198 NOTICES OF AKCIIAEOLOGICAL TUBLICATIONS. Taront. There may have been some trailition that led to the mention of tliis place, but as the testimony of all the rest of this note is, in our opinion, properly rejected by the editor, we do not see any reason for assuming so readily that it correctly states the locality of these anchoresses* seclusion. We learn from this work that those ladies could read English and French (p. 45), and also could write (p. 21) ; and they probably knew a little of Latin. The editor shares apparently in the common opinion, that French was much more generally used in this country during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries than the evidence transmitted to us justifies us in believing ; and he assumes that it was at that time the language of the courts of law. This treatise itself shows the im])robability of the French having been so much used in the ordinary intercourse of life, since it is written for these ladies in English, and the French words in it are very few. As to the courts of law, we have little means of knowing what was actually spoken in them ; but the legal documents of the twelfth century are not in French, but generally in Latin, and when in any other language, it is Saxon-English. The earliest French documents, we believe, are in the beginning of the thirteenth century ; paradoxical as it may seem, about the time that Normandy was lost. Sir F. Palgrave pointed out this nearly thirty years ago, in an article in the " Quarterly Review ; " ^ and what has been since brought to light has confirmed his conclusion. The late Mr. Hudson Turner, who was so well versed in the documentary lore of these two centuries, used to say, that the result of his own experience and observation was in accordance with what Sir F. Palgrave has stated. The vow taken by these ladies was probably confined to obedience, chastity, and constancy of abode ; they were never to change their place except of necessity, or in obedience to their bishop or lord (herrc). A vow more comprehensive than this the writer could not advise any anchoress to make (p. 7). Each of their anchorhouses seems to have had two ajiartments, one for the anchoress and the other for her maid. This we collect from the instruction as to the receiving of a guest. The maid, in lier stead, was to entertain the guest, and the anchoress had leave to 0[)en her window once or twice, and make signs to her friend of gladness at seeing her (p. GO). Three windows or apertures (thurks) are mentioned, viz., the parlour window, the house window, and the church window. The first was for conversation with those resorting to the anchoress ; it was tho bmallest, und was to have a black curtain with a white cross on it, and to be kept closed and fastened when not in use (p. 51), whether by a shutter or how otherwise is not clear. The house window was probably for light and the mini.'itration of the attendant. If the window between the two apart- ments were tiie house window, it was but ill adapted for the former ]»urpose ; if it were not the house window, there must have been four apertures. Tiic church window enabled the anchoress to hear mass daily, and witness tho elevation of the host (pp. '.j'.i, 35), and also receive the eucharist at stated times (p. 4 ['.}). It was not fur from the altar, for she is instnicted to listen to the priest's hours as well as she can, but not to say the versicles with liini, nor to hing so that he might hear (p. 15). The passage where this window is particularly named is remarkable : and in it the two other ' Vol. .'11, |). '2l'i'-. .Srcj albo Mr. Miil- 'I'lut rcforuiico tliiri? i.s iiiiulvcrtoritly to loni'ii Nutt-a to liitt Middlu AgcH, No. I 17. tlif Kdinburgli ijisicud of llie Q."iu"lcrly.
