Sir,--Circumstances imperatively oblige me to do that from which I
should willingly be excused--reply to the observations of J.I., inserted
in page 75. of the last Saturday's Number of the "NOTES AND QUERIES."
The subject of these are three questions proposed by me in your first
number to the following effect:--1. Whether any thing was known,
especially from the writings of Erasmus, of a bookseller and publisher
of the Low Countries named Dorne, who lived at the beginning of the
sixteenth century? Or, 2ndly, of a little work of early date callled
_Henno Rusticus_? Or, 3dly, of another, called _Of the Sige (Signe) of
the End_?
To these no answer has yet been given, although the promised researches
of a gentleman of this University, to whom literary inquirers in Oxford
have ever reason to be grateful, would seem to promise one soon, if it
can be made. But, in the mean time, the knot is cut in a simpler way:
neither Dorne, nor _Henno Rusticus_, his book, it is said, ever existed.
Permit me one word of expostulation upon this.
It is perfectly true that the writing of the MS. which has given rise to
these queries and remarks is small, full of contradictions, and
sometimes difficult to be read; but the contractions are tolerably
uniform and consistent, which, to those who have to do with such
matters, 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 {89} 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,