Friday? we may turn for comparison to the same MS. of Rouen just named, fol. 251 vo, which gives twelve reasons in answer; to a MS. of the thirteenth century in Paris (Bib. Nat. nouv. acq. fr. 1098, fol. 60); [Bulletin de la Société des Anciens Textes Francais (1883), p. 96.] and a Russian essay on the subject by Prof. Wesselowsky.
From a comparison of the style of thought, and of the theological dicta of this poem, with those of similar passages in the Cursor Mundi, the conjecture may be hazarded that Adrian and Epotys was written about the same period, viz., the early part of the fourteenth century. The name of the old well-known Altercatio Adriani et Epicteti had been adopted, the philosopher's name became shortened to Epicte, and finally pronunciation brought it to Epotis, when the dialogue itself no longer bore a trace of its heathen descent. [ Chaucer, in the thirtieth stanza of his Rhyme of Sir Thopas, mentions Ipotis:— but, as it has been suggested by Dr. Schroeder, as all the books he speaks of here are romances, except Ipotis, under which name no romance is known, it may be that the singer had the romance Ipomydon in his head, and for once made a slip of the pen. We get no other indication from him of what Ipotis was.
Seven copies [Four at Oxford, viz., Vernon MS., fol. 296; Ashmol. 750; Ashmol. 61; Douce, 323, fol. 160. At the British Museum: (besides Add. 22283, an old copy of the Vernon MS.); Cotton Calig., A ii., fol. 79; Cott. Titus, A xxvi., fol. 163; Arundel, 140, fol. 1. The Douce and Titus copies are imperfect.] of Adrian and Epotis (or Ipotis) are known among English manuscripts; our Brome forms the eighth. It has not been hitherto printed in England, nor indeed thoroughly examined. Dr. C. Horstmann has printed two of the copies—that from the famous Vernon MS. and from the Cotton Caligula MS., giving various readings from some of the others. [Altenglische Legenden, neue folge, Heilbronn, 1881, pp. 341, 511.] He says of four of the MSS. (the two Cotton, Arundel, and Ashmole, 61) that they are all equally poor and equally removed from the Vernon. My comparison of the following copy with the two printed by him does not tend to confirm that judgment, but rather shows that, one original having been transcribed several times, succeeding transcribers added in a piece here or left out a piece there, or may be invented a new piece; and that really the Vernon and Cotton copies, though differing, are nearly upon a par in value. Such alterations, together with the changes following from
