of a rhetorical exercise in which a young writer has striven to concentrate evidence of his wide knowledge and reading. There is a very forced transition from it to the tale of Eudo; and the connexions which are managed between the succeeding stories, though sometimes ingenious, are not more natural. Three of the stories (vii, viii, x) are also told in Distinctions I and II; possibly one ought to say, told over again. The last in the Distinction, that of Sceva and Ollo, is quite detached. It has the air of being the plot of a comedy or narrative poem.

It is the professed object of Distinction V to show that modern times have produced heroes as remarkable as those of antiquity. Accordingly, after some stories taken from the older English history, Map settles down into personal reminiscences of 'kings. he has met'. The end of these reminiscences is singularly abrupt, but there is no reason to suppose that they are imperfect.

The conclusion of the whole, a recapitulation in a condensed form of chapters i-ix of Distinction I, is curious and rather pointless. The few allusions to contemporary events which it contains show it to have been written before the death of Henry II.

By way of elucidating the text I have added a few notes. But I have not attempted to reproduce in them the matter of Wright's foot-notes, many of which identify and assign dates to the persons mentioned. My notes give some additional references to sources, and some corrections of the text. They also mention literature bearing on the subject, attempt to explain difficult passages, and call attention to unexplained puzzles. The index of noteworthy words serves to a modest extent as a glossary, in that I have added the English equivalents of the more obscure words. In that of proper names I have attached dates to a good many of the names, thus preserving part of the information contained in Wright's notes.

I have, however, from the first renounced all efforts to compile a full commentary upon the text. I am not equipped with sufficient knowledge of mediaeval Latin, of history, or of romance and folk-lore to be able to contemplate such an undertaking. I only aspire to put a valuable document into such a condition that experts may be able to use it with ease and confidence.

The epistle of Valerius to Ruffinus against marriage which forms Dist. IV. iii-v, was, as Map tells us (p. 1588), circulated separately before its incorporation into the complete work. It was current anonymously, or rather, most people failed to recognize that by Valerius Walterus was meant, and accordingly the credit of authorship was denied to Map. Of this first edition -if it may be so called-of the epistle many copies exist, both separate and accompanied with commentaries. Only one of the separate copies which I have seen (B. M. Add. 37749) assigns the writing to its true author. This is a small book bearing a Waltham Abbey press-mark (LXIII. al. ca.) and formerly in the Phillipps collection (no. 1056). In it the epistle is entitled 'Epistola magistri Walteri Map ad quemdam socium suum ut dicitur uxorari uolentem.' This portion of the MS. is of the thirteenth century. The earliest copy (Bodl. Digby 67) may have been written in the last years of the twelfth century; another, one of the Gale MSS. at Trinity College, Cambridge (O. 7. 7), which appears to have belonged to the Scottish Abbey of Deer in Buchan and contains the best text of the Ibis of Ovid, is of the early part of the thirteenth century. Another early copy is B. M. Arundel 14 (used by Wright). It is of late twelfth or early thirteenth century. The epistle follows the Topographia Hiberniae of Giraldus Cambrensis. The provenance is not clear; like other Arundel MSS. it belonged to Lord William Howard (in 1613).

From the separate copies, of course, was derived the text which was printed among the spuria of St. Jerome (e.g. Martianay, v. 337; Migne, P. L. xxx. 254). I have not attempted to trace the history of this text, nor do I think that any light would be thrown on the de Nugis by such an investigation. It may, however, be worth while to say a few words about the mediaeval commentaries upon the epistle, which, we should naturally hope, would help to explain some of the very obscure allusions contained in it. I may say at once that they do nothing of the kind.

There appear to be five commentaries. Three, including the earliest, are anonymous. The third and fifth are respectively by John Ridewas or Ridevall (who also wrote on the Metamorphoses of Ovid), and Nicholas Trivet the annalist and commentator on Boëthius and Augustine de civitate Dei. None of them have, so far as I can ascertain, appeared in print.

I, 2. These anonymous commentaries occur in manuscripts at Clare College (14, Kk. 4. 1) and St. John's College, Cambridge (115, E. 15), respectively of the fourteenth century (early) and of the fifteenth century.

I begins with a section of the text, (14329 'Loqui prohibeor ... nec fallor') on which the first words of the document are:

'Mulier si primatum teneat contraria est viro suo' ecc 25. Sicut dicit glosa super istud uerbum historice ostendit sapiens quam sit noxius primatus mulieris que subesse debet non preponi.'

After a few lines the writer's view of the authorship is thus set forth :

'Si autem queritur quis fuit iste Valerius et hic Ruffinus, videtur mihi ad presens Romanus fuisse et eundem fuisse Valerium qui historias romanorum prosaice scripsit, non Valerium Martialem poetam.'

Thus Valerius Maximus is, in his view, the author.

The commentator is obviously English. Of merula (1437) he says, 'vocatur apud nos throstelkoc: philomena (143), 'apud nos vocatur nythegale.'

Occasionally he supplies a various reading. In 1495 he reads 'tongilio vel zongilio'. On 1501o he has 'Valentinus. Aliqui libri habent Valentius, et hec litera vera est'. For 'Canius' 1511 &c. he reads 'Caonius' throughout. On 1556 his words are: 'Penucia virgo. Circa quod sciendum quod penucia siue pericio uirgo cretensis fingitur sollicitata fuisse ab apolline que nullo modo ei consensit,' etc.

On 151999 a diagram of the winds is given.

The concluding words are: 'culpa mea est et ignorantia. Si quid satis, dei munus et gratia. Cui sit in eternum honor et gloria. Amen. Explicit expositio epistole Valerii ad Ruffinum de dissuasione nuptiarum.'

2 is entitled: 'Item expositio moralis super eandem epistolam Loqui, etc. Hoc contra malos religiosos, quibus certis temporibus et locis prohibetur ne loquantur et tamen tacere non possunt.' The exposition is throughout 'moral', and does not attempt any explanation of allusions. It ends:

'Sed ne te longo quod quantumcunque utilia sunt que prolixa sunt fastidio sunt inutilia dum breuia sunt ex aliqua parte placent, scilicet in eo quod breuia sunt.'

3. For the commentary of John Ridewas I have consulted the manuscript Ff. 6. 12 in the Cambridge University Library. It begins thus:

'Loqui, etc. Hec epistola continet principaliter tria, scilicet Valerii scribentis excusationem Ruphini nubere uolentis correptionem correpti etiam uanam (? uariam) informationem.'

There is no identification of the author.

On 1443 (Propinat tibi, etc.) he quotes the story of the death of Zedekiah given in the Historia Scholastica.

On 1469 (in casu Phetontis) he says: 'Nota plures libri habent in casu fetontis et plures in casu peonis.' By the latter, he explains, is meant Paeon or Aesculapius, slain by the thunderbolt of Jupiter. I have not seen this reading in any MS. He makes use of comment no. 1, under the name of 'alius expositor'. The latest authors cited by name are Theodolus (the Ecloga of Theodulus (Gottschalk)) and Martinus (Polonus) 'in cronica'. In 155° his reading is 'pericio uirgo'.

The concluding words are: 'veritas autem amara est rugose frontis et tristis fostendit quia coreptorist (. offenditque correptos: compare a MS. at Queens' College, Cambridge) explicit expositio Ridewas.'

I have noticed only one English word 'acredula, anglice mapel'. 4. The fourth and most copious of the commentaries is that contained in the Lambeth MS. 330. It occupies the whole volume, which is a handsome book of about the year 1400, containing 114 leaves, of 32 lines to a page. The decoration (initials and borders) is of good style. The first initial contains the badge of the de Bohuns, a swan gorged with a crown: a chain dependent. No name of author is prefixed to it. I had at one time little doubt that it was by Nicholas Trivet: but there is another claimant in the field, as will be seen shortly.

The work begins with a very long prologue in four distinctions on the four requisites of a good friend. This occupies eleven leaves. The opening words are:

'Amicus fidelis protectio fortis. Ecc. 6. Dicit Jeronimus super illud Mathei 12. Omne regnum in se diuisum. quomodo concordia res parue crescunt, ita discordia maxime dilabuntur.'

On f. 10 6 the authorship of the epistle is thus assigned: 'Vera