says: "Neither Langbaine nor any of his followers had seen
the piece. The _Biographica_ _Dramatica_ gives the date 1566,
which, however, appears to be an invention of Chetwood's." The
colophon indicates that it was printed by John Waley (or Walley),
who was in business in Foster Lane from 1546 to 1586. This, of
course, decides nothing as to the date of the play. Moreover,
there is, as far as I am at present aware, only one allusion
in the play itself that serves the purpose; even allowing more
weight to such evidence than I am inclined to consider safe in
the circumstances--Eugenio appoints Actio (359,_a_) "hangman
of Calais." It is hardly likely such an allusion to what was
at the time regarded as a national "disaster" would have been
made after the loss of Calais in 1558. On the other hand, the
absence of the concluding prayer for the sovereign--its presence
being a pretty certain indication of an Elizabethan play--seems
to confirm the downward limit of date. One other allusion may
be pertinent--"the sweetest life, Sovereign ... is to have
meditation of our Lord Jesus." A Marian date is, from the tone
of the play, unlikely; to suppose the reference is to Henry
VIII. is equally incongruous. Both considerations are, moreover,
emphasised by the fact that had the "Sovereign" been a queen,
regnant or dowager, some qualification indicative of sex would in
such courtly times most assuredly have been given. We are thus
reduced, by the process of exhaustion, to the days of Edward
VI.: _i.e._ between 1547 and 1553. Beyond that point I do not
think we can safely go at present. The play, as now bound by
the British Museum authorities, shows no signs of mutilation,
and the numbering of the sheets is consecutive. The type is,
for the most part, clear and good; nothing obliterated, very
little blurred, and only occasionally is there exhibited a wrong
letter (_e.g._ "laue" for "lane"); but as a whole very correct.
The construction of the play is of the slightest, turning at
its most serious point on the incident of "The Pharisee and
the Publican going up to the Temple to pray." Indeed, the
whole piece seems curiously incomplete and disconnected. Yet
there are no signs whatever, in the original, of mutilation
or of lines omitted. The text goes straight on, though the
relation of one part to another is by no means obvious. Is it
possible that the play as it has reached us is only a draft,
or an imperfect, or a "pirated" copy? I am inclined on first
glance to think this interlude one of the same class as those
that Bishop Bale speaks of as being played at market crosses
on Sunday afternoons by way of religious instruction--"thin,"
slight moral plays. Indications are not wanting which point to
this conclusion. Such a fact, if established, would account for
the transparent looseness of construction, the deep religious
feeling, the reticence and restraint, the apparent confusion
of one of the players at once with the apostle, the parish
priest, and the actor--and much else. The original is almost
devoid of punctuation; the modernised text conforms in that
respect to present-day standards. The names of the speakers are
likewise not always consistently given in the old copy; they
are now standardised. _Latin Quotations and Origins_: It is
thought convenient, in respect to this play, to group these as
follows:--"_Domine, ante ... absconditus_" (351,_b_), "Lord, all
my desire is before thee, and my groaning is not hid from thee"
(Psalm xxviii. 9): in original _a te_ is omitted after _Et_ in
second line--_Beati_ _.. . Domine!_" (352,_a_), "Blessed, O Lord,
are they that dwell in Thy house" (Psalm lxxxiv. 4)--"_Qui_ _cum
Deo Patri_" (352,_a_), "Who with God the Father," the beginning
of an ascription or gloria--"_A_ _poena et culpa_" (352,_b_),
from penalty and fault: part of the Latin absolution--"_Nec
te collaudas_ _.. . ipse_" (352,_c_), the sense is, "You will
not be blamed so long as you don't extol yourself"--"_Qui_ _se
collaudit_" (352,_c_), "Who praises himself"; probably from
same source as preceding--"_Responde,_ _tunc. .. clericorum_"
(352,_d_), "Answer then, master, doctor of the clergy"--"_Sursum_
_corda_" (353,_a_), "Lift up your hearts"; from the office of
the mass--"_Via recta_" (354,_a_), "the right way"--"_Spes mea.
.. via recta_" (354,_a_), "My hope stood in the right way" (or
way of righteousness): several passages like this in sense
appear in the Psalms, but none exactly parallel--"_gratia_
_electi_" (354,_b_), "chosen by grace"--"_via obliquia_ _.. .
circularis_" (354,_c_), "the crooked way and circular way": no
doubt scriptural--"_omnes iniquo_ _in circuitu impii ambulantes_"
(354,_c_), _iniquo_ in original reads _iniqui_, which I take
to be a misprint: it now reads, "all the ungodly walking in
the ungodly path" (or path of ungodliness): probably from the
Psalms--"_Ab aquilone. .. omne malum_" (355,_a_), "from the north
is spread every evil": a parallel passage is found in Jeremiah
iv. 6, "I will bring evil from the north," etc.--"_Fumus_
_tormentorum. .. secula seculorum_" (355,_d_), in original
_fumus_ reads _finit_, most likely a misprint: the passage as it
now stands is intelligible, "The smoke of their torment ascendeth
for ever and ever; a quotation from Revelation xiv. 11--"_Septum_
_.. . mors_" (355,_d_), _Septum_ conveys the idea of a
surrounding fence or hedge (cf. 355,_a_ and _b_), "the enclosing
(or surrounding) master of sin is death; but?--"_administrate. ..
comfortate nos_" (356,_c_), dog-Latin: "administers, restores,
comforts"--"_Intentio_ _judicat quenquam_" (357,_a_), "The
intention decides everything"; no doubt proverbial--"_In
principio_" (364,_d_), "in the beginning": the first two words
of the Latin version of St. John's Gospel--"_Confiteor_".
.. _Deo gratias_ _.. . Deo gratias ago tibi_" (366,_b_), "I
confess ... thanks be to God ... God I thank thee": see Luke
xviii. 11--"_Tu testimonium. .. est verum_" (367,_a_), "Thou
bearest testimony of thyself; and thy testimony is not true"; an
adaptation of John viii. 13--"_Qui vivit. .. seculorum secula_"
(368,_a_), "Who lives through the infinite ages of age." _Amended
Readings, Corrigenda, Suggestions, &c._ The collation is A to
Civ in 4s, with A1,_v_ blank.--Names of Players are not in the
original.--The colophon is transferred from Civ,_v_--Stage
directions and words in brackets do not appear in the original:
this is not further mentioned in these notes--"_Et_ a te
_gemitus_" (351,_b_), _a te_ not in original--"As it _ravisheth_
the soul" (351,_c_), original _rauysshet_--"such a pulpit man to
_lose_" (352,_b_), original _lese_--"_Reponde_, tunc, _domine_"
(352,_d_), original _tunice_--"that same death _thou shalt_
die" (353,_a_), erroneously given in my text: the original has
_shalt_ _thou_--["_The continuation seems imperfect_"], there may
be several causes for this. Certainly here, as in other places,
there are no signs whatever in original of mutilation or of lines
omitted. The text goes straight on, though the relation of one
part to another is by no means obvious. The whole play seems
curiously incomplete and scrappy, even for early dramatic effort,
oftentimes of the "thinnest" and crudest. True, the action may
be modelled somewhat on the lines of Heywood's _Pardoner and
the Friar_, in which the "interruptions" of one speaker with
another lead to "business." Or the play may be a mere fragment
of the "book," as it left the author's hands--surreptitious,
unauthorised, or unrevised. In the former case, especially
assuming that it was intended as a kind of a "dramatic sermon,"
the action shows order of a kind: commencing with what is
obviously intended as the commencement of an exhortation and
omitting the "comic" and "lighter" parts, the sermon would,
in a measure, be naturally complete by "following on" the
speeches as follows: _St. John_ _the Evan._ 351,_b_ to 352,_a_;
_Irisdision_, 353,_c_ (with asides, incentives, or interruptions)
to 356,_a_; _St. John the_ _Evan._ 357,_b_ to 358,_a_; then comes
an "interval," and the discourse is resumed at (JE365,_c_ to end)
winding up with the "application" which was soon to form such an
important feature in Puritan worship. So for the point directly
at issue; but another puzzle confronts the student and one
concerning which at this early stage I do not pretend to offer a
solution. Personally, I should have preferred to have deferred
publishing the text, in order to have had an opportunity of
careful and exact comparative study of the piece in its relation
to the Tudor drama as a _whole_ as well as "_play_"-meal. On
the other hand, I felt that the generous support we have met
with at the hands of the Society's subscribers would be best
repaid by speedy publication--"In the city of Jerusalem ...
walled" (353,_c_), if the play has come to us intact, and the
lack of continuity is intentional, the punctuation of this
passage must be altered: delete the full point after _called_
and regard the next line as a parenthesis, and substitute a
semicolon for the period after _walled_--"in the _lane of
business_" (354,_a_), in original _laue_ of _besynesse_--"Yes,
on the left side" (354,_c_), _Ies_ in original--"full of
_slouthy_ bushes" (355,_b_), this may be _flouthy_--"_Fumus_
_tormentorum_" (355,_d_), in original _Finit_: Latin quotations,
_supra_ (418,_d_)--"[_Iris_]. It is time for to be walking,
&c." (356,_a_), these two lines are not in original given to
Irisdision, but form part of Eugenios' speech, which proceeds
without a break to "Sir William of Trentram" (357,_a_). They
seem to me, however, to be rightly restored as now given--"by
books _Amromes_" (356,_b_), so in original:? a misprint for
_amorous_, which would at least restore the sense. There is,
moreover, nothing in original to suggest a break--"_St. John
the Evangelist_" (357,_a_), preceded by [+] instead of the
usual "leaf"--"plain _information_" (357,_b_) in original
_infymacyon_--"I am _that_ John that" (357,_b_), in original "I
am John that": a blunder I carelessly passed--"saw _Lungis_"
(357,_c_), original _Longes_: see (424,_d_)--"almost changed
my mood" (359,_c_), original _mode_--"have _been_ so witty"
(359,_c_), in original _brn_--"_Yes_, yes daily" (362,_b_), in
original _Ies_--"some pleasure then there _appears_" (363,_d_),
in original _areres_--"between your ears" (363,_d_), in original
_bytwene_--"make thee to _fly_" (365,_b_), a mistake: the
original is _stye_ (= ascend, A.S.)--"_Deo_ _gratias ago tibi_"
(366,_b_), substitute a full point for the comma--"In _that_ he
thanked God" (366,_b_), in original _than_--"By raveners ... men
can rehearse" (366,_c_). I do not feel sure that the present
punctuation gives the best rendering of the original, which
is entirely unstopped--"In that cayme" (366,_c_), see _supra,
s.v._ Cayme:? Cain--"_Against_ _God_" (366,_d_), in original
_Agayne_--"Who doth hie him shall be _ho_" (367,_a_), see
_supra,_ _s.v._ Ho.
JOINT, "_jeopard a joint_" (R256,_d_)--"_t'adventure a_ _joint_"
(R250,_c_), to take a risk or hazard, as of injury, loss,
hanging, etc. "My ten duckets are like my ten fingers, they will
not _jeopard a joynt_ for you."--Decker, _Fortunatus_ (1600),
Works (1873), I. 153.
JOLLY, "here is a _jolly_ jacket" (M31,_d_), bright, gay, splendid,
in newest fashion. "_Jolye_ and gaye sadeles."--Wyclif, _Sel.
Wks._ (_c_. 1380), III. 520.
JUNCTLY, "marred _junctly_ together" (M16,_d_) jointly.
JUNKERY, "a banket or a _junkery_" (N95,_c_), banquet, feast,
junket: specifically a merrymaking accompanied by eating and
drinking. "Pertrych and his felaw bere gret visage and kepe gret
_junkeryes_ and dyneres."--_Paston Lett._ (1449), IV. 24 (1901).
JURIS, see In.
JUSTICES OF QUORUM (JE352,_d_). According to Mr. Craigie (_O.E.D.,
s.v._), _quorum_ was "originally certain justices of the peace,
usually of eminent learning or ability, whose presence was
necessary to constitute a bench; latterly the term was loosely
applied to all justices." "The Justicez or _Justice_ _of the_
Pease of the _Quorum_ yn the same shire."--_Rolls_ _Parlt._
(1455), V. 334. I.
JUSTITIA, (_a_) (R. _passim_), as a pertinent comment on the
_motif_ of this play it may be remarked that the name _Justitia_
was (_O.E.D._) applied in the eleventh century in a general way
to persons charged with the administration of the law, especially
to the Sheriffs; it was subsequently limited to the president or
one of the members of the Curia Regis, out of which the Courts
of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer were developed: see
previous entry.
(_b_) _Just[ici]a tamen non luxit in nobis_ (R253,_b_), see _Book
of Wisdom_ (_Sap._, 1, 15), where it reads, _Justitiæ lumen non
luxit in nobis._ Mr. Magnus earmarks the mistake as "interesting,
if, as is probable, the MS. is not the author's; it is the kind
of miscopying which we might expect."
KAYS, "where be my _kays_" (R184,_d_), this seemingly cockney Irish
pronunciation of "key" is in truth the correct one, and was the
standard down to the close of the seventeenth century. In M.E.
the rhyme was with _day_, _play_, _say_, etc., and Dryden so
employs it. On the other hand, early in the fifteenth century the
(northern) spelling _kee_ was in vogue, from which it appears
that the modern pronunciation _kee_ is of northern origin, but
it is difficult to say how it came into general English use
(_O.E.D._).
KEEP, "_Keep_ your tail" (M21,_a_), _i.e._ keep it out of sight.
KENT ... NORTHUMBERLAND, etc. (R254,_a_): see Respublica.
KING, see Cat.
KISS, see Courtesy.
KNIGHT, "Christ's own _knight_" (M12,_a_), soldier. "A _knight_
with a spear."--_Youth_, Anon. Plays, 2 Ser. (E.E.D.S.),
97,_d_. "That _knycht_ quha peirsit our Lordis syde with the
speir."--Winzet, _Four_ _Scoir Thre Quest_. (1563), _Works_
(1888), I. 77.
KNIL, "I rang her a _knil_" (N97,_d_), a loud peal on a bell:
specifically the passing bell, but frequently used of more or
less violent ringing.
K. Q. TITLE, see Jack Noble.
KYX, "as dry as a _kyx_" (R271,_b_), a dry, hollow stalk. "Elders
they may bee, which being fullest of spungie pith, proue euer the
driest _kixes_."--_Pappe_ _w. Hatchet_ (1589), Civ.
LADE, "by whom thou art _lade_" (IP335,_b_), led.
LADYDOM, "Chwas besiraunce your _ladidom_ to see" (R213,_c_). Mr.
Magnus says "a new formation." Murray's first quotation is dated
1843.
LADY OF WOLPIT (IP315,_d_), this should have been Woolpit, near
Bury-St.-Edmunds. See Woolpit.
LAMMAS, "at the latter _Lammas_" (R219,_a_), never: see _Slang and
its Analogues_.
LAVATORY, "that blessed _lavatory_" (M3,_c_), a figurative usage:
cf. "the _lavatory_ of grace" (_Pilgr. Perf._, W. de W. 60_b_,
1526).
LAY, "hold for the _lay_" (JE353,_d_), lake, pool: in the _O.E.D._
the latest quotation for the literary use of this word is 1481,
later ones being taken from the early nineteenth century dialect
glossaries. This example is therefore useful.
LEAD, "I have no _lead_ on my heels" (M25,_a_), the "heel of lead"
was proverbial for slow, unsprightly movement: cf. "Love, I am
full of _lead_" (Shakespeare, _Ant. and Cleop._, iii. 11, 72).
LEARN, "Titivillus can _learn_ you many pretty things" (M25,_d_),
this present-day vulgarism was formerly in constant literary use.
Wyclif in his first (1382) rendering of Prov. ix. 7 employed
it--"Who _lerneth_ a scorner," etc.: in the revised text of 1388
he substituted "techith."
LEFT HAND, see Hand.
LEGS, see Titivillus.
LEMAN, "take thee a _leman_" (M27,_a_), mistress, whore: see other
volumes of this series.
LESE, "an open _lese_" (N108,_d_), pasture, meadowland, common.
"We been his people and scheep of his _leese_."--_Prymer_ (_c._
1400), 17 (1891).
LESING, "many a _lesing_" (M18,_b_), lie, lying, falsehood.
LET, "not minding you to _let_" (R188,_b_), hinder, obstruct.
LIKELY, "such a _likely_ man" (M27,_d_), in original _lygh[t]ly_;
seemly, becoming, good-looking. "The damoysel beheld the poure
knyght, and sawe he was a _lykely_ man"--Malory, _Arthur_
(1470-85), II. ii. 77.
LIMIT, "a pardon by _limit_" (M8,_c_), in original _bely_ _mett_.
Apparently a pardon sold or bestowed by a friar limiter: see
other volumes of this series.
LION OF COTSWOLD (N109,_c_), a sheep: an earlier example than the
first of the _O.E.D._ quotations.
LIVE, "_on live_" (IP300,_c_), alive: an attributive use.
LIVER, "shall _liver_ him" (R271,_c_), deliver.
LONGETH, "that _longeth_ to thine office" (M8,_c_), pertains to, is
fit and appropriate for.
LOREL (IP335,_b_), a generic term of reproach. "I play the _lorell_
or the loyterer."--- Palsgrave, _Lang. Fran._ (1530), 659.
LOSELL, "like a loitering _losell_" (R257,_d_), profligate, rake:
etymologically, "one who is lost," "a son of perdition."
LOSS, "poor we bear the _loss_" (R231,_d_), see Respublica.
LOUTS, "we made them _louts_" (R221,_c_), _i.e._ caused them to
submit to our demands and disgorge. "To whome grete astates
obeyde and _lowttede_."--_Elegy_ _on Henry_ (_c._ 1500), in
_Percy's Releg._, 45.
LOVE, "Hasty _love_ is soon hot, and soon cold" (WS161,_a_);
Heywood (_Works_, E.E.D.S., II. 6,_d_) has "hot _love_, soon
cold."
LOWLER (JE354,_d_), a variant of Loller = Lollard. Originally
applied (_c._ 1300) to a charitable fraternity, and subsequently
to pretenders to austere piety and humility. Hence in reproach to
certain "heretics," followers of Wyclif and similar purists.
LUNGIS (JE357,_c_), in original _Longes_. As this play is,
generally speaking, carefully printed the use of the capital
seems to point to a proper name, and not to _lunges_ = thrusts,
stabs. _Lungis_ is the apocryphal name of the centurion who
pierced our Lord with a spear: L. _longinus_. The _O.E.D._
cites this as the origin of _lungis_ = lout, loafer--a generic
reproach. On the other hand, if _lunge_ = a stab, it gives an
instance of the use of the word some 200 years earlier than Dr.
Murray's premier example: in either case the present illustration
is useful and interesting.
LURDAN, LURDEN (_passim_), a generic reproach and term of abuse;
examples are numerous.
MACE, see Mass.
MACRO PLAYS AND MANUSCRIPTS (THE). These derive their name from
a former owner, Cox Macro, an eighteenth century antiquary,
physician, and cleric. From the _Dictionary of National
Biography_ it appears he was born in 1683, and died in 1767.
He was the eldest son of Thos. Macro, grocer and alderman,
and five times Mayor of Bury-St.-Edmunds. Thos. Macro married
Susan, only daughter of Rev. John Cox, rector of Risby (near
Bury-St.-Edmunds). The son received his name from his mother's
surname. His name was made the subject of a punning motto for
the family--"Cocks may crow." Educated at Bury Grammar School,
he matriculated at Jesus College, Cambridge, but migrated to
Christ's. In 1703 he entered at Leyden University, where he
studied under Boerhave. In 1710 he proceeded to LL.B. degree at
Cambridge, and to D.D. in 1717. He was chaplain to George II.,
but his possession of a large fortune rendered him independent
of preferment. Macro was reputed to be master of most modern
languages, and his house at Little Haugh contained a large
collection of artistic treasures. Macro died 2nd Feb. 1767,
and was buried at Norton, near Bury. A catalogue of Macro's
treasures was compiled in 1766. Among them were many letters
from Protestant martyrs, which came to him through Bishop Cox;
the great register of Bury Abbey; a ledger-book of Glastonbury
Abbey; and the original MS. of Spenser's _View of the State of_
_Ireland_. Many of his MSS. had previously been the property of
Sir Henry Spelman, others formed part of the library of Bury
Abbey. The Macro property ultimately came to John Patteson, M.P.
for Norwich, who disposed of the old masters (pictures) in 1819,
and sold the books and MSS. for no more than £150 (it is said)
to Richard Beatniffe, a Norwich bookseller, who resold them at a
large profit. They were sold for Beatniffe by Christie in 1820,
and realised £700, 41 lots going to Dawson Turner, and the rest
to Hudson Gurney. The latter are now in the possession of J. H.
Gurney, of Keswick Hall, near Norwich, and are described in the
Historical MSS. Commission's 12th Report. Macro's correspondence
with literary men and artists forms the additional MSS. at
the British Museum, 32556-7. The Rev. Joseph Hunter edited
for the Camden Society in 1840 a volume of _Ecclesiastical
Documents_, containing 21 charters from Macro's library; and
from a MS. formerly in his possession was printed, in 1837,
for the Abbotsford Club, a morality called _Mind,_ _Will, and
Understanding_. So far generally the D.N.B.: the manuscript of
the plays alone concern the present volume. I have not seen the
volume myself, though I hope one day to have the satisfaction
of reproducing it in facsimile. I have therefore to acknowledge
my indebtedness for the _précis_ which follows to Mr. A. W.
Pollard's exhaustive account as given in the introduction to
the Early English Text Society's _Macro Plays_ (Extra Series,
xci.). Boiled down, the facts are these, so far as they relate
to the two Macro Plays included in the present volume, _Mankind_
and _Respublica_. _Mankind_ now forms part of a volume which in
the eighteenth century contained other plays and treatises in
manuscript, with which we need not now concern ourselves, except
to remark the strange juxtaposition of old moralities, a Juvenal,
a treatise on alchemy, etc. When sold at auction in 1820 the
collection was broken up, and three plays, _Mankind_, _Wisdom_,
and _The_ _Castle of Perseverance_, bound afresh in one volume.
Other points of interest are given by Mr. Pollard, but which I
pass by as not germane to the present purpose. The manuscript of
_Mankind_ and _Wisdom_ are contemporaneous; and were, says Mr.
Pollard, in the same ownership before the end of the fifteenth
century. This is in all likelihood a fact; but that the ownership
was a purely personal one is not so clear as appears at first
sight, or for the reasons stated by Mr. Pollard. It is now
necessary for me to quote Mr. Pollard's own words in order to
make my suggestions quite clear. He says: "It is ... possible
that both this play and ... [_Wisdom_] were written in different
parts of a miscellany-book belonging to Monk Hyngham, though
the fact that his doggerel inscription of ownership is written
after each of them inclines one at first to think that they were
separate units among his possessions. As it occurs at the end of
this play [_Mankind_], the inscription ... has been partly erased
and partly cut through, the lower part of the leaf being supplied
with modern paper. Enough, however, of the inscription remains
to make it fairly certain that it reads like that at the end of
the next play: O liber si quis cui constas forte queretur Hyngham
q_ue_ monacho dices super o_mn_ia, co_n_sto. This apparently is
to be translated (I owe the suggestion to Dr. Warner): 'O book,
if any one by chance asks to whom do you belong, you are to say
I belong to Hyngham, above everything which a monk can own.'
Who Monk Hyngham was we do not know. He may have belonged to
Bury-St.-Edmunds, whence some of the Macro manuscripts are said
to have come." Thus far also Mr. Pollard.
Now, I am inclined to think the deductions hitherto drawn from
the foregoing facts are not altogether of the soundest. In the
first place, _Is the inscription rightly translated?_ Secondly,
_Does "Hyngham" refer to a person or a place?_ In answer to the
first question, I offer an alternative reading for consideration;
in reply to the second, I offer evidence that a place is meant.
If I am right in my contentions fresh light is thereby thrown
upon several problems, at present unsolved, in respect to these
Macro plays. To take the points in order. The inscription as
given by Mr. Pollard in his introductory remarks on page xxx,
varies somewhat from the text as given on pages 34 and 73: _que_
is _quem_ and co_n_sto is given as co_n_sta[s]. My own text
(40,_d_) follows the latter, which for the sake of the ensuing
argument I quote again, with contractions, etc., duly indicated:
O liber, si q_u_is cui co_n_stas forte q_u_eret_u_r,
Hyngham, qu_em_ monacho dices, sup_er_ o_mn_ia co_n_sta[s].
Now if for qu_em_ we read qu_od_ and for co_n_sta[s] we
substitute co_n_sta[t], we get on surer ground. The original
hardly conveys the idea that _constas_ occurs twice, though there
is evidently a play on "_constas_," "constat"; at least that is
a possible reading. In this instance, too, the verb _constare_
seems to be used in the sense of _value_, and one hardly sees
where Dr. Warner's _belong_ comes in. If _quod_ and _constat_ are
accepted, the translation would be something like this:
"O book, if haply anyone should ask to what [place] you are
precious, tell them Hyngham, which [_quod_] to a monk is
precious beyond all [places]."
That is, the book is precious to Hyngham; Hyngham is precious
beyond all places to the monks.
This brings me to the next point. Assuming this translation to
be correct (and I invite discussion), it seems pretty clear that
the ownership of the manuscripts of _Mankind_ and _Wisdom_ was
not to a _Monk_ Hyngham, but to a monk or monks of Hyngham. Facts
again seem to confirm alike this new view and also the Eastern
Counties tradition. Hyngham, Hingham, or Ingham, as a surname,
is not common in the district; on the contrary, it is uncommonly
rare. It belongs more to the north, especially to Lancashire
and Yorkshire. Its occurrence now-a-days in Leeds, Bradford,
Liverpool, and Manchester, may be regarded as fifty or sixty
to two, or at most three, for other large towns all over the
country; whilst in the Eastern Counties it is simply not to be
found. This is especially and particularly the case as regards
Lincoln, Grimsby, Boston, Stamford, Norwich, Yarmouth, Ipswich,
Bury-St.-Edmunds, Cambridge, Colchester, Chelmsford, etc. The
facts are at least significant.