[If our correspondent refers to Mr. Hampson’s most useful work, Medii aevi Kalendarium, vol. i. p. 370., to the words Tenables, Tenabulles, Tenebrae, he will find them explained “The three nights before Easter;” and the following among other illustrations:—­

“Worshipfull frendis, ye shall cum to holi chirch on Wednysday, Thursday, and Friday at even for to here dyvyne service, as commendable custom of holi chirch has ordeyned.  And holi chirch useth the iij dayes, Wednysday, Thursday, and Friday, the service to be saide in the eventyde in derkenes.  And hit is called with divers men Tenables, but holi chirch Tenebras, as Raccionale Divinorum seth, that is to say, thieness or derkenes, to commemorate the betrayal of our Lord by night.”—­Harl.  MS. 2247. fo. 83.]

The Buckingham Motto.—­Permit me to suggest that your correspondents “S.” and “P.” (No. 18. pp. 283, 284.) are labouring under a mistaken notion in supposing that the line

  Sovente me sorene,

belongs to the French idiom, and answers to our phrase “Forget me not.”  Such a sentiment would be sufficiently appropriate as the parting prayer or injunction of a lover, but does not possess the essential characteristic of a motto, which one selects for the purpose of declaring his own sentiments of conduct towards others, not to deprecate or direct those of others towards himself.

The language employed is, in part, pure Italian, not antiquated, but exactly such as is spoken by persons of education at the present day; and if “S.” would again examine the original MS., I make no doubt that he would find the line written Sovente mi sooviene (sovene), i.e. with the personal pronoun in the dative instead of the accusative case.  The expression mi souviene is equivalent to mi ricordo, but is a more elegant form that the latter; and the meaning of the motto will be “I seldom forget,”—­a pithy and suggestive sentence, implying as much the memory of a wrong to be avenged as of a favour to be required.

A. RICH, JUN. {460}

Larig.—­I am obliged by the suggestions of your correspondents “B.W.” and “C.I.R.” (No. 24. p. 387.), to which I beg leave to offer the following reply.  The Dutch and Flemish (or Netherlandish, as they may be considered one language until the fifteenth century) Le’er and Le’ar are simply contractions of Leder, as Tenkate observes, euphonis gratia, by the omission of the d, which takes place in other similar words; and what is remarkable in Ledig, empty, which becomes Le’eg. Le’erig is of course leathery, or tough; but Lederen or Le’ersen, would be used for made of leather, and in A.-S., most probably [A-S:  hydig].  We have no such contraction in A.-S.:  it is always [A-S:  Leether] and [A-S:  Leethern].  The epithet, leathery-shields, could hardly have been used where they are said to resound; and the instance of vaulted shields in Judith is, I think, conclusive.  The root of Leder is possibly hlid-an, to cover HIDE?  That of Leer possibly lieren, amittere, privari?