de Schalby was acquainted with this life of Remigius; but wisely forebore to make any use of it, as he had far better and contemporary authorities, in the early Lincoln records, from which to draw his materials. The use of this treatise of Giraldus in the Titus A. xix. treatise, is the only instance of any such after use that I am able to produce. Rather oddly, the Titus writer, though certainly knowing and quoting from Giraldus's Life of Remigius, seems to have known nothing, at all events makes no use, of the later history of the Lincoln bishops by John de Schalby, which was certainly at Lincoln when he wrote, and would have helped him. much for the bishops between 1200 and 1330.

"Lincoln' adquisivit, et domos de "veteri templo London' ecclesiæ

suæ comparavit; domosque in "palacio Lincoln' sumptibus mag"nis fecit." It is clear that he derived this from Giraldus (infra, 35), and not from Schalby (infra, 198); especially because he follows Giraldus in attributing to Chesney the erection of episcopal buildings at Lincoln, a fact not mentioned, and contradicted rather, by Schalby, and afterwards contradicted also by Giraldus himself, when, with Schalby, he says that it was St. Hugh, who began these buildings (infra, 35, n. 4 and 41).

Again, of the next bishop Geoffrey elect, this writer says, "Hic, in suo "inicio, ecclesiam suam Lincoln', 66 quam predecessor suus erga Aaron "Judeum obligaverat, redimendo "statim acquietavit. Et quia patri

"Lincoln', patre procurante, sponte "resignavit." This is plainly derived from Giraldus (infra, 36, &c.). Schalby has nothing of its being "in suo inicio," when Geoffrey paid the debt to Aaron, and nothing about his father's need of him, or his resignation of the see (infra, 198).

It is clear that this Titus A. xix. compiler did derive from Giraldus's Life of Remigius, and it seems equally clear that he made no use of John de Schalby. There is not the slightest shadow of reason for supposing,-very solid reason instead to the contrary,-that, in common with them, he drew directly from the Lincoln records. I speak of him as deriving from Giraldus, because it is perfectly possible that he did not draw directly from him, but from some now unknown intermediate compiler of Lincoln history.

§ 5. WHARTON'S EDITION OF THIS TREATISE.

in Wharton,

This life of Remigius was printed by Wharton in 1691, from the then as now one C. C. C. manuscript, in the second part of his Anglia Sacra, but in a curtailed Infra, 22, form, and in a very blundering way. He omits Chap&c., 26, &c. Omissions, &c., ters VI.-IX., and Chapters XI-XX., which record miracles imputed to Remigius. He divides the life into two separate treatises,1 including in the first the accounts of the bishops from Remigius toSt. Hugh, as in Chapters I.-XXVI., and in the second the accounts of the three pairs of the more notable bishops of his own time, as in Chapters Infra, 43, XXVII.-XXIX.; though all the while giving to those three last chapters their regular numbering as a part of the Life of Remigius, and after having made no division into two treatises in his summary of the chapters of this life.

n. 1.

Insertions

of

Moreover, after his summary of chapInfra, 10, fragments of the ters, Wharton adds the headings of the eleven chapters of the second Dis

n. 2.

life of St. Hugh.

even once, instead of his many times, anything in Giraldus's other writings at all countenancing him, as he here represents, in his division of the Life of Remigius into two histories, I cannot make out. If Giraldus speaks of his Lives of the bishops of Lincoln, he means the two Lives as given in this volume,— the Life of Remigius, with all its extraneous matter, and the Life of St. Hugh as now first printed; and when he speaks of the Copula Tergemina, he only speaks of it as a part of the Life of Remigius. So far as I have been able to find out there is no word of Giraldus that is any excuse even for Wharton's

Where Wharton can have found, statements.

tinction of the entirely separate life of St. Hugh, and of the six chapters of its third Distinction; leaving us only to suppose that he considered these as belonging to second and third parts of Giraldus's life of Remigius, and amongst those portions which he refused to publish "mire fabulosa." And again, at the end of the life, he adds the first chapter of the third Distinction of the Infra, 80, life of St. Hugh.

as

The MS. perhaps never seen by Whar

ton himself.

And Wharton per

n. 4.

It is clear that Wharton can never have seen, at any rate never examined at all, the C. C. Cambridge manuscript from which he printed his life of Remigius. And it seems as if of the transcripts of the two lives which he procured from the manuscript, while the life of Remigius remained in his hands safe and entire, the succeeding life of St. Hugh had been by some accident lost, except a mere fragment or two, when he, or his editor prepared the life of Remigius for the press. I say, "or his editor," advisedly; because I believe that Wharton himself could never have edited in the strange blunhaps not even the dering way in which this life of Remieditor of the treatise. gius of his is edited. At the end of the general preface to the two lives of Remigius and St. Infra, 7. Hugh, Giraldus says that he had prefixed to each life, first a table of the chapters, and then a proeme, which is the case of course with the life of Remigius, and the life of St. Hugh, and equally of course is not the case with the three last chapters of the life of Remigius, which in Wharton are made a separate treatise. Again, at the end of the proeme to the life of Remigius, Giraldus Infra, 13. describes this treatise as divisible into four "particulæ," the first of which would comprise the life and gests of Remigius, the second his miracles, the third the history of his six successors, the fourth the history of the three pairs of the six more excellent bishops of Giraldus's time. If any division of this treatise was to be made, it certainly ought to have been into four parts, instead

VOL. VII.

d

of the two of Wharton. It seems impossible to believe that such a scholar as Wharton, if he had much or even ever so little to do with the editing of this life of Remigius, could have ignored these statements, with other such to the same purport in others of Giraldus's works with which he professes to be acquainted. He must, one would think, if he had anything to do with the editing, have seen at once that his transcript from the manuscript was defective, and that the manuscript contained a distinct life of St. Hugh, as well as the life of Remigius.

The editor, whoever he was, seems to have had a right impression on his mind, that the manuscript contained two distinct treatises; and, in the loss of all but fragments of the transcript of the second treatise, seems to have relieved his mind by the strange bungling concoction of the first treatise into two, as it appears in the Anglia Sacra, under Wharton's name and full sanction. If Wharton was in any degree really the editor, he did his work in a most careless and unscholarlike way, marvellous scholar though he was. If he took no part in the editing, as seems to me more probably the case, yet he was very unwise and very wrong, in thus staking his name and credit on the accuracy and sufficient scholarship of the editor whom he employed.

Minor omissions in Wharton.

Besides the omission in Wharton, already mentioned, of the miracle chapters, there are one or two other minor ones to be noticed. He omits quotations from Holy Scripture and St. Jerome, at p. 61, n. 7, infra. He omits the word "inter," and adds interjacentem to make sense; 19, n. 2. He omits. the words " ausus est," to the manifest detriment of the sense of the passage; 68, n. 4.

Additions.

In one or two other cases he adds a word or two, besides the interjacentem just mentioned. To the " tortoribus" of the apostle St. Thomas's martyrdom, he adds et cruciatibus; 51, n. 7. In another case

he adds, very unnecessarily, the word dominetur to a sentence; 61, n. 6.

words, &c.

Alterations of There are many alterations of words or sentences; all unnecessary, several of them ruining the meaning of what Giraldus wrote. I will mention the more important of them; some of which would perhaps have been better classed amongst additions, rather than alterations.

Giraldus's heading to the general preface to Langton is dropped, and a new one of Wharton, or his editor, put in its place; 3, n. 1. And so again, the heading to the table of chapters is materially altered; and moreover the table itself placed at the beginning, before the preface to Langton, instead of in its right place after it; 9, n. 1. Wharton gives verbum instead of " urbem," making utter nonsense, 18, n. 1: et opera instead of operam," again to the ruin of the sense, 19, n. 1: Cantuariensis, equally nonsensical, instead of “ Cartusiensis," 39, n. 3: capitulum instead of "capicium,' 40, n. 5: coram instead of "et," 64, n. 2: sublevaret instead of "juvaret," 67, n. 2: and Hugo instead of "enim," making out that the name of archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury was Hugh, 67, n. 5. There is an unnecessary reconstruction of a sentence, 65, n. 2; and in the description of Hugh's swan, a plain sentence is altered, much for the worse, 75, n. 2.

This Life of Remigius in the Anglia Sacra, I must just repeat, is very badly edited; and so very badly, that I can scarcely imagine it possible that Wharton himself can have had anything to do with it, further than giving his name. Others of the treatises in the Anglia Sacra, which have been collated with the manuscripts from which Wharton printed, are also very badly edited. It would seem that several of the treatises, to

1 See the Preface to vol. vi., p. lviii, &c., and especially lix., n. 2.

I there spoke of Wharton as employing others to transcribe for him