well as upon the general state of that church, before and at the time of the Reformation. An English reader, however, who has the leaft curiofity concerning the ancient ftate of the drama. in that country, must be agreeably amufed with the following quotation.

From the time of the Reformation, it is fuppofed that every ordinance of the church is known, and every historical fact, concerning the church, afcertained; and yet how few are there who ever peruled the Book of the universal kirk, in which many ordinances and historical facts, not to be found elsewhere, are recorded.

• I fubjoin a specimen of curious particulars in it, all relating to one fubject.

• March 1574. "It is thought meit and concludit, that na clerk-playes, comedies or tragedies, be maid of the canonical Jeriptures, new as auld, on Sabboth-day nor wark-day, in time coming: The contraveners hereof, if they be minifters, to be fecludit fra the function; and if they be utheris, to be punished be the difcipline of the kirk. And ordaines an article to be given into fick as fitts upon the policie, that for uther playes, comedies, tragedies, and utheris profaine playes, as are not maid upon authentic pairtes of the fcriptures, may be confidered before they be proponit publicklie; and that they be not played upon the Sabboth dayes" p. 145.

1576. The affembly refufes to give liberty to the Bailie of Dunfermline, to play upon the Sonday afternoon a certain play, rubilk is not made upon the canonical parts of fcripture, in respect of the act paft in the contrair;" p. 161.

1577. Propofal to the Regent, "That his Grace would difcharge the plays of Robin-huid, King of May, and fick utheris, on the Sabboth day ;” p. 168.

1579. Quæer. from the fynodallis. "Quhat ought to be done to fik perfones, that after admonition, will pafs to Mayplayes; and specially elders and deacones, and utheris quha beares offices within the kirk? Ans. They aucht not to be admittit to the facraments without fatisfaction; in fpecial, elders and deacons." We are too apt to figure to ourselves the reformers of that age as perfons of impolitic and inflexible au fterity.'

As a fpecimen of our author's impartiality, we shall juft mention his being fo much divefted of religious prepoffeffions, that upon his accufing Knox's hiftory for being exceedingly partial and erroneous, in an account of certain canons, he fubjoins the following note.

This is a ftrong charge; and I will make it good. Whea ther the paffage here cenfured be the work of an interpolator,

or of Knox himself, is nothing to me. I feek truth where I can find it if I am fuccefsful in my fearch, I am happy; if not, unfortunate. I am willing to admit that Knox was zealous in a good caufe; but no zeal can justify a man for mifreprefenting an adverfary. My freedom may offend; but if we are to be governed by names and authorities of man, why did we leave the church of Rome, where there are as good names and authorities of man?'

The canons of the church of Scotland are accompanied with many useful notes, which ferve to elucidate the civil as well as ecclefiaftical hiftory of that kingdom. By the 23d canon it appe rs that the celibacy of the Scotch clergy was of a very extraordinary kind, and that their concubines were in reality their wives, though they and their children were disabled from holding lay eftates and houfes. The editor has given us the canon itself in Latin as follows.

XXIII. Item falubri provifione decrevimus, ut clerici beneficiati de cætero domus aut poffeffiones laicas ad opus concubinarum et filiorum fuorum emere non præfumant, nec etiam ad opus eorum domos conftruant in feodo laicali; fed nec etiam pecuniam miniftrent ad hujufmodi emenda, ad opus illorum, ut fic eis fubtrahatur occafio malignandi. Si quis fuper hoc habeatur juftâ ratione fufpectus, nifi ad arbitrium fuperioris fet purgaverit, ipfius arbitrio puniatur. Præterea, licet teftamenta legitima clericorum beneficiatorum decedentium volumus obfervari, nolumus tamen quod concubinis aliquid in teftan ento fuo relinquant. Quod fi de cætero factum fuerit, totum illud in ufum ecclefiæ quam rexit defun&tus, Epifcopi arbitrio

convertatur.'

As Sir David has not thought proper to oblige us with a tranflation of this curious canon we fhall attempt one.

Likewife by a falutary provifion we have decreed that beneficed clergymen fhall not prefume to buy houfes or lay estates for the ule of their concubines or their fons; nor fhall they build houses for them upon a lay fief; neither are they to furnish them with money for buying fuch houfes, that occafion of flander may be thus taken away. If any one fhall, upon just grounds, be fufpected on this head, unless he fhall purge him. elf to the fatisfaction of his fuperior, let him be punished at is pleasure. Farther, although we are willing that the lawful teltaments of beneficed clergymen who are dead, fhould be obfurved, yet we prohibit their leaving any thing by their laft will to their concubines. If fuch a thing fhould be done, let the whole of it be converted at the pleafure of the bishop to the ufe of the church where he prefided.'

In the 34th canon mention is made in a charter, fo carly as the time of William the Lion, of the tythe of fea fish. If we mistake not, such a tythe is mentioned by Sir Robert Sibbald, in his hiftory of Fife, to have been eftablished even before that time by David I. of the felchs at Kinghorn, payable to the abbey of Dumfermling.

The 63d canon gives us a curious inventory of the utenfils that every priest had a right to in the parfonage-house when he came to his living. These were, firft, in the hall or dining room, a fufficient table with treffels or wooden fupporters, a bafon and a ewer, a napkin and a towel; fecond, in the kitchen, a brass-pot, a pan, a stool, a kettle crook, a chain from which the kettle hung, a peftle and a mortar. In the brewhouse, a mash-vat, a trough, a vat, a sa, (what utenfil that was we know not) and a barrel.

Ourvuthor in his examination of fome of the arguments for the high antiquity of the Regiam Majeftatem, attacks the fidelity of Skene, the editor of that work; to all appearance, fays he, Skene was a careless if not an unfaithful publisher;' and he hints that the vast labour he was at in preparing from old worn out manufcripts a correct copy for the prefs, was a difficulty of his own making. A copy of the Regiam Majeftatem prefented by the first earl of Cromerty, which antiquaries think to be the oldest manuscripts extant in Scotland, is fuppofed, by Sir James Dalrymple, to be written in the days of Robert I. who was contemporary with Edward II. of England, and lived to the reign of Edward III. but his name fake, this writer, seems to be of a different opinion. One of his reafons is, that he could not perceive the fimiliarity between the writing of the manufcript, and any writing he had feen of the age of Robert I. As we know nothing of the fact, we are very lorry that this author did not order a few lines from that manufcript to be engraved, which might be done at a very trifling expence; and as we never have obferved any difference between the hand-writing of the fame age published by Anderson, and Madox, and others, the doubt might have been afcertained, and perhaps the decifion final upon an intuitive comparison between the Scotch and English hand-writings.

Our author next proceeds to fhow his reafons for doubting of the care and fidelity of Skene in his edition of that work. He thus publishes that celebrated paffage, Regiam Majef tatem, 1. 2. c. 33. "Cum quis autem moritur habens filium postnatum, et ex primogenito filio, jam mortuo, nepotem, magna juris folet effe dubitatio, uter eorum præferendus fit in illa fucceffione, fcilicet utrum filius vel nepos. -Dicunt quidam, filium poftnatum realiorem effe hæredem, quam nepotem

B 3

talem;

talem; eâ fcilicet ratione, quia filius primogenitus, cum mortem patris non expectavit, nec etiam expectavit quod ejus effet hæres; et ideo, cum filius poftnatus fupervixerit tam patrem quam hæredem, rectè, ut dicunt, patri fuccedit. Alis vero vifum eft contrarium; videlicet, talem nepotem de jure patruo, effe præferendum."

Thus Skene, and to the word aliis he adds this marginal note, ut Glanv. 1. 7. c. 3."

66

When this paffage, as published by Skene, is compared with the MSS. a moft extraordinary variation will be difcovered.

Lord Cromerty's MS. has these words, " Aliis vero visum eft contrarium.”. There follows, "ut Ricardo de Lucy, et R. de Glanvilla, talem nepotem de jure patruo effe præferendum."

The MS. 1488, part 2. c. 31. bears, "Dicunt quidam, viz. Rainulphus de Glanvilla," &c.

In like manner the MS. 1528, part 2. c. 67. bears, "Dicunt quidam, viz. Rainulphus de Glainvilla."

The MSS. 1439 and 1520, mention in the margin, Rainulphus de Glanvilla." This is in the fame hand with the rest of the writing.

Lord Auchinleck's MS. 1. 2. c. 39. bears, "Dicunt quidam, viz. Raynulphus, quod filius poftnatus rectior eft hæres," &c.

• Mr. Crofbie's MS. 1. 2. c. 32. bears, "Dicunt quidam, viz. Ranulphus de Glenwilla."

I have had no opportunity of confulting the Yelverton MS. it is however fo recent, that no inference could be drawn from it, either one way or other.

6

Thus all the feven MSS. of Regiam Majeftatem that are preferved in Scotland, uniformly bear reference to Glanville, although the eldest MS. alone does truly exprefs his opinion.

It is ftrange if the fatal name of " Ranalphus de Glanvilla” did not appear in any one of the MSS. from which Skene formed his edition; if it did, it is no lefs ftrange that Skene fuppreffed it. His marginal note feems to fhew that he knew too well what might be implied by aliis. I prefume that "R. de Glanvilla" was not one of the various readings which in his preface he confiders as "luce ac memoriâ indigna.'

If the words " R. de Glanvilla" be not an interpolation, the controverfy, Whether Regiam Majeftatem, or the work of Glanville, is the original, which will be brought to a short iffue? for a treatise compofed in the reign of David I. could not make any reference to Glanville's treatife.'

We

We have already given our opinion concerning the Regiam Majeftatem *; but as the queftion now comes to a matter of fact, which we shall not difpute, we fhall only beg leave to afk what is the confequence-Skene held a place of great eminence, we mean for those times, in the law of Scotland. He advanced that he published this work from fuch old moth-eaten manufcripts, that the publication was a kind of Augean ftable, and that, through the carelessness of tranfcribers, many paffages were fo disjointed and confufed, as either to corrupt or anni hilate the fenfe. If we are not miftaken, his publication was at the national coft; and he lived at the time when lawyers and other antiquaries were not wanting in Scotland, capable to have detected and expofed any fuch infidelity as this author fufpects him guilty of. It is the more reasonable to believe this, as Craig, who was a feudist, and did honour to the learning of his country, was of a direct contrary opinion; and it is unreasonable to fuppofe that he had not his followers among the faculty of lawyers.

An interpolation of the text therefore, which this gentleman fuppofes, is quite out of the question in this controversy. He leaves the age of its oldeft manufcript doubtful; and the other manuscripts he mentions are of no kind of validity, being all within the era of printing, excepting one, dated 1439. He supposes, and we think very candidly, Cromerty's manuscript to be later than the end of Robert I. Why therefore might not Skene have printed from an older manufcript where no notice in the text was taken of Glanville? We fhall, however, be glad to be refolved of the following fact, whether this Cromerty's manuscript contains all that is to be found in the copy printed by Skene? If it does not, we think the prefumption very strong that Skene printed from an older manufcript. In fhort, we cannot upon the whole imagine, that the omiffion of the words mentioned by this author, is a proof of Skene's infidelity; and we must be of opinion, that it would be a most dangerous doctrine in literature, if, fince the art of printing was discovered, an omiflion of this kind in fo important a publication, fhould be charged on the memory of an editor, who publishes his works in his own life-time, and in what we may call a juridical capacity.

If the mention of the decretals of Gregory IX. and Boniface VIII. in the manufcript, are the genuine text, we must admit, that it g es far towards a reprobation of the Regiam Majeftatem being coeval with David I. but till the genuine text can be afcertained, which is not at all improbable may happen, the verdict of critical learning muft undoubtedly be in Skene's favour. * See Vol, xxiv. p. 84.