^{page 583 note a} The substance of this paper was the subject of a contribution by the same author to the Sammelbände der Internationalen Musik-Gesellschaft (Leipzig) for April. 1902.

^{page 583 note b} The authorities for the subsequent history, which have been referred to in connexion with this paper, are the following: (1) Dugdale's own description, based on a survey made, according to his Autobiography (ed. Hamper), in 1641, and appearing in vol. ii. of his Antiquities of Warwickshire published in 1656; (2) the Mercurius Rusticus of 24th June, 1643, recording the attack made on the chapel ten days earlier by a band of iconoclastic Puritans; (3) Gough's, Sepulchral Monuments (1796), ii. 123*Google Scholar; (4) Britton's, JohnArchitectural Antiquities (1814), iv. 7Google Scholar; (5) J. G. Nichols's Description of St. Mary's Church (1838 according to the British Museum Catalogue); (6) M. H. Bloxam's description in Notices of the Churches of Warwickshire (1844), published by the Warwickshire Natural History and Archaeological Society, the name of the author being given in an article in The Gentleman's Magazine (1846), p. 35; and (7) a set of measured drawings by Mr. Harold Brakspear in The Builder for 31st January, 1891. The above deal with the chapel as a whole. Specially as regards the glass we have Charles Winston's paper on the windows written in 1864 and published after his death in the Archaeological Journal, xxi. 302–318, and in 1865 in Memoirs Illustrative of the Art of Glass-Painting. He deals most carefully with the condition and history of the windows, and considers that, with certain obvious exceptions, the glass in the tracery which contains the music is undoubtedly original. But, like all the other authorities, he does no more with the music itself than barely mention its existence.

^{page 585 note a} The photographs here reproduced have been taken specially for Archaeologia. Those originally used were far inferior and showed the music on an almost microscopic scale.

^{page 585 note b} Rawlinson, Liturgies, d. 3.

^{page 585 note c} Published for the Plainsong and Medieval Music Society (London, 1874).

^{page 587 note a} See Paléographie Musicale, published by the Benedictines of Solesmes.

^{page 588 note a} Add. MSS. 18198.

^{page 588 note b} Another point of divergence between the Roman and English uses is here illustrated in a very striking way. The word “beate” before “Marie,” which is now I believe quite established as part of the Roman version, is here seen in the form of an obvious interpolation at the bottom of the left-hand page of the manuscript (Plate XCVIII).

^{page 589 note a} At this point the whole of the introit was sung through as stated.

^{page 590 note a} At fol. xlix. of vol. 2, part 2.

^{page 592 note a} English-French Dictionary.

^{page 592 note b} French-Italian Dictionary, 1674.

^{page 592 note c} It is curious that while he really, though erroneously, identifies it with Ave Maria, he actually calls it an Ave Regina, the very antiphon to which I am now proposing to apply it.

^{page 593 note a} Owing to the adjoining small chamber and a turret staircase, it seems that the west window in the north wall always contained less glass than the others, but the obstruction affects mainly the lower lights only.

^{page 594 note a} In the light of the enlarged photographs taken since the paper was written, I feel bound to point out that there are only two places where one could now suggest the reading “Tant.” These, however, both have the appearance of age, and their very illegibility may be taken as indicating the liability to error in the process of restoration.

^{page 595 note a} Lansdowne 462 at fo. 94.

^{page 596 note a} Looking at these scrolls and the first part of the next one closely, as shown in the present photographs, one may doubt whether they are not original, the notes only having disappeared.

^{page 599 note a} The Fairford Windows (1872).

^{page 599 note b} British Museum Add. 12194.

^{page 599 note c} Winston, , Enquiry, etc. (2nd edition, 1867), 131Google Scholar; Joyce, , Fairford Windows (1872), pp. 74 and 132.Google Scholar

^{page 600 note a} Add. MSS. 17802, fo. 108.

^{page 600 note b} The whole score is printed in Repertorium Musical Antiquæ, edited by John Bishop and J. Warren, 1848. A print of the engraving is in the British Museum.

^{page 606 note a} According to Dutripon's Concordance.

^{page 607 note a} In the Vulgate numbered lxxxvi.

^{page 607 note b} British Museum additional MSS. 18,850. It was given to the Duke of Bedford on his marriage in 1423.

^{page 607 note c} In the Vulgate numbered xcv.

^{page 607 note d} In the Vulgate numbered lxxiii.

^{page 610 note a} Thus making the total of 305 feet correctly given by Dugdale for the three north windows. The total in the MS. for the three south windows is: iiij^clx feet xj inches, which would be 153 feet 48 inches for each. In all three editions of Dugdale, this total feet is misprinted ccccclx (560) for cccclx (460).

^{page 611 note a} See Dugdale's Life, Diary, and Correspondence, edited by William Hamper, 1827. Of the state of the building in 1656 he says, “the beauty of this goodly chapel and monument [the founder's tomb] through the iniquity of later times is much impaired.” (Antiq. Warwichsh.)

^{page 612 note a} A quite different scheme of the whole of the seven lights is suggested by Nichols, but it seems to me quite untenable if due weight is given to Winston's arguments.

^{page 614 note a} Antiquities of Warwickshire.

^{page 614 note b} As trustee of Lady Leveson's bequest for reparation and maintenance of the chapel.