, “eo anno”.

P. 252. “_Mahomets_ pigeon”, i, 19, § 3, 4. Scot omitting all notice of the apostate confederate Sergius, of the trained bull, and of the words before rex esto, viz., “Quicunque tauro jugum imponat”.

P. 253, “At Memphis in Aegypt”, i, 19, § 1, faithfully yet freely.

P. 254. “I conjure thee O serpent ... unto the Jewes”, v, 4, § 10. But Wier has no “otherwise”, nor any signs of the whole being two conjurations. After Jewes he has, “te vermem a me discedere oportet, velut a Judæis discessit Deus noster”. His magical words are “Eli lass eiter, ... eitter, ... eitter”. Scot’s second “I conjure” is “exorciso”, and for fear of error, Wier’s “Divam Mariam” becomes “S. Mary”.

P. 257. “A charme ... with images of wax ... afterwards in another.” P. 258, l. 1, is in Wier v, 11, § 6, 7, 8, except that “And if they were inserted”, etc., is Scot’s. The charm words in Wier are “Alif cafiel zaza ...” adding “leviatan leutatace”. Scot also gives a sentence which perplexed me till I turned to Wier, “& ferrum, quo homo necatus fuit, traditur alteri imagini, [of wax] ut alterius necandi simulachri caput transigat”. Also, after “angell must be mentioned”, Wier adds, “Non absimile monstrum fingitur, ut quis tibi in omnibus obsequatur”.

P. 259. “_Imparibus_ ... breake a bone of him”, v, 12, § 1. I doubt, however, Scot’s dividing “_Jesus autem_” [etc.] from “You shall not” [etc.] by the last “otherwise”, for Wier does not, and in § 3 tells of one who silently submitted to all tortures, and on whom was found—“sub scruffiam inter crines quandam parvam schedulam”, containing “✠ Jesus autem transiens ✠ per mediam illorum ✠ os non comminueris ex eo ✠”.

P. 260. “_Charmes to ... theefe_”, to end of second paragraph, except from “even as plainlie” to “confutation hereof”, will be found in v, 5, § 1, 2. But there are some additions in Wier (it may be from Cardan) which I leave to the student reader to look up.

P. 261. “_Another waie ... theefe_”, v, 5, § 6. Wier adds, “ex sacrifici libro clam a me subtracta”. Scot’s “sea side” is “fluentem aquam”, the “forme of conjuration” is “per Christi passionem, mortem, & resurrectionem (quam propter impie curiosus celo)”.

P. 262. “_To put out the theeves eie_”, v, 5, § 7. “A coopers hammar, or addes”, is “malleo cypressimo”.

P. 263. “_Saint Adelberts cursse_” to “_in morte sumus_”, Wier, v, 6, § 1. Scot, evidently by accident, omits after _made orphanes_: “sint maledicti in civitate”, and by a press or other error the “_& odio habeantur_”, etc., becomes “or hated of all men living”, a change slightly injuring the sense. I know not whether it be due to the more frequent repetition of _maledicti_ in the Latin, but this curse reads to me more horrible in the original than when translated. I would also note that here, as sometimes elsewhere, Wier speaks more, and more strongly, against some of these things than does Scot.

P. 266. “They naile a wolves head”, v, 20, § 3.

P. 267. “_Terque_”, given in Wier, v, 21, § 1.

——— “_Adveniat_”, v, 21, § 6.

——— “_Baccare_”, v, 21, § 4.

P. 269. “_To spoile a theefe_”, v, 5, § 8. But the strange words are in Wier, “Droch, myrroch esenaroth”, and in the next set of unintelligible words “_Eson ✠_” is “✠ eson” and “_age_” is “ege”. He also explains more clearly, I think, that all these conjuring terms are to be thrice repeated.

P. 270. “Say three severall times”, v, 4, § 6, the final Amen and some ✠s being omitted.

——— “_Charmes against a quotidian_”, v, 8, § 7. With these differences, the three pieces, “the jejunus”, should “easdem tribus diebus edat”. Instead of Scot’s “Otherwises” we have “Si minus successerit, in pane missali scribitur: O febrem omni laude colendam: in altero, ... in tertio ... Si nec hic modus juverit, denuo in pane dicto toties pingatur: ... quem diebus, ut supra, mane absumat.” Whence it would seem that three massecakes were in each instance to be used, and not one divided into three, a thought probably suggested by the three pieces of apple.

——— “_For ... agues intermittent._” The whole paragraph is in v, 8, § 7.

P. 271. “_S. Barnard_”, Wier i, 16, § 6.

——— “Take three consecrated ... Trinitie”, v, 4, § 2, “Recipe tres panes Missales”, etc.

P. 272. “In the yeere.” This paragraph is, with a little freeness of translation and a slight addition, both in the unimportant parts, from v, 4, § 5.

P. 273. “Take a cup of cold water.” This paragraph is from v, 4, § 3. Scot’s English verses are thus in Wier: “✠ In sanguine Adæ orta est mors: ✠ in sanguine Christi redempta est mors: ✠ in eodem sanguine Christi præcipio tibi ✠ ô sanguis, ut fluxum tuum cohibeas”. Wier then goes to “Aliud: De latere ejus” [etc.], and continues: “Item (Otherwise) ex quacunque corporis parte profluentum sanguinem cohibere nituntur his verbis: Christus natus est in Bethlehem” [etc.]; and then, without any Aliud, Item, or other sign that it is not a continuation of the same charm, “Tene innominatum digitum in vulnere, & fac cum eo” [etc.]; Scot’s “five wounds” being “sanctorum quinque vulnerum”.

P. 273. “There was a jollie fellowe” to “This dooth Joh: Wierus”, etc., is from v, 15, § 1. Wier begins, “Ad insignis malitiæ chirurgum”, but Scot’s “jollie” seems to have been taken from his drinking habits, which in Wier are spoken of in a more pronounced manner.

P. 275. “This surgion”, v, 15, § 2. But Scot’s “ague” is in Wier “febrem”, and it is added that not long afterwards the patient died, in his (Wier’s) opinion of an empyema. I marvel that Scot omitted this last.

P. 276. “Otherwise: Jesus Christ”, v, 15, § 3. Scot omits the ✠ after the first Christ.

——— “Another such cousening”, v, 15, § 4.

P. 282. “At Easter”, v, 40, § 4. Note, in the margin I have placed [? or] for the “on” of text. The “?” is unnecessary, for in Wier it is “infra cornua vel aures”.

——— “Otherwise _Jacobus_”, v, 40, § 3.

P. 294. “The corral”, v, 21, § 5. But Scot refers to Avicenna, though Wier does not; nor do the names of the precious stones spoken of, nor the remarks upon them, coincide with those in Wier at the above reference.

P. 303. “Also that a woman”, Wier vi, 9, § 1, gives this, but his words differ so much, that it can only be that both happened to notice this common superstition.

P. 421. “_Exorciso te creaturam aquæ ... apostatis_”, v, 21, § 16, giving “apostaticis”. But Scot’s giving the whole form, both of this and of the exorcism of salt, and his italics, show that he took it from, I suppose, the _Missale_ or other R. C. book of devotions, though Wier may have given the idea.

P. 433. “_Jacobus de Chusa_”, i, 13, § 1, to middle of 6. Scot’s first paragraph is different; in the rest he sometimes amplifies, sometimes condenses, sometimes omits Wier’s words, and Wier says that he gives J. de Chusa’s _verba fideliter_. The first prayer at its close is in Scot shortened.

P. 445. “I conjure thee.” This, like the “... creaturam salis”, 421, is given in Latin by Wier, v, 21, § 27, down to “adjuratus”. Both the Latin and English in Scot are the same, except a slight difference after “judicare”, arising from Scot, in this second instance, giving the sense rather than the _verba ipsissima_.

P. 507. “_Rabbi Abraham_ ... collected.” Translated from i, 6, § 7.

P. 518. “For _Beelzebub ... manium_”, i, 5, § 3.

519. Nisroch (5); Tartac [not Tarcat] (4); Beelphegor (1); Adramalech (2); Chamos (6); Dagon (8); Astarte (7); Melchom (7); are in Wier i, 5, § 3, with other gods, and in the order here marked. The wording after each is also Wier’s, as is the error “Ozee 9, 11” for 9, 10. Both also make the same mistake as to the duality of Astarte and Astaroth, because in 1 Kings ii, 5, she is called Astarthe in the Vulg., whence Wier took his names, and Scot followed him, and not his English Bible. Both mention that the word means “riches, &c.”, and that it was a city of Og; though both, curiously enough, here forget the observation they had made elsewhere as to other cities, that it was dedicated to, and therefore called after, the deity. Scot omits also Wier’s supposition that both Beelzebub and Beelphegor were Priapus.

P. 520. This chapter, from the “heading” to the end, is derived from i, 21, § 1, to § 25, but is much abbreviated; some titles also are omitted; but except for a slight change in the positions of both _Diabolus_, and his last names, “owle”, etc., Scot follows the order of Wier.

P. 521. “_Lares_ ... cities”, i, 6, § 6, except that Wier has “cuam agere” for both “trouble”—an odd word here—and “set to oversee”.

——— “_Virunculi terrei_ ... drawe water.” Follows generally, though not quite literally, i, 22, § 5.

——— “_Dii geniales_ ... birth”, i, 6, § 6, shortened.

P. 522. “_Tetrici_ ... _Subterranei_; _Cobali_; _Guteli_ or _Trulli_ (the etymology being Scot’s); _Virunculi_ [_montani_, Wier]; _Dæmones montani_.” These being in the same order, are adopted from Wier i, 22, § 8-11, but much shortened. “_Hudgin_” immediately follows as “Hutkin”, § 12.

——— “_Hudgin_ ... ware a cap”, i, 22, § 12. Here it is said—“pileo caput opertus unde & vulgo Pileatum eum appellabant rurales, hoc est, ein Hedeckin, lingua Saxonica.”

——— “_Familiares Dæmones_ ... Simon Samareus ... to come”, etc.—but of course omitting _Feats_ and _Dr. Burcot_—are from i, 22, § 7. Also “Albæ mulieres and Albæ Sibyllæ”, though shortened. The “did much harm” is from Wier. “_Deumus_, _Agnan_, _Grigii_, _Charoibes_” and “_Hovioulsira_” follow in order, § 23-26. See note on _Deumus_.

P. 523. “Raise thunder ... _Elicius_”, i, 6, § 6, but in the enumeration of the “_Dii selecti_” Wier and Ennius are not followed, but Varro.

P. 525. “As namelie of beasts ... _Latus_”, is, I believe, from Strabo originally, but by Scot was taken, I think, from Wier i, 6, § 2.

P. 533. “Pope Benedict the eight and ninth”, i, 16, § 3 and 4. But Scot’s “seen a hundred years after”, whereas Wier only has “postea”, seems to show that the former had referred to Platina.

II.

SCOT ON THE NAMES, ETC., OF DEVILS FROM WIER, BUT PROBABLY THROUGH
T. R., MENTIONED P. _393_.

P. 377, l. 13. “Seventie and nine.” The list given by Scot is 68 + 1 accidentally omitted + Beelzebub not mentioned + the 4 kings of the N., S., E. and West = 74. Wier himself gives no total, but the discrepancy in Scot may perhaps have arisen from his copying 79 from T. R., from whom, as an intermediary, and not directly from Wier, or from some other, I think, from facts presently to be mentioned, it will be rendered probable that he copied.

P. 378. “_Marbas._” After this name Scot omits from Wier’s list—“Purflas, alibi invenitur Busas, magnus Princeps & Dux est, cujus mansio circa turrim Babylonis, & videtur in eo flamma foris, caput autem assimilatur magno nycto-coraci. Autor est et promotor discordiarum, bellorum, rixarum et mendaciorum. Omnibus in locis non intromittatur. Ad quæsita respondet abunde. Sub sunt huic legiones vingenti sex, partim ex ordine Throni, partim Angelorum.” The edition of Wier that I have used, I may here remark, is chiefly that of 1660, but where any doubt arose, that of 1583. But from whence did Wier obtain these things? Under _Belial_ (I give Scot’s English) he says: “Without doubt (I must confesse) I learned this of my master Salomon; but he told me not why he gathered them together, and shut them up so. But I beleeve it was for the pride of this _Beliall_.” Secondly, under _Gaap_, he says: “I may not bewraie how and declare the meanes to conteine him, bicause it is abhomination [nefandam], and for that I have learned nothing from Salomon of his dignitie and office”. And Wier has in his margin “Scelerati necromantici verba sunt”. Thirdly, Wier, in his address before his Pseudomonarchia, says: “hanc ... ex Acharonticorum Vasallorum archivo subtractam”; and at the close of this address: “Inscribitur vero a maleferiato hoc hominum genere Officium spirituum, vel, Liber officiorum spirituum, seu Liber dictus Empto.[rium] Salomonis, de principibus & regibus dæmoniorum, qui cogi possunt divina vertute & humana. At mihi nuncupabitur Pseudomonarchia Dæmonum.”

Pp. 377-93. Scot, in these second, third, and fourth chapters, follows Wier, but for these reasons did not, I think, directly translate him:

1. As stated under _Marbas_, p. 378, _Purflas_ is omitted.

2. Three sentences are retained in their original Latin, as though the translator could not understand them. (_a_) Under _Barbatos_, “... in signo sagittarii sylvestris”, he probably knowing Sagittarius, but not sure as to what sign or who sagittarius sylvestris might be. (_b_) Under _Leraie_, “... quos optimos objicit tribus diebus”. Wier here places “optimos” as the third word, but the sense to me and my friends is an unsolved puzzle. (_c_) Under _Oze_, “... Duratque id regnum ad horam” (but Wier omits the “ad”), “And this sovereignty lasts an hour [and no longer], differing in this from ordinary monomania.” 3. Under _Bileth_ Scot and Wier say, “... as for _Amaimon_”, and Scot in the margin has “Vide Amaimon”; yet neither mentions him under a heading, nor more than by name, as “Amaymon king of the East”, in chap. iv. 4. Under _Murmur_, Scot ends with “and ruleth thirtie legions”, but Wier omits this, as do both in the cases of _Oze_, _Vine_, and _Saleos_. 5. There are differences and slips of translation which Scot could not, I think, have made. (_a_) Scot invariably, in the rest of his works, speaks of “the order of virtutes”, but in this chapter, where it is used five times under _Agares_, _Barbatos_, _Purson_, and _Belial_, and ch. iv, p. 395, it is “vertues”. (_b_) _Barbatos_ is said to come “with foure kings, which bring companies and great troopes”. But Wier has “cum quatuor regibus tubas ferentibus”. From this it is clear that the translator read “tubas” as “tribus”. (_c_) “Ugly viper” is the translation of “viperæ species deterrima”. (_d_) “He giveth answers of things present, past, and to come”, is in Wier “Dat perfecte responsa vera de ... futuris & abstrusis”; Scot omitting both “perfecte” and “abstrusis”. See under _Botis_ for both (_c_) and (_d_). (_e_) “_Bune_ Muta loquitur voce”, rendered in Scot, “he speaketh with a divine voice”. The translator apparently looked out for “mutus” in a dictionary, such as Th. Cooper’s, where in Old English he found “dumme”, and read it—as I at first sight did, and with great astonishment, though I confess my thoughts were running on the puzzle—“divine”. (_f_) Under _Bileth_, “... before whome go trumpets and all kind of melodious musicke”, Scot has, “or if he have not the chaine of spirits [the book called _Vinculum Spirituum_], certeinelie he will never feare nor regard him after”, but Wier has, “... sciet haud dubie exorcista, malignos spiritus postea eum non verituros, et semper viliorem habituros”. (_g_) “Sitri ... willinglie deteineth secrets of women”, is in Wier, “secreta libenter detegit fæminarum”. Here there are in the English two gross blunders, as is evident on reading the rest of the Latin text. “Ludificansque”, also, is not “mocking”, but “toying with them”, “ut se luxuriose nudent”. (_h_) Under _Paimon_, Wier’s “in Empto.[rium] Salomonis” is “in _Circulo Salomonis_”. “Aquilonem” is “North-west”, though Th. Cooper and Holyokes Rider, and, I believe, all dictionaries, only give it and its adjectives as North, North-east, and Northern. “Accedant”, also, is translated “may be reckoned”, to the complete extinction of the sense. (_i_) _Belial_ is, “eorum qui ex Ordine [Potestatum] ceciderunt”, and is translated, “of them which fell being of the orders”. (_j_) “He is found in the forme of an exorcist in the bonds of spirits”, is, in more ways than one, a strange and most ambiguous rendering, altogether unlike Scot, of “Forma exorcistæ [the form of exorcising that is to be used] invenitur in [the book] _Vinculo Spirituum_”. (_k_) “Si autem se submittere noluerit Vinculum Spirituum legatur, quo sapientissimus Salomon”, etc., becomes “If ... let the bond of spirits be read, the spirits chaine [apparently an unintentional doubling of the previous words], is sent for him wherewith wise Salomon”, etc. I might add that twice in the course of this chapter “sapientissimus S.” becomes “wise S.”, in “vase vitreo” “in a brazen vessel”, and “in puteum grandem” “into a deep lake or hole”, and twice afterwards “lake” only. (_l_) Under _Furfur_, “fulgura, coruscationes & tonitrua” is translated “thunders and lightnings, and blasts”. (_m_) In _Malphas_, “artifices maximos” is “artificers”. (_n_) Under _Vepar_, “Contra inimicos exorcistæ per dies tres ... homines inficit” becomes, without qualification, “he killeth men in three days”. (_o_) Under _Sydonay_, “Cum hujus officia exercet exorcista”, instead of “When the exorcist would make use of the offices [the incantations for] of this [spirit]”, or “When the exorcist would make use of the forms of invocation proper to this spirit”, it is translated, “When the conjurer exerciseth this office”. The next words, “fit [? sit] fortis”, become “let him be abroad”, “foris” having been read instead of “fortis”. “If his cap be on his head”, Wier has “si coopertus”, “if he be overwhelmed” [with fear, etc.], the translator possibly wishing to express this by “if his cap be so far on his head” [through fear as to cover his eyes], then, etc. Besides this, there is an ambiguity in Wier which is fully followed in the translator. In Wier we have: “si vero coopertus fuerit, ut in omnibus detegatur, efficiet: Quod si non fecerit exorcista, ab Amaymone in cunctis decipietur:” I can only suppose from the punctuation that the “Quod si non”, etc., was intended to refer to his not being “fortis”, and (as in Scot) “warie and standing on his feete”. (_p_) Under _Gaap_, Scot says, “if anie exorcist ... nor see him”; Wier has the same, but follows it up with “nisi per artem”. On the other hand, Wier has no equivalent for “insensibility”. (_r_) _Shax_: “... there he speaketh divinely” is “loquitur de divinis rebus”, an error Scot could not have made, and which is not made elsewhere in this chapter. (_s_) _Procell_: “... in the shape of an angell, but speaketh darkly of things hidden”, is in Wier, “in specie angelica, sed obscura valde: loquitur de occultis”. (_t_) _Raum_: “... he stealeth wonderfully out of the kings house”; Wier, “mire ex regis domi _vel alia_ suffuratur”. (_v_) In _Vine_, “lapideos domos” is translated “stone walles”. (_w_) _Flauros_: Wier says, “vere respondet. Si fuerit in triangulo mentitur in cunctis.” Scot follows the same punctuation, but had he translated it, he, as a man of intelligence, must have seen that the (.) before “Si” should have been struck out and placed after “triangulo”, or a “non” inserted after “Si”, for this triangle was made specially for the exorcist’s safety and the spirit’s obedience and truthful speaking (see under _Bileth_, _Furfur_ and _Shax_). It must, however, be confessed to be a mark of haste in Scot to have admitted such mistakes, even though he only copied, the more so as he must have known the _Pseudomonarchia_. “And deceiveth in other things, and beguileth in other business”, is a duplicate translation of “et fallit in aliis negotiis”. The omission of “twentie” (viginti) before “legions” may be a press error, but the “de divinitate”, translated “of divinity”, must be, I think, a translator’s error, for it really means “of the Divinity” (see “Purson”). (_x_) Under _Buer_, Wier has “conspicitur in signo*”; under _Decarabia_, “venit simili*”; under _Aym_, “altero [capiti, simili] homini duos * habenti.” Clearly the book or MS. used by Wier was in these places illegible, or more likely the copier had been unable to fill in the wanting word or words, and indicated this by a *. But Scot’s authority did not understand it on its first occurrence under _Buer_, and, not mentioning any sign, translates it, “is seene in this sign;”! (_y_) The names of the fiends differ also sometimes in spelling; omitting such instances as “i” for “y”, “c” for “k”, etc., I give Wier first, followed by Scot’s form. “Bathym”, alibi “Marthim”—“Bathin”, “Mathin”; “Pursan”—“Purson”; “Loray”—“Leraie”, this latter being wrong, because his alias is “Oray”. Wier, by the way, also shows that “Leraie” was not pronounced “Leraje”, as given in the second edition of Scot. “Ipes”, alias “Ayperos”—“Ipos”, “Ayporos”; “Naberus”—“Naberius”, probably the wrong form; “Roneve”—“Ronove”; “Forres”—“Foras”; “Marchocias”—“Marchosias”; “Chax”—“Shax”; “Pucel”—“Procell”; “Zagam”—“Zagan”; “Volac”—“Valac”; “Androalphus”—“Andrealphus”; “Oze”—“Ose”; “Zaleos”—“Saleos”; “Wal, 1660”, is “Vual (as Scot), 1583”. It will be noticed that “e” is five times used for “o”, a MS. copyist’s error.

I think I had some other proofs in a MS. sheet since lost; but these are now overmany to prove that Scot had access to some other copy than Wier’s _Pseudomonarchia_, and made use of it, and that his translator was not very conversant with Latin. Wier, it may be added, puts “Secretum ... horum” in one line, and without a capital to the “Tu”, and gives no explanation of the words in any way, and Scot confirms our conclusion from these facts by the marginal, “This was | the work of | one T. R.” | etc., and the words “written [&c.] vpō parchment” seem to show that this 1570 translation was in MS. (See also General Notings, p. 418.)

P. 379. “_Eligor._” I do not understand the double titles here and elsewhere given, nor why “miles” should here be translated “a knight”, while under _Zepar_, _Furcas_, _Murmur_, and _Allocer_ it is “soldier”. In chapter iii, p. 393, is given the time when knights (“Milites”, Wier) may be bound, but nothing, of course, is said of “soldiers”.

P. 383. “Tocz.”, like a contraction, but Wier has “Tocz” without any stop.