The word, left without any explanation in the edition, is problematic. It seems to appear in a list of animals that the author is ironically advising his audience to trust (fier en, cf. fier²), together with the wolf, dog and refractory horse. As such, could the word be an erroneous spelling of urs (‘bear’), a reading found in one variant manuscript? Urs lists the deviant form ourser, suggesting a reading here of or[s]ier. Alternatively, orier and orrer could be transcription errors for ottere (cf. oterre), a Middle English word frequently found in an Anglo-Norman context. But was the otter particularly famed for its unreliability in medieval times? Thirdly, the DMF lists the formally similar orix – an unidentified animal, but probably a ‘wild goat’ or ‘water rat’. Is the ­-er ending a misreading of -x? If not referring to an animal (i.e. if the word is placed on the same level as magnien (‘itinerant coppersmith’)), three other possible interpretations of the word present themselves, with the -ier ending serving each time as an agent suffix to either or¹ (‘gold’), ur (‘border’) or orer1 (‘to orate’ or ‘to pray’): ‘goldsmith’, ‘artisan who makes decorative borders’ and either an ‘orator’ or a ‘cleric who prays for the soul of another’ – all people who, for one reason or another, may have been considered untrustworthy.