^{page 1 note a} Willelmi A1. Interlineated, with caret after Walteri, in A3, in a sixteenth-century hand, hemmyngforde ; in D2, also in a sixteenth-century hand and different from the text hand, hemmingford canonici. In E1, another sixteenth-century manuscript, this last has been assimilated, the title reading Chronica Gualtheri Hemmingforde Canonici de Gyseburne, de gestis regum Angliae prooemium. In A1, in addition (and partly contradiction) to the original title Cronica Willelmi de Gisseburne de Gestis Regum Anglie prohemium a later, probably sixteenth-century, hand has added a second title Chronicon Gualteri Hemingforde canonici Gisburnensis in tribus libris. A 2 is free from this influence and preserves the original title as here printed. One cannot tell whether the title printed by Gale Chronica Walteri Hemingford, Canonici de Gisseburne, de gestis Regum Angliae. Ab anno Domini M.LXVI. ad annum M.CCC. Prooemium. is that of his manuscript or reflects E1 influence or is editorial and a conflation. In B the title is very worn but can be read as Liber primus lib’ cronicharum (?) Cronica de gestis regum Angl’ Incipit prohemium Cronice (?) Walteri de Gisfburn' ?] de gestis regum. (The Liber primus lib’ cronicharum may be a reference to the two parts of manuscript B.) The title is wanting in C and D1 in their present state (see p. 33, n. 1 and p. 3, n. 4 below). In D1, which was itself written in 1533, the inscription on the fly-leaf (fo. 1^v) Gualteri Hemmyngford Canonici Gisburnensis Historia Regum Anglorum a Gulielmo I. vsque ad annum 6 Edw. II. viz ab An. 1066 ad An. 1312 is in a still later hand, apparently that of Spelman. At the end of C (fo. 120^v) there is written in the same hand as the text Expliciunt tres libri compilati a domino Waltero Hemingburght’ Canonico de Gyseburn’ de gestis Anglorum ab aduentu Willelmi Bastard’ Conquestoris vsque ad mortem strenuissimi Regis edwardi primi post conquestum.

^{page 1 note b} Angliae (and similarly passim the appropriate diphthong ae or oe for medieval e with, or medieval e without, subscript loop) Gale, E1.

^{page 1 note c} pro ut apparet in nigro add. A2.

^{page 1 note 1} The phrase maior Britannia occurs in Newb. vol. I, p. 166.

^{page 2 note 1} Nothus : Newb. Bk. I, cap. 1 (p. 20) cognomento Nothus.

^{page 3 note 1} HpB has the English Gyrth (Hoveden I. 97).

^{page 3 note 2} et obsides … ei derived, though not verbally, from HpB p. 114, the passage with which the compiler began. When he reverts to it below the hostages are named.

^{page 3 note 3} Above, 1. 7.

^{page 3 note 4} Here, with the word Normannie, Di (in its present condition) begins.

^{page 5 note 1} dictus Nothus probably from Newb. p. 20 : cognomento Nothus.

^{page 5 note 2} Date and place (in … Westmonasterium) are from HpB p. 116, not from Newb.

^{page 7 note 1} filiam Agathe is implied in Eadgarus cum matre Agatha et duabus sororibus Margareta et Cristina (HpB p. 121).

^{page 9 note 1} See p. 5, n. 1 above.

^{page 9 note 2} 1078 in printed HpB (Hoveden I. 133) but 1079 in MS. b. of HpB and in HpB's sources, Flor. of Worc, and Sym. of Durham (Hoveden I. 133, n. 2).

^{page 10 note 1} By an error due to compiler's method of abridgement (cf. Post haec … jurare coegit HpB p. 139) the Salisbury Oath of 1086 becomes an oath to the newly-knighted son of the king !

^{page 10 note 2} See p. 5, n. 1 above.

^{page 11 note 1} ecclesia … bonisque : either the manuscript of Newb. used by the compiler was purer here than the printed text (Newb. p. 22) or the compiler turned for this sentence to his other source, HpB p. 140. See, however, note e for a complication.

^{page 11 note 2} exequia (neut. pl.) : a medieval form of exequiae (fern. pl.).

^{page 12 note 1} The conceit Anno … M ^o.lxxx ^o.vij ^o., the epithet Rufus and the detail frater senior are from Newb.

^{page 12 note 2} Rochester, Durobrivis in the fourth century, Dorubreui in Bede, gave the initial Hrofri-, then * Hrofi-, in O.English (Ekwall, Oxford Dictionary of English Place Names. I am indebted to my friend Dr. O. K. Schram for this note). The archaic form is preserved in Symeon of Durham, the source of HpB, (Hrofense and Hrovecestram, S. of Dur., ed. Hinde I. 102, ed. Arnold II. 215–16) and Horfense and Hornecastre here are clearly corruptions of Hrofense and Hroueceastre.

^{page 13 note 1} See p. 12, n. 2.

^{page 13 note 2} Error, again due to hasty abridgement. It was Tunbridge castle that was destroyed (Angli tamen … destruxerunt totum castrum, HpB p. 141). If further proof were needed, the supposed destruction of Rochester castle is inconsistent with the rest of the chapter.

^{page 13 note 3} The subject of this sentence will be more readily understood if we remember that for Dicebant the source (HpB p. 142) has Quidam asserunt.

^{page 15 note 1} An instance of inaccuracy due to hasty abridgement. William was taken ill at Alvestan [Alveston, co. Glouc], though he proceeded to Gloucester (HpB p. 145).

^{page 16 note 1} Hamilton I. 25, reliqui qui. But reliquie qui clearly the reading and A2 with reliqui and Gale, A1, .E1 with que no more than grammatical emendations. The compiler is abridging Exercitus illius, vel gladio confoditur, vel qui gladios fugerunt … (HpB p. 147) : the faulty agreement would appear to be another sign of haste.

^{page 16 note 2} Both ei and sibi were already present in β, though one of them is redundant, as the scribes of A1.3 seem to have realised. Sibi is, of course, the interpolation and appears to be an attempt to improve the source (HpB p. 147).

^{page 17 note 1} This sentence and the next afford a good example of the compiler's method when using rather than slavishly copying his source (Quod cum regi … vexabatur Anglia. HpB p. 149) : skilful enough, but note the tendency to use facts twice and to inflate them. Multa milia peditum is written up from .xx. millia pedonum, the phrase itself being used in .xx. milia peditum in the second sentence. The precise 20,000 becomes multa milia and hominumque mortalitate becomes mortalitate maxima or magna. Not all these characteristics, of course, are necessarily the compiler's. Maxima or magna, for instance, could be a touch added by a later copyist. But such is the chronicle as it has come down to us.

^{page 17 note 2} The compiler here passes over in his source (HpB p. 149) the sentence Interim … constituerunt. He had already worked it into his text s.a. 1093 with the words Sed non post multum temporis … (p. 16 above). This practice of assembling related events, anticipating the events of years still to come, is a feature of his work.

^{page 17 note 3} mense Januarii : an error due to hasty compression. The source (HpB p. 149) reads iiij. kalendas Januarii, i.e. not January but 29 December.

^{page 18 note 1} The rest of this entry s.a. 1094 is a good example of the topical rather than chronological method of the compiler. Here, with no other sign than this et post euentus uarios, he passes quietly over to events given in his source s.a. 1095, then to 1097 and 1098. With Welsh affairs disposed of, he returns to his source where he had left it (at the end of the entry s.a. 1094—HpB p. 149) and to the entries s.a. 1095 which he had previously skipped as euentus uarios. With these, or such of them as interest him, he begins his entry s.a. 1095.

^{page 18 note 2} in sequenti anno and post duos annos sequentes would need to be interchanged to fit the chronology of HpB.

^{page 19 note 1} sancta … insignitus too commonplace, perhaps, to ascribe to any particular source, but textual authority can be found, not in HpB but in charactere Domini insigniti in Newburgh's account of the First Crusade (Sane sub memorati … Newb. I. 2, p. 25), an account of which our compiler makes several uses (cf. pp. 48, n. 2 and 204, n. 2 below).

^{page 21 note 1} The date is from HpB.

^{page 22 note 1} uenerabilem and mox are from Newb. I. 3 (p. 26).

^{page 23 note 1} statuerunt and anno sequenti and condonauit in the last sentence of the chapter occur in HpB's source, Henry of Huntingdon (pp. 233 and 234), but not in HpB as printed.

^{page 24 note 1} S.a. 1107, i.e. after four not three years, in source (HpB pp. 161, 164).

^{page 25 note 1} Eodem anno : By this, in spite of all the anticipation of events of 1107–8 that the chapter contains, is meant the year 1103 with which the chapter began.

^{page 25 note 2} Eodem anno: By this the year 1104, not 1106 or 1107, is meant.

^{page 25 note 3} Eodem etiam anno : Here again, of course, the year 1104 is meant.

^{page 25 note 4} There is, it will be noticed, no entry s.a. 1105. Our compiler had already used HpB s.a. 1105 (above, among the events anticipated in the entry s.a. 1104).

^{page 26 note 1} de … Henrici : in HpB's source (Hunt. p. 236), but not in HpB, at least as printed (HpB p. 164) or as in Petyt MS.

^{page 26 note 2} venerabilis … Cantuariensis and et … terra are from Newb.

^{page 28 note 1} Probably kalendis as in previous sentence. In this case the text of HpB is uncertain : see HpB p. 172, n. 4. The reading kalendis Maii would explain MS. b. of HpB. MS. a. of HpB could be a corruption of in kalendis, for which see S. of Durham, ed. Hinde, I. 108 ; ed. Arnold, II. 251.

^{page 28 note 2} Gelasius did not hold the council. He was dead before it met. The actual words of HpB, which the compiler has rendered as celebrauit, are concilio quod ipse disposuit se … celebraturum (HpB p. 173).

^{page 29 note 1} deciuerant : a medieval orthography for desciverant.

^{page 30 note 1} cum … xviij. : This detail, added here, is from a previous passage in HpB (jam tune xviij. annorum, HpB p. 177).

^{page 30 note 2} Error for 1123, but the compiler is led into it by his source (HpB p. 180 and n. 10).

^{page 31 note 1} HpB persists to the end of the reign in post-dating events by one year (see preceding note and HpB pp. 187–8). Our compiler, while unquestionably continuing to use HpB as his main source, is already able to correct his chronology.

^{page 31 note 2} Pnncipibus and circa, while not in HpB as printed in Hoveden I. 182, are in HpB's source, Hunt. p. 247, and are probably also borrowed—from a text of HpB somewhat nearer Hunt, than is the printed HpB. Other details that support the hypothesis of an early HpB rather than Hunt, as source are 1. dating by A.D. rather than regnal year, 2. Henricus, 3. victoriosissimus.

^{page 32 note 1} Hamilton (I. 50, n. 7) in saying that Gale here inserts qui Lodovicum regem must himself have misread Gale.

^{page 33 note 1} Here, with nibus completing the word manibus begun on the previous (missing) folio, C, in its present condition, begins.

^{page 33 note 2} Calixtus II. died in 1124. This alone should make us hesitate before accepting 1129 as the date of the foundation of Guisborough—before setting up the authority of the priory chronicle against that of the priory cartulary. For further confusion of papal chronology in the chronicle, see the next note. For further discussion of the foundation-date of Guisborough and, in general, the unavoidable vagueness of dates of foundation of Augustinian houses, see D. Knowles and R. N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses (London, 1953), p. 138, and J. C. Dickinson, The Origins of the Austin Canons and their Introduction into England (London, 1950), pp. 122 and 97–8, and the references there given.

^{page 34 note 1} The chronology of this chapter is completely confused. Calixtus died and was succeeded by Honorius II. in 1124, not 1130. Honorius died in 1130 after a pontificate of more than five, not two, years, and the double election of Innocent II. and Anacletus took place in 1130, not in 1132 as the chronicle implies. The source of the errors is not HpB and our compiler evidently made no use here of Martinus Polonus, Chronicon Pontificum et Imperatorum, which he used for the thirteenth century.

^{page 34 note 2} i.e. Nostell, Yorks. W.R., by this time (see Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses) a house of Augustinian canons.

^{page 35 note 1} Ovid, Amores, III. iv. 17.

^{page 36 note 1} filie regis Henrici : nearer to Hunt. p. 256 than to HpB as printed (HpB p. 188, n. 4) and as in Petyt MS. et filiis suis (almost certainly a corruption of et filio suo) is, on the other hand, nearer to Hoveden (ed. Stubbs, I. 188) than to HpB.

^{page 36 note 2} In the previous sentence.

^{page 36 note 3} intra : purer than HpB as printed (p. 190) and as in Petyt MS. (infra.) Hunt. (p. 257) has intra.

^{page 36 note 4} ipse occurs in MS. b. of HpB.

^{page 37 note 1} statim is not in HpB as printed (p. 190) or as in Petyt MS. but occurs in its source, Hunt. p. 258.

^{page 38 note 1} HpB as printed (p. 193) and as in Petyt MS. reads ei, but ei and cum eo are variants in Hunt. (p. 261, n. 1) itself.

^{page 39 note 1} uiriliter is not in HpB as printed (p. 193) or as in Petyt MS., but occurs in its source, Hunt. (p. 262).

^{page 39 note 2} HpB as printed reads ferax (p. 193), but ferox as in Petyt MS. Ferax and ferox are variants in Hunt. p. 262, n. 2 itself.

^{page 39 note 3} patria : purer than HpB as printed (p. 194) and as preserved in Petyt MS. (patriae.) Hunt. (p. 262) has patria.

^{page 40 note 1} Tegitur : similarly purer than HpB as printed (p. 194) and as in Petyt MS. (Tegite.) Hunt. (p. 263) has Tegitur.

^{page 40 note 2} et : HpB as printed (p. 194) and as in Petyt MS. has ac ; Hunt. p. 263, et.

^{page 40 note 3} paucorum bellum conficit : purer than HpB as printed (p. 194) and as in Petyt MS. (paucorum efficit bellum.) Hunt. p. 263 has paucorum bellum conficit.

^{page 40 note 4} Vos : HpB reads Nos as printed (p. 194), but Vos as in Petyt MS. Hunt. p. 263 has Vos.

^{page 40 note 5} sed : Not in the printed HpB (p. 195) or Petyt MS., but occurs in its source, Hunt. p. 264.

^{page 41 note 1} qui … perempti : Purer than HpB as printed (p. 195) and as preserved in Petyt MS. (qui in segetibus et in siluis inuenti sunt perempti), and, indeed, agrees with the source of HpB, Hunt. p. 264.

^{page 41 note 2} in mora de Cowton : This detail is not in Hunt. (p. 262) or in HpB as printed (p. 193, n. 8). But it is in Petyt MS. and in Hoveden (ed. Stubbs, p. 193) : in Cutune mor. It is also in the Chronicle of Melrose (facsimile edition, ed. Anderson, London 1936, p. 33) : in cuttenemor. On, however, the date as distinct from the place of the battle, it will be noticed that mense Augusti is in line with Hunt, and with HpB, both as printed (mense Augusto) and as in Petyt MS. (mense Augusti) and not with the precise xi. kal. Septembris of Melrose.

^{page 41 note 3} This punctuation is established by the source, HpB as printed (p. 196) and as in Petyt MS., and by Hunt. p. 265. Most manuscripts, however, and Hamilton's printed text (I. 62) end the sentence after quinto, not after Aluertoun'—whence Hamilton's mistaken footnote (I. 62, n. 2) that our compiler is two years out in dating the Battle of the Standard. The numeral quinto is, in fact, and for other reasons, one year out and should be quarto ; but it does not in any case apply to the battle, which is correctly dated.

^{page 43 note 1} disponit: HpB reads disposuit as printed (p. 201, n. 4) but disponit as in Petyt MS. Hunt. p. 271 has disponit.

^{page 44 note 1} suo : not in HpB as printed (p. 205) or as in Petyt MS. but occurs in its source, Hunt. p. 275.

^{page 44 note 2} cum : not in HpB as printed (p. 205) or as in Petyt MS., but occurs in its source, Hunt. p. 275.

^{page 44 note 3} ueste alba : from Newb. I. 10 (p. 43), if not a mere reflection of the preceding uestibus albis.

^{page 45 note 1} statuit … concilio : from Newb. I. 10 (p. 43).

^{page 45 note 2} per annum unum : the only indication that the compiler has passed from 8 to 9 Stephen.

^{page 45 note 3} uiderunt: given by HpB as printed (p. 207) and as in Petyt MS. It is necessary to state this, as Hunt, as printed (p. 277) does not give it, although there too multi would, strictly, require a plural verb. Its absence, though it is not necessary for us to decide this, may be nothing more than a fault in the edition.

^{page 45 note 4} Hunt. p. 277 and HpB (as printed, p. 207, and as in Petyt MS.) alike read et ipse ego oculis meis inspexi : i.e. HpB keeps Huntingdon's personal pronoun, ego, and does not mention Henry of Huntingdon by name. This would suggest that our compiler knew Henry of Huntingdon's chronicle directly as well as through HpB.

^{page 45 note 5} in alto mari : based on Newb. 46 in medio mari.

^{page 46 note 1} With Anno autem … absorpta est (HpB p. 207) already used in the entry for 8 Stephen (see above, p. 45, n. 2), this, the beginning and the end, is all that remains of HpB's entry for 9 Stephen (HpB p. 207).

^{page 46 note 2} ceperunt: this plural verb with a singular noun is the raw result of compressing three sentences of HpB p. 208 into one. Cepit in Gale and C. are later revisions.

^{page 46 note 3} Error, due to hasty abridgement. In 10 Stephen Bishop Alexander went to Rome: it was on his return the following year that he undertook the rebuilding of Lincoln cathedral. The error comes by suppression between episcopus and ecclesiam of the essential phrase secundo anno (HpB p. 208) or sequenti anno (Hunt. p. 278).

^{page 47 note 1} Quibus … effectus : a paraphrase of Newb. Quo facto … inimicus.

^{page 47 note 2} John iv. 14.

^{page 48 note 1} After his excursion into monastic history (drawn from Newb. I. cc. 13–16), our compiler returns to HpB at the point where he left off—exsoluerunt (see HpB p. 209 and above, p. 47). In picking up the regnal year, however, his eye seems to have missed Duodecimo anno and picked up Vndecimo anno (HpB p. 208, n. 5, and above, p. 46).

^{page 48 note 2} suscitauit … Christianorum : a conceit borrowed from Newburgh's account of the First Crusade (Newb. p. 25), of which the compiler is very fond. See also p. 19, n. 1 above and p. 204, n. 2 below.

^{page 49 note 1} I Peter v. 5. and James iv. 6.

^{page 49 note 2} euadentes and ad propria are from Newb.

^{page 49 note 3} Almaria : HpB as printed (p. 210) and as in Petyt MS. has the form Almade. Hunt. p. 281 has Almaria.

^{page 52 note 1} tunc … iuste: an awkward piece of compilation. This phrase represents a sentence in the source (Newb. p. 91) and is best understood in the light of it—Annis enim jam plurimis fere nudo regis nomine insignis, tunc recipere visus est hujus rem nominis, et quasi tunc primo regnare coepit : quia tune primo, purgata invasionis tyrannicae macula, legitimi principis justitiam induit. In its present form and position, a phrase introduced, but not woven, into the preceding sentence, it is obscure because its true character as an aside upon the word rex and not upon the word recepit is not apparent. It also obscures what is otherwise a simple antithetical sentence. The modern reader may in consequence miss, as the scribes of C and D1 missed, the antithesis between rex and Anglia.

^{page 53 note 1} William Fitzherbert (also called William of Thwayt), archbishop of York, was canonised in 1227. He never had more than local fame even after canonisation.

^{page 54 note 1} Though our compiler's divisions do not in general coincide with Newb.'s, his division between Book One and Book Two does in fact coincide. The form of explicit and incipit also is that of Newb. (pp. 96 and 101).

^{page 59 note 1} Matthew v. 10.

^{page 59 note 2} Cf. Matthew v. 11.

^{page 60 note 1} qui … meliorem: a digest of two whole pages of Newb. (pp. 123–5).

^{page 61 note 1} sc. finibus, unless indeed illis is nothing more than a corruption of Walliis (Newb. p. 145)

^{page 62 note 1} An extreme example of the compiler's fondness for the topical method. To bring Lincoln events together, he brings forward from Newb. p. 236 the appointment of Walter of Coutances as bishop in 1183, at the end of the seventeen years' vacancy. Post mortem regis in eodem anno must be understood in the light of the earlier part of Newb. Bk. III, chap. 8 (pp. 235–6), while, of course, the king referred to is the young Henry, son of Henry II.

^{page 63 note 1} Rests solely on the authority of Gale, A1.3. If β gave any reading at all it is perhaps more likely to have been Iterum than Item (see iterum in the text of the chapter).

^{page 63 note 2} What follows is actually the causes of an earlier quarrel (see Newb., vol. I, p. xxxvii and p. 158, n. 6), but the error is Newb's, not our compiler's, who merely copies his source.

^{page 64 note 1} qui: found only in Gale, A1 and almost certainly not in β, but retained for lack of authority for other, equally possible readings (e.g. et).

^{page 68 note 1} Although irrepturus makes sense, it is more likely to be a corruption of irrupturus (Newb. p. 178).

^{page 71 note 1} Psalm civ. 32.

^{page 72 note 1} Psalm lxxii. 17.

^{page 73 note 1} Vergil, Aeneid, II. 390 (Dolus an virtus, quis in hoste requirat ?).

^{page 74 note 1} The plural subject hostes requires confusi and redierunt, but these (see notes c and d) are emendations. The reading of β3 was hostes confusus … rediit, being the result of hasty compilation from two sentences in Newb. p. 194, confusus and rediit really agreeing with a suppressed subject praevaricator exercitus.

^{page 76 note 1} On this date see Newb. p. 203, n. 5. It will, however, be noticed that in Newb.'s reckoning sequenti vero anno (Newb. p. 203) would be 1176, so that our compiler merely follows his source.

^{page 76 note 2} Qui … archiepiscopos; An unsatisfactory sentence. But again the difficulty is one taken over from the source (Newb. p. 203 Qui cum … in concilio) and not one of our compiler's own making, though the turning of Newb.'s clause cum … convocasset into an ablative absolute renders the isolation of Qui even more pronounced.

^{page 77 note 1} The correct reading is quinto idus Martii (Newb. p. 206). What authority Gale (p. 506, note a) had for suggesting III. Non. Martis I do not know.

^{page 77 note 2} J decreta … xxxiij; our compiler thus passes over what is a separate chapter (Bk. III. cap. 3) in Newb. pp. 206–23. The words decreta … concilii, here given in the text, are the rubric of that chapter.

^{page 77 note 3} At these points chapter-divisions and rubrics are so uncertain that I have preferred the undivided text of manuscript B as more likely to be authentic. The variants of the individual manuscripts are given in notes h, k and l.

^{page 78 note 1} The compiler here omits a whole chapter (Bk. III. c, 6) of Newb. (pp. 228–32).

^{page 79 note 1} Note the redundancy between this and the two following rubrics (pp. 81 and 82 below).

^{page 79 note 2} Anno … arripuit; An attempt to summarise Newb. III. 10 (pp. 240–1) and an extraordinarily clumsy piece of work. Thus Saladin was the nephew of a lieutenant of, not the son of, Nureddin ‘ king of Syria and Mesopotamia ’. It follows that ‘ mortuo patre ’ in the next line is an error too : by ‘ patre ’ must be understood Nureddin himself. Again, ‘ filius regis ’ and ‘ fines eius cum vxore accepit’ (it is the wife of Nureddin that is meant) are obviously contradictory unless one assumes that Saladin married his mother or at best his step-mother ! Then there is ‘ non iam virga sed malleus ’. The whole point of this is lost in the summary. In the full text (Newb. p. 241) Nureddin is said to have been ‘ populo Christiano … virga furoris Domini ’ : where Nureddin had been a ‘ virga’, Saladin was a ‘ malleus ’. Finally, no hint is given that the greater part of this account is retrospective—an account of Saladin's consolidation of his position in the Muslim world prior, and necessarily prior, to his turning against the Christian foe in 1184 onwards. Thus Damascus was taken in 1174, but it was not until after his final victory over Nureddin's heir and conquest of his dominions at Aleppo in 1183 that Saladin directed his energies against the Christian States.

^{page 80 note 1} resistente … gratiam: adapted from I Peter v. 5 and James iv. 6.

^{page 81 note 1} milium has the authority of MSS. C and L of Newb. (p. 243, n. 3).

^{page 81 note 2} Isaiah v. 25.

^{page 81 note 3} recepit ends a chapter in the source, Newb. p. 244. But see above, p. 79, note 1.

^{page 81 note 4} The source, Newb. pp. 245–7, gives the whole text.

^{page 82 note 1} continuata … discordia: abstract of a passage Rex quoque … pullularent in Newb. (p. 247) which is used verbatim later (p. 83 below).

^{page 82 note 2} ab … secundi: note the impossibility of this statement.

^{page 83 note 1} The compiler here omits a chapter (Bk. III, c. 19) of Newb. (pp. 262–4). But it is woven in (in an abstracted form) two sentences later (tempore … fidelitate) and part of it is used verbatim at p. 104 below.

^{page 84 note 1} Psalm lxxix. 1.

^{page 84 note 2} a Jeremiah ix. 1.

^{page 85 note 1} Hosea iv. 1–2.

^{page 85 note 2} Matthew vi. 19.

^{page 85 note 3} Psalm lxxxv. 11.

^{page 85 note 4} Cf. Psalm xiv. 2 and Psalm liii. 3.

^{page 94 note 1} Eccles. viii. 4.

^{page 94 note 2} At this point the text of the source, Newb., is itself uncertain: for meaning, however, see Newb. p. 320 n. 1.

^{page 95 note 1} Cf. Benedict of Peterborough (ed. Stubbs, Rolls Series )II. 98 and Hoveden (ed. Stubbs Rolls series) III. 25.

^{page 97 note 1} Luke xvi. 13.

^{page 101 note 1} Cambria : Not in doubt as the reading of η (only MS. B reads Calabria and tha is by correction), but a corruption of Calabria (Newb. p. 347).

^{page 102 note 1} deferebat and Quo ille are consecutive in the source, Newb. p. 352.

^{page 102 note 2} maluerunt and cum gaudio (below) are from consecutive sentences in the source, Newb. p. 352.

^{page 102 note 3} The same story is told by Langtoft (Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, ed. Wright, Rolls Series 1866–8, II. 36–8). Hoveden (ed. Stubbs, III. 42–3) and his source, Benedict of Peterborough (ed. Stubbs, II. 116), give a different version.

^{page 103 note 1} On Augustinian interest in St. Thomas see J. C. Dickinson, The Origins of the Austin Canons (London, 1950), p. 254.

^{page 104 note 1} For the single sentence Rex Francorum … juvabat favoribus which Newb. p. 354 gives between emersit and Et. cum tandem … (below, p. 105) our compiler has substituted Marchio … infirmauit from Newb. pp. 262–6 and 349.

^{page 104 note 2} Above, p. 83.

^{page 105 note 1} hostilem and suimet quod (below) are consecutive in the source, Newb. p. 356.

^{page 105 note 2} Rex … propugnabat: Between this and Langtoft pp. 84–5 there is obviously a textual relationship.

^{page 106 note 1} seruabantur and Tunc (p. 108 below) are consecutive in the source, Newb. p. 356. 2

^{page 106 note 2} Ingressis … motus quidem et (below, p. 109) : There is obviously a textual relationship between this and Langtoft pp. 84–95.

^{page 108 note 1} Tune and seruabantur (p. 106 note 1 above) are consecutive in the source, Newb. P 356.

^{page 108 note 2} notam inurens (whence notam assumens) and estus causando (below) are consecutive in the source, Newb. p. 357.

^{page 109 note 1} Dicebatur … expleuerat : a rearrangement as well as an unusually free treatment of the source—Newb. p. 375 : Quippe illustris … discessum.

^{page 110 note 1} Another instance of abridgement resulting in error. For the full circumstances with regard to the archbishoprics of Canterbury and York at this time see the passage in the source with which this sentence is meant to correspond : Quod utique … hominem exuit (Newb. pp. 331–2).

^{page 111 note 1} Vergil, Aeneid, X. 640 (sine mente sonum).

^{page 112 note 1} Mark vi. 20.

^{page 112 note 2} vel occurs in some but not all manuscripts of Newb.: see Newb. p. 340 note 3.

^{page 113 note 1} esset is the reading of some but not all manuscripts of Newb.: see Newb. p. 342 note 3.

^{page 114 note 1} Prov. xxii. 10.

^{page 116 note 1} resistentes … eis multis : The same story is told by Langtoft, pp. 98–103.

^{page 119 note 1} Another instance of the compiler's preference for the topical method. Without indication of change of year, he anticipates Rex … preuaieret, given by his sources, a. 1195 (Newb. p. 459). Incidentally, his dependence on Newburgh for these events is shown by the fact that he too shows no knowledge of the end of the story—the events referred to in Newb. p. 459 note 4.

^{page 120 note 1} pacti … nisi. This is not in doubt as the reading of η : but one may question whether it is the original reading. The source, Newb. p. 376, has pacti sunt deditionem arcis ad certum diem nisi, and reddere in η may be an emendation and arcis an omission. The suggestion is that the pure text, could it be recovered, might be found to have kept faithfully to the source.

^{page 121 note 1} personis comitibus : thus η, redundant as it is. If the original reading was that of the source as printed (cum tribus tantum comitibus, Newb. p. 383), personis is the interpolation—though it should be added that Newb.'s narrative is based on a letter of the Emperor to the King of France and that the text of that letter given by the chronicler Hoveden has neither personis nor comitibus (rege cum tribus tantum versus Austriam properante noctu Hoveden III. 195).

^{page 122 note 1} qui querunt vtique te vt animam tuam perdant: our compiler's weakness for playing with words. The source, Newb. p. 383, has simply quaerentium animam tuam.

^{page 123 note 1} The compiler again anticipates a passage given by his source s.a. 1195 (Newb. p. 459 : Plures … delusit). Cf. above, p. 119, note 1.

^{page 123 note 2} Misit … occupauit: based on Denique … declaravit (Newb. p. 384).

^{page 126 note 1} residuum … absumeret : cf. Joel i. 4.

^{page 126 note 2} Newb. p. 404 has the bishop of Bath, not the bishop of Ely.

^{page 127 note 1} Et … agens : Langtoft pp. 114–15 has this detail.

^{page 127 note 2} Isaiah lxi. 3.

^{page 130 note 1} The subject of this sentence, though it is not clear because of the compiler's rearrangement of his source (Newb. pp. 421–2), is the archbishop of Lyons.

^{page 131 note 1} quoque : Rather pointless in its present context. For its original force one must turn to the source, Newb. p. 422 : … Porro temporibus regum priorum, Henrici quoque secundi … ; a good example of the compiler's sometimes hasty and slovenly abridgement.

^{page 134 note 1} The passages in Newb. p. 459 plures … delusit and Preterea … valeret are suppressed here s.a. 1195 by the compiler, as he had already used them at pp. 123 and 119 above.

^{page 135 note 1} The compiler, it will be noticed, has interchanged occuparat and vsurparat (Newb. pp. 462–3).

^{page 137 note 1} Jeremiah xxx. 14.

^{page 141 note 1} A medieval form of portendere.

^{page 142 note 1} Though Richard is at first a very irreverent Hezekiah to the archbishop's Isaiah, this is obviously a reminiscence of the biblical story (Isaiah xxxviii. 1) with medieval embroideries.

^{page 144 note 1} Secundo … vxores violauerat (below, p. 146) : There is a textual relationship between this and Langtoft pp. 126–9,

^{page 147 note 1} This is, in fact, John's renewal of submission of 3 October 1213 (Foedera I. i, p. 115), not his original submission of 15 May 1213 (op. cit., pp. 111–12).

^{page 147 note 2} Thus MSS. Foedera I. i, 115 : Tusculani.

^{page 148 note 1} cedat : Unquestionably the reading of η, but a corruption of cadat.

^{page 148 note 2} perdidit Normanniam … recuperaret : There is a textual relationship between this and Langtoft pp. 124–7.

^{page 149 note 1} Anno … Alexandro filio suo : There is a textual relationship between this and Langtoft pp. 130–1.

^{page 151 note 1} .xiiij.: Obviously an error, but in the source.

^{page 151 note 2} Error. The Fourth. Lateran Council was, of course, held in 1215.

^{page 152 note 1} suum : Unquestionably the reading of β, but a corruption of suam.

^{page 153 note 1} Luke xi. 17.

^{page 153 note 2} nobilitatem : Unquestionably the reading of β, but a corruption of mobilitatem.

^{page 154 note 1} On this legend and variants of it see Dict. of Nat. Biogr., s.n. ‘ John ’. A Latin Brut chronicle described in Hist. MSS. Comm. 3rd. Report App. p. 182 had the story in this form. The English Brut printed in F. W. D. Brie, The Brut or The Chronicle of England, Part I (to 1333), E.E.T.S. no. 131, London 1906, p. 169, attributes the death to poisoned ale. The earlier English Brut printed in E. Zettl, An Anonymous Short English Metrical Chronicle, E.E.T.S. no. 196, London 1935, pp. 42–3, attributes death to poisoned plums but is nearer than the others to our compiler's ‘ pear ’ version in that the poisoner is made to eat. In Brit. Mus. MS. Cotton Vitellius A. xiii. the story is illustrated.

^{page 156 note 1} Worcester is correct, but not certain as the reading of β. Langtoft too is divided between Worcester and Winchester (Langtoft p. 134). His translator (Langtoft p. 134 note 2) even makes it Westminster !

^{page 156 note 2} Psalm li (lii). 1.

^{page 157 note 1} Here, with Anno a plenitudine temporis quo misit deus filium suum in mundum M^o. CC^o. xvj^o : sublato d. m. r. J., Willelmus comes marescallus begins O3.

^{page 158 note 1} Ezekiel xviii. 20.

^{page 159 note 1} tyrannus ex Hyspania : Eustace the Monk. For the facts and the legend of this ‘ master-pirate’, as Matthew Paris calls him, see H. L. Cannon, ‘ The Battle of Sandwich and Eustace the Monk ’, Engl. Hist. Review, XXVII (1929), pp. 649–70. The Romance of Eustace (ed. Fr. Michel, Le Roman d'Eustache le Moine, Paris 1834, and Foerster and Trost, Wistasse le Moine, Halle 1891) was composed between 1223 and 1284. Michel (op. cit. p. xxii) would explain tyrannus ex Hyspania as a variant of the Romance, where Eustace, though not Spanish, went to Spain to learn magic.

^{page 162 note 1} Basically Magna Carta 1225 [Stat. of the Realm I (Charters), pp. 22–5] but conflated with M. C. 1217 [ibid. (Charters), pp. 17–19], though with some individual features (e.g. below, p. 168, note 3) : the whole composed, in its present chronicle-form, at least, late enough to incorporate a change in M.C. 1225 which was apparently first officially made in 1297 (see below, p. 163, note 1). It would appear to be a deliberate conflation. After the interposition of et hac presenti carta confirmauimus … baronum nostrorum Anglie from M.C. 1217 into the preamble (note 2, below,) the attestation Hiistestibus … Johanne de Baalun of M.C. 1225 is carefully omitted (below, p. 168, note 2). It is evidently very similar to, without being identical with, the text contained in Liber Niger, Christ Church, Dublin, fos. 162–81, and described by H. J. Lawlor in Engl. Hist. Review, XXII (1907), pp. 514–18. It is particularly noticeable that they both have the feature Datum per manum venerabilis patris nostri R. Dunelmensis episcopi cancellarii nostri, which is not found in any of the authenticated versions of Magna Carta 1215–25 or in 1297, but that in our chronicle-text it goes with the known and normal apud Westmonasterium .xj. die Februarii anno regni nostri nono of M.C. 1225 (see below, pp. 168–9).

^{page 162 note 2} et hac … baronum nostrorum Anglie : M.C. 1217.

^{page 163 note 1} The reduction in the relief for a barony from £100 to 100 marks first appears in authentic records of the Great Charter in the inspeximus of M.C. 1225 on 12 October, 1297 (Stat. of the Realm I, p. 114). A text (not necessarily official) of earlier date giving marks instead of pounds is printed in Stat. of the Realm I (Charters), pp. 28–31.

^{page 165 note 1} mittet : This is, of course, a corruption of mittemus (M.C., all versions).

^{page 168 note 1} Pro hac … et pro nullo habeatur : These clauses are characteristic of M.C. 1225.

^{page 168 note 2} The characteristic attestation of M.C. 1225, Hiis testibus … Johanne de Baalun at this point is not given.

^{page 168 note 3} per manum … cancellarii nostri : Not found in any of the authenticated texts, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1225 or the 1297 inspeximus, of Magna Carta. It is possibly modelled on M.C. 1216 [Stat. of the Realm I (Charters), p. 16 Datum per manus …] or the Forest Charter (not Magna Carta) of 1217 [ibid. (Charters), p. 21 Datum per manus], though, if so, it is noticeable that the explanation Quia vero sigillum nondum habuimus … of 1216 and 1217 alike [ibid. (Charters), pp. 16, 19 and 21] is not given. Richard Marsh was chancellor at the time of all the Charters, from 1214 to 1226. Is it possible that the conflation originated as a Chancery draft of M.C. 1225 ?

^{page 168 note 4} Richard Marsh (de Marisco), Chancellor 1214–26, bishop of Durham 2 July 1217–1 May 1226.

^{page 169 note 1} The place and date are those of M.C. 1225.

^{page 169 note 2} As with the Great Charter (above, p. 162, note 1), this is basically the Forest Charter of 1225 [Stat. of the Realm I (Charters), pp. 26–7] conflated with For. Ch. 1217 [ibid. (Charters), pp. 20–1]. It too would appear to be deliberately done. After the substitution of et hac presenti carta nostra confirmauimus … in regno nostro Anglie imperpetuum (For. Ch. 1217) for archiepiscopis … in regno nostro Anglie in perpetuum (For. Ch. 1225) in the preamble, the attestation Hiis testibus … Johanne de Baalun of For. Ch. 1225 is omitted (below, p. 172, note 2).

^{page 169 note 3} et hac … Anglie imperpetuum : For. Ch. 1217.

^{page 172 note 1} Pro hac … et pro nullo habeatur : These clauses are characteristic of For. Ch. 1225.

^{page 172 note 2} The characteristic attestation of For. Ch. 1225, Hiis testibus … Johanne de Baalun at this point is not given.

^{page 172 note 3} The place and date are those of For. Ch. 1225.

^{page 175 note 1} Above, p. 173.

^{page 175 note 2} Andegauie : A corruption of Anagnie (Reg. Innocent IV, ed. E, Berger, no. 8070).

^{page 176 note 1} Juvenal, Sat. vi. line 223 (hoc uolo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione uoluntas, ed. A. E. Housman, Cambr. 1931).

^{page 176 note 2} Edmundum … vxorem. Not written before 1275, the year of Edmund's marriage to the widowed Queen of Navarre. By that date he was already both E. of Leicester and E. of Lancaster : so Leycestrie would suggest a Leicester rather than Lancaster interest on the part of the writer.

^{page 179 note 1} mortalitas : a corruption of moralitas (Huillard-Bréholles, Historia Diplomatica Friderici Secundi, VI. 391). M. Paris (Chron. Maj. IV. 475) also is corrupt.

^{page 179 note 2} relinquimus … reges : relinquimus nobis potius alii reges, M. Paris (Chron. Maj., IV. 475 and MGH. SS. XXVIII. 269) ; relinquimus nobis potius christiani reges, Huillard-Bréholles, op. cit., VI. 391.

^{page 180 note 1} eos : Huillard-Bréholles, op. cit., VI. 392, eos ; M. Paris (Chron. Maj., IV. 476 and MGH. SS. XXVIII. 269), nos.

^{page 181 note 1} The rest of this text is considerably modified compared with that given by Huillard-Bréholles, op. cit., VI. 392–3 and M. Paris (Chron. Maj., IV. 476–7 and MGH. SS. XXVIII. 270).

^{page 183 note 1} Error. 36 Hen. III was 28 Oct. 1251–27 Oct. 1252. The king was absent on this expedition from 6 Aug. 1253 to 27 Dec. 1254.

^{page 181 note 2} Anno … Eboracum .x^o. kalendas Augusti : Instead of this sentence concerning the Northern province, Oi has one on St. Richard of Chichester (fo. 362 : Eodem obiit sanctus Ricardus cicestrensis episcopus pro quo dominus noster miracula operatur).

^{page 184 note 1} Error. Richard of Cornwall was crowned 17 May 1257.

^{page 184 note 2} Anno … M^o.CC^o.lxj^o. : I have preferred the reading of Gale etc., in spite of their mistake about the death of Alexander IV (who died 25 May 1261), as to accept that of C, etc., would involve acceptance in the very next sentence of the more flagrant error (in an English chronicle) of the year 1261 for the Treaty of Paris (see note d).

^{page 184 note 3} toto … appellauit : Error. A new Great Seal dropping the title Duke of Normandy was made and in use within twenty days of the completion of the Treaty of Paris (R. F. Treharne, The Baronial Plan of Reform, 1258–1263, Manchester 1932, p. 213, note).

^{page 185 note 1} The comparison with Simon Maccabeus is made also by the unknown author of the office in honour of Simon de Montfort printed in G. W. Prothero, Life of Simon de Montfort (London 1877) App. IV. from Cambr. Univ. Libr. MS. Kk. 4. 20, a thirteenth–fourteenth century manuscript of the Summa Raymundi which in the fourteenth century belonged to Norwich Cathedral Library. The office is written on the last leaf but one of the codex and, according to H. Bradshaw, is in a hand “ of the time of Edward I, or thereabouts ”.

^{page 186 note 1} Statuerunt … in libro hoc : R. F. Treharne, Baronial Plan of Reform (Manchester 1932), pp. 80 and 159, has a discerning criticism of this passage. Very probably, as he suggests, much in it is antedated.

^{page 187 note 1} Videntes … inceperant : see Treharne as referred to above p. 186, n. 1.

^{page 187 note 2} i.e. the earls and barons, see p. 185 above.

^{page 188 note 1} From this point to sibi (p. 207, note 1) all extant manuscripts have been collated. The variants printed are no more than a fraction of those obtained.

^{page 188 note 2} Here, with Reversisque, O₄ (in its present condition) begins.

^{page 189 note 1} The Dunstable annalist also attributes the fall of Northampton to Cluniac treachery (Ann. Monast., III. 229). St. Andrew's Priory, Northampton, was a house of Cluniacs.

^{page 190 note 1} On this story see F. M. Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward (Oxford, 1947), App. F.

^{page 193 note 1} Here, with est, O₂ (in its present condition) begins. The present foliation begins 147, but an earlier foliation reads 148 and according to an earlier one still, which becomes visible as xlij on the present fo. 150, fo. 147 was originally xxxix. In the margin of fo. 147, in a hand which from the mention of Gale's edition cannot be earlier than 1687, Fragmentum Chronici Walteri Hemingford, Canonici Gisburnensis, invenias usque ad mortem Henrici 3. inter Scriptores Hist: Anglic: vol: II. edit: Oxon: 1687. Also in margin, in a somewhat earlier hand, Chron. Osneiense.

^{page 194 note 1} See pp. 188–9 above.

^{page 196 note 1} The battle of Lewes was fought on 14 May 1264, not on St. Dunstan's Day, 19 May.

^{page 197 note 1} P. 189 above.

^{page 198 note 1} For this escape see F. M. Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward, pp. 497–8.

^{page 199 note 1} minuti sanguine vene is not in doubt as the reading of β. Muniti sanguine vineae, adopted by Hamilton from Gale without comment, is peculiar to Gale. We have no means of knowing whether or not there too it is editorial, i.e. Gale's own, an emendation of his source. However that may be, it cannot now be accepted. There is no need to emend minuti.

^{page 204 note 1} Here, with the word Marlebrig’ (so far as the Guisborough chronicle text is concerned —see above, note g), O1, in its present condition, ends.

^{page 204 note 2} This passage, on the compiler's fondness for which see above, p. 19, note 1 and p. 48, note 2, is mutatis mutandis Newb.'s introduction to the First Crusade.

^{page 205 note 1} Error. The grant was of a twentieth, not a thirtieth.

^{page 205 note 2} Count Aldobrandini Rosso dell’ Anguillara. The chronicler Wykes names him as one of the murderers (Ann. Monast., ed. Luard, IV. 241 : comite Rufo cujus filiam duxerat—with which compare the Guisborough chronicler's phrasing) : the related Osney annalist (Ann. Monast., IV. 243) does not. It will be noticed, however, that while Wykes and Osney alike mention Simon (the Younger) as well as Guy de Montfort, the Guisborough chronicler does not.

^{page 207 note 1} With sibi I have ceased to collate all the extant manuscripts (see above, p. 188 note 1) and have reverted to the collation of Gale, A1.3, B.C, D1 (supported where helpful by D2,E1. Knighton and O group manuscripts) as the basis of the edition.

^{page 214 note 1} Richard de Mepham, dean of Lincoln 1273– (Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, p. 144).

^{page 215 note 1} Error. John XXI (1276–7) did not immediately succeed Gregory X (1271–6). The compiler ignores the two short pontificates of Innocent V and Adrian V in the year 1276.

^{page 215 note 2} eum ; clearly not in β and must (like ipsum Lewelinum in O4) have come into A1.3 as a correction, but clearly required by the sense.

^{page 216 note 1} The ‘ rusty sword ’ story here given by C.O2.3.4 and told of the Earl Warenne is given in B s.a. 1295 (below, p. 259, note j) and is told of the Earl of Gloucester, but as a marginal addition in a hand later than that of B itself. Clearly the whole story in either version and under either date is an interpolation and has the air of later popular legend.

^{page 217 note 1} Apparently reminiscent of both Song of Solomon vi. 11 (Vulg. vi. 10) and Ezra vii. 14.

^{page 218 note 1} The foregoing two sentences, which the manuscripts of the O group alone have preserved in full, are at once a demonstration of the soundness of our filiation (notes e–j) and of the need for the editor of the chronicle to include O group manuscripts where possible in his collation.

^{page 219 note 1} Between malicia and Rex (see below, p. 221, note 1) the readings of O2 are not available for collation, as between fo. 156^v and fo. 157^r in the present foliation one folio is missing from O2. This folio was missing before the earlier foliation (see above, p. 193, note 1), which, though entered after 150 at only every tenth folio (150, 160, 170, 180), is complete. It was not missing, however, when the earliest foliation (Roman numerals) was made.

^{page 219 note 2} per: Clearly not in β and must have come into A1.3 as a correction.

^{page 219 note 3} Errors in this account are corrected by J. E. Morris, The Welsh Wars of Edward the First (Oxford, 1901), pp. 179–80.

^{page 220 note 1} Orewyn : In the view of J. E. Lloyd (History, N.S. XIII, 1928–9, p. 56) this is nothing more than a corruption of Irfon.

^{page 221 note 1} With Rex the collation of O2 is resumed. See p. 219, note 1 above.

^{page 222 note 1} Martin IV died, and Honorius IV was elected, in 1285 not 1283. The mistake is made in the Continuation of Martinus Polonus upon which the compiler appears to have drawn at pp. 223, 228, 239, 355, 356 and 363 below, and of which an exemplar survives in Lambeth Palace Library MS. no. 22.

^{page 222 note 2} Epiphany I fell on 9 January in 1284.

^{page 222 note 3} The translation of the remains of St. William and the consecration of Bek did in fact take place on the same day, 9 January 1284 (Reg. Wickwane, Surtees Soc, no. 114, p. x, and Letters from Northern Registers, ed. Raine, Rolls Series 1873, pp. 80–1, corrected by Reg. Wickwane, p. 294, n. 4).

^{page 223 note 1} regem. Not in doubt as the reading of β, but clearly corrupt for reges.

^{page 223 note 2} Suo being more readily explicable as an omission by A1.2.3,D1,E1 than as an interpolation by B,C,O2.3.4, some such phrase as this seems required, although there is no manuscript authority for it.

^{page 224 note 1} While et would appear to have been the reading of β, it is clearly a corruption of ut. Equally clearly, however, O,O2.3.4, which here are pure, are corrupt immediately afterwards in omitting eo quod.

^{page 224 note 2} On 2 June, 1292. For official record see Studies in Medieval History presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke, ed. Hunt, Pantin and Southern (Oxford, 1948), p. 296, note 2.

^{page 224 note 3} burdice : a tournament. Cf. N.E.D., s.v. ‘ bourdis ’.

^{page 225 note 1} A medieval form of trabes.

^{page 227 note 1} After arida readings from C are not available until tarn (p. 232, note 1 below) as a number of folios (probably two) are wanting between what are now fo. 78^v and fo. 79 of C. O2.4 have been collated instead.

^{page 227 note 2} est : clearly not in β and must have come into A1.2.3 and O3.4 as a correction, but clearly required by the sense.

^{page 229 note 1} Retaciati : Retaciare appears to be a backformation from the French rechasser, to repel, repulse. It is used again in this sense on p. 246 below. The Continuation of Martinus Polonus in Lambeth Palace Library MS. 22 has repulsi.

^{page 230 note 1} recuperari … conseruari : The compiler would appear to have had already in mind the wording of the document which he gives on pp. 231–2 below. Cf. below, p. 232, recuperari … conseruari.

^{page 232 note 1} With tam the collation of C is resumed. See p. 227, note 1, above.

^{page 233 note 1} ducis : obviously wrong, but not in doubt as the reading of β.

^{page 235 note 1} A French text, which appears to give the actual words of Brabazon's speech, survives in Glasgow University Library MS. BE 10 y 3 fo. 4^V, and the chronicler's account (save for the opening Cum in libro … opprimentis, which would appear to have no documentary authority) is an exact and almost complete rendering of it into Latin, much nearer it than is the Latin version of John of Caen's Great Roll printed in Foedera, I. ii (London, 1816), p. 762. I am much indebted to Dr. E. L. G. Stones for this information and for his generosity in allowing me to use it before its publication in a forthcoming book of his, in which the whole text of the Glasgow manuscript will appear.

^{page 235 note 2} A … xix^o (below, þ. 237) : With these texts compare Bain, Cal. of Documents relating to Scotland, II, p. 122 (no. 503). Has … xix^o, and especially sub sigillo privato, on p. 237 below, show that the compiler had before him and worked directly from transcripts and a covering writ (whether addressed to Guisborough priory or not) of the type of Bain no. 503, not of Bain no. 504, which was a covering writ warranted by writ of p.s. but itself sealed with the exchequer seal. The texts of the Lewes Priory writ and enclosures (Bain no. 504) are partly printed by Palgrave, Documents and Records illustrating the History of Scotland, I (1837), pp. 137–8 (no. XLI) ; the Furness abbey writ and enclosures (also of Bain no. 504 type) are printed in full in Chronicles of … Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. Howlett, Rolls series, vol. 2, pp. 576–8. Hamilton (II. 34–7) states that his text is based not on the manuscripts of the chronicle but on “ the Originals in the Chapter House ”—which should mean those calendared by Bain no. 503. From one or other of these sources we have the means of checking the compiler's textual accuracy. Here as elsewhere in the present edition documents are printed not from originals, but as preserved by the chronicle and from the manuscripts of the chronicle itself.

^{page 238 note 1} From this point the basic narrative (as distinct from the documents) of Anglo-Scottish relations 1291–1300, i.e. pp. 238–9, 264–84, 294–305, 313–15 and 323–4 below, is textually related to that printed by J. Stevenson in Wallace Papers (Maitland Club, 1841), pp. 29 ff. from Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 3860, fos. 19–22. These folios, written in an early fourteenth-century hand, follow in Harl. 3860 a short history from Brutus to the death of Henry III and a Genealogy of the English and Scottish kings from the Conqueror to Edward I and from Malcolm III to Balliol respectively.

^{page 240 note 1} Normannia. Not in doubt as the reading of β, but clearly corrupt for Normanniam.

^{page 240 note 2} An error. It was in fact the Seine estuary they entered (La Roncière, Hist, de la marine française, I. 328, n. 3).

^{page 241 note 1} Whatever the reading of β, it was probably a corruption of locumque. Cf. certos diem et locum three sentences before.

^{page 244 note 1} y is, of course, the rune þ Thorn (hard th) not y.

^{page 244 note 2} Macau, dep. Gironde, arr. Bordeaux.

^{page 244 note 3} Blaye, dep. Gironde.

^{page 245 note 1} Rions, arr. Bordeaux.

^{page 245 note 2} Correctly Sanctum Ciuerum at pp. 247 and 263 below. St. Sever-sur-l'Adour, dep. Landes.

^{page 246 note 1} retaciati : see above, p. 229, note 1.

^{page 246 note 2} Podensac, arr. Bordeaux, on R. Gironde.

^{page 247 note 1} Below, p. 252.

^{page 247 note 2} Above, p. 245.

^{page 251 note 1} The complete accuracy of this description of Madoc and the debated question of his identity are established by J. G. Edwards in Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, XIII, Part 4 (1950), pp. 207–10. His name was Madog ap Llywelyn ap Maredudd and he was, it appears, a fifth cousin of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, Prince of Wales.

^{page 251 note 2} Denbigh.

^{page 251 note 3} It is tempting to read Caernarvon. But all that is in fact known is that Edward crossed the Conway ut ulterius progrederetur in Walliam (Trivet, Annales, ed. Hog, p. 335) and his Wardrobe Accounts seem to imply that he went in the direction of Bangor (J. G. Edwards, ‘ The Battle of Maes Madog and the Welsh Campaign of 1294–5 ’, Engl. Hist. Review, XXXIX, 1924, p. 4, n. 4).

^{page 252 note 1} Above, p. 247.

^{page 253 note 1} Hydam (Hythe, co. Kent) : d is, of course, originally the rune ð (soft th) not d.

^{page 253 note 2} Romney, co. Kent.

^{page 253 note 3} fugierunt. Not in doubt as the reading of β, but clearly corrupt for fugerunt.

^{page 253 note 4} The reading of β, but corrupt for ad ea (Hamilton, II, p. 63, text and note 3).

^{page 254 note 1} Claris nominis regii Hamilton, II. 64 (cf. ibid., 63, n. 3).

^{page 254 note 2} attentius add. Hamilton, II. 64 (cf. ibid., 63, n. 3).

^{page 254 note 3} plenisque fuisti favoribus Hamilton, II. 64 (cf. ibid., 63, n. 3).

^{page 254 note 4} attentius add. Hamilton, II. 65 (cf. ibid., 63, n. 3).

^{page 256 note 1} benigne add. Hamilton, II. 65 (cf. ibid., 63, n. 3).

^{page 256 note 2} prout Hamilton, II. 65 (cf. ibid., 63, n. 3).

^{page 256 note 3} profligato Hamilton, II. 65 (cf. ibid., 63, n. 3).

^{page 256 note 4} .xj^O. Hamilton, II. 66 (cf. ibid., 63, n. 3).

^{page 256 note 5} From the prayer for the peace of the Church in the Latin psalter.

^{page 256 note 6} II Maccabees i. 4.

^{page 256 note 7} Psalm lxxxv. 8.

^{page 257 note 1} Apparently a reference to the narrative given above, pp. 240–8, s.a. 1293.

^{page 258 note 1} Not in doubt as the reading and punctuation of β, but seemingly corrupt. Both numo for immo (the text printed by Hearne, I. 66) and the addition of impleuerunt (B) are attempts at emendation. It is, however, by no means clear what the original reading can have been. The full stop and enim may be interpolations and Sed … multa may be one sentence, not two (… vacuantes ex vnoquoque capitulo …). More likely perhaps, something (not necessarily impleuerunt, or only impleuerunt)is missing after vacuantes.

^{page 258 note 2} The Norwich chronicler, Bartholomew Cotton, preserves the papal grants. Cotton, ed. Luard, Rolls Series, pp. 283–92.

^{page 259 note 1} Above, pp. 238–9.

^{page 259 note 2} Error. The only s. and h. of Gilbert de Clare, the sixth Earl of Gloucester, and Joan of Acre was named Gilbert (G.E.C., V. 712).

^{page 260 note 1} The dating, 15 June 1298, is perfectly accurate (Archbishop John le Romeyn's Register II, Surtees Soc. vol. no. 128, pp. xxxix–xli).

^{page 261 note 1} Langon, dep. Gironde, arr. Bazas.

^{page 261 note 2} Saint-Macaire, dep. Gironde, arr. La Réole.

^{page 262 note 1} Peyrehorade, inland from Bayonne, dep. Landes.

^{page 264 note 1} See above, p. 238, note 1.

^{page 265 note 1} See below, p. 269, note 2.

^{page 268 note 1} See below, p. 269, note 2, and Foedera, I. ii. 823 (Latin and French).

^{page 269 note 1} Item …. predicto : See below, note 2, and Foedera, I. ii. 822 (Latin and French). It will be noticed that the second Datum, though awkward after Datum apud Stryuelin, is warranted by Foedera, I. ii. 831, though the point can be seen more clearly in the text as printed by Hamilton, II. 87, n. 2.

^{page 269 note 2} Philippus (above, p. 265) … predicto : This is clearly the text printed in Foedera, I. ii. 830–1.

^{page 269 note 3} Vniversis … anno etc. : An abstract of Foedera, I. ii. 831 (French).

^{page 269 note 4} Above, p. 259.

^{page 270 note 1} Between eius and uoluerit (see p. 304, note 2 below) the readings of C are not available for collation, as between fo. 93^v and fo. 94^r in the present foliation a gathering (probably of 12 folios) is missing from C in its present state. Fo. 93^v ends (after eius) with the catchword vel preceptis.

^{page 270 note 2} Error. The castles and towns to be surrendered in the agreement of 16 October 1295, were Berwick, Roxburgh and Jedburgh (Foedera, I. ii. 829).

^{page 271 note 1} quatuor : .v. MS. Harl. 3860, fo. 18^v (see above, p. 238, note 1).

^{page 271 note 2} triginta : .lx^ta.MS. Harl. 3860, fo. 18^v (see above, p. 238, note 1).

^{page 271 note 3} Pressen, co. Northumberland, near Wark-on-Tweed.

^{page 273 note 1} Arthuret, co. Cumberland. Cf. Bain, vol. II (1272–1307), no. 208.

^{page 273 note 2} Cf. loc. cit. (pp. 63–4).

^{page 275 note 1} .xxi. is clearly correct, but .xxx. is not in doubt as the reading of β.

^{page 276 note 2} Hexham.

^{page 277 note 1} Jedburgh

^{page 277 note 2} Redesdale.

^{page 277 note 3} Harbottle, in Coquetdale, co. Northumberland.

^{page 277 note 4} Coquetdale.

^{page 277 note 5} Lambley, co. Northumberland, a house of Benedictine nuns. (“ Certain authorities have considered it possible that this house was Augustinian.” Knowles and Hadcock, Med. Relig. Houses of Engl. and Wales, London, 1953, p. 213.)

^{page 279 note 1} Perth.

^{page 281 note 1} Moray.

^{page 281 note 2} Above, p, 239.

^{page 282 note 1} Supplied from the common form of these submissions, e.g. Palgrave, Documents and Records illustrating the History of Scotland, I, nos. XLIV, XCVII, XCVIII, etc. and Foedera, I. ii. 844. The words are clearly required to complete the sense and to complete the contrast (indicated by Quidam etiam qui ad fidem ipsius semper fuerant p. 283 below) with sumes e toutz iours auoms este at p. 283 below. Also, in the Latin text of the submission given by Trivet Annales (ed. Hog), p. 350, the sense is complete (venimus.)

^{page 282 note 2} Similarly supplied from the common form. See preceding note.

^{page 282 note 3} This and the following document are in large measure identical. At some point, presumably by error of the eye and possibly here after Euangels, a scribe at least as early as the common source of O2.3.4. has jumped from one document to the other. The effect of the conflation is that O2.3.4 omit Eystre ceo (p. 282) … Euaungels (p. 283 below). Because of the missing folios of C (see p. 270, note 1 above), it cannot be known whether the conflation existed in C as well as O2.3.4 and so occurred even earlier, at least as early as the common source of C.O2.3.4.

^{page 282 note 4} Supplied from the common form of these submissions e.g. Palgrave, Documents and Records, I, nos. XLVI and XCVIII, and clearly required by the sense.

^{page 282 note 5} Similarly supplied and required by the sense.

^{page 282 note 6} Hamilton, II. 110, n. 5, asserts that the chronicler has at this point omitted E leaument reconustray e leaument frai les services qi apartenent as tenemens qe jeo cleym tenir de luy.The clause is not in fact found in all submissions, e.g. that of the men of Rokesburgh and Perth (Palgrave, Documents and Records, I, no. XCVIII).

^{page 282 note 7} Supplied from the common form of the submissions, e.g. Palgrave, Documents and Records, I, nos. XLVI and XCVIII.

^{page 285 note 1} While capitaneos was clearly the reading of β, equally clearly it was a corruption of capitanei.

^{page 287 note 1} Above (page 264, note e), as the scribes of O2.3.4 have realised, not below.

^{page 288 note 1} Romans xv. 7.

^{page 290 note 1} See, however, Engl. Hist. Review, LX (1945), p. 25, n. 4.

^{page 290 note 2} See below, p. 308, note 2.

^{page 290 note 3} 1 August. This date is in fact the date given in writs of 17 May 1297 (Parl. Writs, I, pp. 283–4, nos. 9 and 11) to those coming from Ireland. Others were summoned (ibid., pp. 281–5, nos. 5–8, 10 and 12) for 7 July or as soon as possible after that.

^{page 293 note 1} Error. In August 1297 the king moved from Westminster towards Winchelsey where he took ship for Flanders on the 22nd.

^{page 294 note 1} Below, p. 315.

^{page 294 note 2} See above, p. 238, note 1.

^{page 295 note 1} Above, p. 275.

^{page 296 note 1} ville sancti Johannis : Perth.

^{page 297 note 1} Here, after su … n … t, with the remaining two ruled lines of the folio (fo. 171^v) left blank, the Nat. Libr. Scotland MS. 33.5.3 portion of B ends. In the bottom margin. in a casing the word Finis with decoration. The casing seems to be in the ink of the original scribe, but Finis and the decoration are later and are upon an erasure, which, so far as it is still legible, could have been Quidam Scottorum.

^{page 297 note 2} With Quidam the Brit. Mus. MS. Cotton Vespas. A ix portion of B begins—on what is now foliated as fo. 122, but previously fo. 156 and originally fo. 172, i.e. Cott. Vesp. A. ix was originally foliated continuously with N.L.S., 33.5.3. From now on references to B are, of course, to Cott. Vesp. A. ix, not to N.L.S. 33.5.3.

^{page 298 note 1} An allusion to Judges xvi.9

^{page 299 note 1} Above, p. 293.

^{page 300 note 1} Cf. p. 298 above.

^{page 302 note 1} A rich living in the archdeaconry of Cleveland. The advowson belonged in 1299 to Nicholas de Meynil (Reg. Winchelsey, Cant. & York Soc., p. 987). The charter (Guisborough Chartulary, vol. 2, Surtees Soc. 89, no. MCX, p. 298 ; re-edited Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, ii, no. 800) referred to in Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, p. 153, under “ Scarth ” appears to have had no effect, but Guisborough priory had other properties in the vicinity and was, in any case, in close touch with the Meynil and other families of the district.

^{page 303 note 1} polles : cf. Scott. Hist. Rev. xxvi (1947), 189–90.

^{page 304 note 1} Rothbury, co. Northumberland.

^{page 304 note 2} With uoluerit the collation of C is resumed. See above, p. 270, note 1.

^{page 307 note 1} The churches of Annandale were part of the Brus endowment of Guisborough priory. Cf. Guisborough Chartulary, Surtees Soc., II. pp. 340–52 ; Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, II. (1915), Brus fee ; and Cal. Pat. Rolls 1324–27, p. 298.

^{page 308 note 1} Above, p. 291.

^{page 308 note 2} This, it will be noticed, is the figure given earlier in the year—above, p. 290. The same figure occurs twice on p. 315 below.

^{page 308 note 3} Here, with the word absque, O2 (in its present condition) ends.

^{page 309 note 1} Both Archbishop Winchelsey's register (Reg. Winch., ed. R. Graham, Cant. & York Soc., pp. 201 and 207) and the royal record (Stat. Realm, I., Rec. Comm. 1810, p. 123) have aver, not auoms.

^{page 309 note 2} Winchelsey's register (Reg. Winch., pp. 202 and 208) and the royal record (Stat. Realm, I. 123) alike have de, not a.

^{page 309 note 3} poynz … a lower : Thus MSS. and thus β, but en pledaunt and serrunt cover an omission. They are in reality early emendations (at least as early as β) of a text which earlier than β, had already (after poynz) accidentally omitted E a nos justices viscountes maires e as autres ministres qi les leys dela terre desouz nous e par nous unt a guyer memes les chartres en touz leur poinz [Reg. Winch. 202 and 208 and Stat. Realm, I. 123, which then read enpledex (empledz Reg. Winch., 208 ; en plez Stat. Realm, 123) devaunt eus, not en pledaunt. and les facent alower, not serrunt a lower].

^{page 310 note 1} defez ; the reading of Stat. Realm, I. 123, and Reg. Winch., p. 208 (5 Nov. Ghent). Reg. Winch., p. 202 (10 Oct., London) reads nuls.

^{page 310 note 2} Winchelsey's register (Reg. Winch., pp. 202 and 208) and the royal record (Stat. Realm, I. 123) alike have celes, not les.

^{page 310 note 3} en la forme auantdite : neither Winchelsey's register (Reg. Winch., pp. 202 and 209) nor the royal record (Stat. Realm, I. 123) gives this phrase at this point.

^{page 310 note 4} en la forme auandite : the reading of Stat. Realm, I. 123 and Reg. Winch., p. 209 (5 Nov., Ghent). Reg. Winch., p. 202 (10 Oct., London) reads sicome est ordine.

^{page 310 note 5} memes celes : a corruption of mes teles (Reg. Winch., pp. 202 and 209, and Stat. Realm, I. 123).

^{page 310 note 6} eydes mises ne prises is the order of Stat. Realm, I. 123, and Reg. Winch., p. 209 (5 Nov., Ghent). Reg. Winch., p. 202 (10 Oct., London) has aydes prises ne mises.

^{page 310 note 7} teus maners : Reg. Winch., pp. 202 and 209, and Stat. Realm, I. 123 alike read tieu manere.

^{page 311 note 1} eydes mises is the order of Stat. Realm, I. 123, and Reg. Winch., p. 209 (5 Nov., Ghent). Reg. Winch., p. 202 (10 Oct., London) has mises aydes.

^{page 311 note 2} Winchelsey's register (Reg. Winch., pp. 202 and 209) and the royal record (Stat. Realm, I. 123) alike read dues, not donez.

^{page 311 note 3} After communaute Winchelsey's register (Reg. Winch., pp. 202 and 209) and the royal record (Stat. Realm, I. 124) give du realme.

^{page 311 note 4} a lur prier is given by Stat. Realm, I. 124, and Reg. Winch., p. 209 (5 Nov., Ghent), but not by Reg. Winch., p. 203 (10 Oct., London).

^{page 311 note 5} Reg. Winch., pp. 203 and 209, and Stat. Realm, I. 124, alike read prendroms, not enprendroms.

^{page 311 note 6} T[esmoigne] … quinte : It will be noticed that this is the attestation of 10 October, London (Reg. Winch., p. 203, and Stat. Realm, I. 124), not the Donnees … of 5 November, Ghent (Reg. Winch., p. 209, and Stat. Realm, I, Charters, p. 37), but that the chronicler's text gives le an … quinte, like Stat. Realm, I. 124, but unlike Reg. Winch., p. 203. There are other instances of the chronicler's text agreeing with Stat. Realm, I. 123–4, when this differs from Reg. Winch., pp. 201–3. See above, pp. 310, notes 1, 4 and 6 ; 311, notes 1 and 4.

^{page 311 note 7} The chronicler is misinformed. The great seal went, in fact, with the kingto Flanders (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1292–1301, pp. 306 and 335, and, for the disposition of the seals at this time, English Historical Review, lx. 1945, p. 308 and p. 177).

^{page 313 note 1} See above, p. 238, note 1.

^{page 315 note 1} Above, p. 294.

^{page 319 note 1} It is remarkable that after firmanda the scribe of D2 (which is a sixteenth-century transcript) left the rest of the folio (fo. 112^v) blank and began a new folio (numbered dicimus 113⁰.) with Et rex francie. A hand, which may or may not be the same hand but which is of much the same date, has written in the top margin of the new folio Hec sequentia non habentur in quodam alio Exemplari. Though this is remarkably close to the end of A group (see next note) the break, it will be noticed, occurs after firmanda and not after Francie. Nor is there any textual reason to associate D2 with A group except through β. D2 belongs quite clearly, before and after this break, to the same tradition as D1 and E1. D1 and E1 show no such break.

^{page 319 note 2} Here with the word Francie A 1.2.3 end. In A1 Francie is followed by Finito libro sit laus et gloria Christo and Manus scriptoris salventur omnibus horis ; in A2, by etc. and Explicit Cronica ; in A3 (in a post-medieval hand) by Plura desunt.

^{page 319 note 3} eadem … Volumus : Thus β but should read and be punctuated eadem. Que ut valida sint et firma, volumus as Foedera, I. ii (Rec. Com., London, 1816), p. 895.

^{page 320 note 1} existentia : corruption of extantia (Foedera, I. ii. 895).

^{page 320 note 2} regi : corruption of rege (loc. cit.).

^{page 320 note 3} sicut : corruption of si quis (Foedera, I. ii. 895).

^{page 323 note 1} See above, p. 238, note 1.

^{page 330 note 1} Eodem … Baptiste : This is probably an interpolation, but its presence in B as well as in D1.2, E1 makes it likely to have been present at least as early as β. Whether in β it was already assimilated to the text (as in B) or was in the margin (as in D2,E1) cannot be determined. In either case its place, it would seem, is s.a. 1298. The writ of diem clausit extremum (Cal. Fine Rolls, I. 424) is dated 4 December, 28 Edw. I, i.e. 4 December 1299, and .xiij. (or .xviij.) kalendas Marcii a.d. 1299 would fall into the chronicler's year 1298. To give Eodem … Baptiste (as does D1) s.a. 1299 of the chronicle would be to date the death after the writ of diem clausit extremum ! D1 is explicable on the reasonable assumption that its source possessed the features of D2,E1 (see note k). Eodem … Baptiste s.a. 1299 of the chronicle would then be no more than a misplaced assimilation.

^{page 331 note 1} Conjectural. MSS. readings are Gysburne (B),—which we may take as an interpretation of nos or a misinterpretation of nes—and nes (Nes D1 ; nes D2,E1). We are left to decide between nos and nes, the uncertainty being the vowel. On general grounds nos seems more likely than nes, especially as the weight of evidence is for nes rather than Nes. On the other hand, there is a place-name Ness in the North Riding of Yorkshire (East Ness and West Ness in Ryedale, some five or six miles downstream from Helmsley). Nor would nos, of course, in an interpolated passage such as this appears to be, necessarily refer to Guisborough.

^{page 333 note 1} Dion. Catonis Distich., i. 29.

^{page 334 note 1} Continui fili : properly, of course, Scimus fili. For this and other corruptions the chronicle text may be compared with the text of the bull printed from the original in Foedera, I. ii. 907.

^{page 346 note 1} Job x. 12.

^{page 346 note 2} Jubileum : a corruption of Biblieñ (Bibliensem). The presence on this occasion of Fr. Hugh, bishop of Byblos, is confirmed by Records of Antony Bek, ed. C. M. Fraser (Surtees Soc, CLXII, 1953), no. 67.

^{page 346 note 3} Here with the words tot habeatis on fol. 200 (original foliation) of MS. Cotton Vespas. A. ix the text of the Guisborough chronicle in B ends (in the margin in a later, fifteenth or sixteenth-century, hand finitur cron[ica]). Immediately afterwards, with only a new line and initial I, the scribe (there is no change of hand) has transcribed : In vita beati Augustini Anglorum Episcopi (afterwards expunged and Apostoli interlineated in a later but medieval hand) de Decimis 7 excommunicacione. Est vicus in paco Herfordensi sex miliaribus distans a loco qui dicitur Wdeslixi Emmetona nomine. Quo cum beatus (etc.).

^{page 349 note 1} extra : a corruption of ecclesia. The reference is to the Sext of Boniface VIII, Bk. III, Tit. 20 De censibus, exactionibus et procurationibus, cap. 1 Romana ecclesia (Corpus Juris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, II, 1056).

^{page 351 note 1} Above, p. 222.

^{page 352 note 1} On this transaction see Foedera, I. ii. 940, and F. M. Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward, II. 705–6.

^{page 354 note 1} Above, p. 315.

^{page 354 note 2} i.e. Sicilie.

^{page 355 note 1} Above, p. 353.

^{page 356 note 1} Benedict XI died within nine months of his election.

^{page 359 note 1} responsurus : not in doubt as the reading of β, but responsurum (O3) is clearly correct.

^{page 359 note 2} Cf. Parl. Writs, I. 407 (no. 58), where, however, the enrolment names four commissioners for Yorkshire.

^{page 359 note 3} Properly Friton (not Riton) in the wapentake of Ridale, N.R. (Parl. Writs, I. 407). This is confirmed by Feudal Aids, VI. 63, 174.

^{page 360 note 1} Not in doubt as the reading of β, but would appear to be a corruption of conduccionem, and such is the reading of Parl. Writs, I. 407 (no. 58), as well as of C.

^{page 360 note 2} Not in doubt as the reading of β, but is a corruption of recipiant (Parl. Writs, I. 407, no. 58).

^{page 361 note 1} Not in doubt as the reading of β, but is a corruption of custodiri (Parl. Writs, I. 407, no. 58).

^{page 362 note 1} Named in the writ of trailbaston on p. 359 above.

^{page 363 note 1} i.e. during the night 1–2 November, between All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day.

^{page 363 note 2} Nunkeeling Priory, Yorks. E.R.

^{page 363 note 3} quintus : This is consistent with Robertus de Brus quartus at p. 259 above, but inconsistent with Robertus de Brus quintus at p. 366 below.

^{page 363 note 4} Holm Cultram, co. Cumberland.

^{page 363 note 5} William le Latimer the elder, of Corby, d. 5 December 1304 (G.E.C., Complete Peerage, VII. 464).

^{page 363 note 6} Helpringham, co. Line.

^{page 363 note 7} Correctly Clemens V9 in the source. Cf. p. 358, note e, above for a similar mistake (Clement XII) by D1.2/E1.

^{page 365 note 1} Above, p. 347.

^{page 365 note 2} Above, p. 347 ; cf. note 1 above.

^{page 366 note 1} quintus : inconsistent with Robertus de Brus quintus at p. 363 above.

^{page 368 note 1} Ulster.

^{page 369 note 1} Cf. Bain, II, no. 1910. Thyxsel (Sixle) and Watthon : Sixhills, co. Line, and Watton, Yorks. E.R., respectively, both Gilbertine houses.

^{page 369 note 2} See Bain, II, no. 1776.

^{page 369 note 3} Writtle, co. Essex. See op. cit., no. 1804.

^{page 369 note 4} Athol. See op. cit., no. 1945.

^{page 370 note 1} Above, p. 318.

^{page 371 note 1} Mautéon-de-Soule, dép. B.-Pyrénées.

^{page 371 note 2} Above, p. 364.

^{page 371 note 3} leuari : Not in β, but some such word is needed.

^{page 372 note 1} Lamentations ii. 13.

^{page 372 note 2} Isaiah viii. 1.

^{page 372 note 3} Hebrews v. 1–2.

^{page 372 note 4} possit : not in β, and presumably supplied by O3.4 from an accurate knowledge of the Scriptures.

^{page 372 note 5} liber : Prynne, who gives a text of the ‘ Letter of Petrus nlius Cassiodori’ in his The History of King John, King Henry III and the most illustrious King Edward I, London, 1670 (volume 3 of his An Exact Chronological Vindication), p. 914, has labor.

^{page 372 note 6} atque Dl.2,E1.

^{page 374 note 1} consistat : The reading of β but (as suggested by Hearne I. 230 n.) clearly a corruption of confiscat (which Hamilton adopted, II. 257, without indicating that it was not the reading of the manuscripts).

^{page 374 note 2} Reminiscent of Jeremiah xxiii. 2.

^{page 374 note 3} Reminiscent of Jeremiah xxii. 30.

^{page 374 note 4} Psalm cviii in Gallican Psalter, but cix in the Clementine Vulgate.

^{page 375 note 1} fundandas : not in doubt as the reading of β but clearly a corruption of fundendas as suggested by T. Hearne (I. 233, n. 1).

^{page 377 note 1} forinsecus : not in doubt as the reading of β but probably a corruption of forinsecis as emended in O3.

^{page 378 note 1} With the -gauit of congregauit there is a marked change of hand in O3 (the beginning of fo. 253). The new hand suggests an unskilful attempt to imitate the previous one. See also p. 380, note 1, below.

^{page 380 note 1} Here with the word quinto end C and O3. In C, immediately after quinto and in the same hand, is the following : Expliciunt tres libri compilati a Domino Waltero Hemingburght' Canonico de gysebum' de gestis Anglorum ab aduentu Willelmi Bastard' Conquestoris vsque ad mortem strenuissimi Regis edwardi primi post conquestum. The rest of the folio is blank save for, in the bottom margin (fo. 120^v) in a later hand, the name Thomas banes. See frontispiece. In O3 after quinto the scribe of fos. 253 ff. has added Finis, then (minutely written, though it appears to be the same handwriting) : Prosequitur historiam Edwardi secundi ab anno 1307 ad annum 1313 inclusive hic author Gualterus Hemyngforde Canonicus Gisburnensis : quern hic Scriptor Abendonensis in hac historia Henrici tercii et Edwardi primi sequitur maxime, pluribus tamen ab eo adiectis et ad annos aliquanto accuratius dispositis. Scribit etiam predictus G. historiam Edward iijⁱ ad annum eiusdem Regis .21. hoc est anno d. 1346, quo anno obiit Gualterus. In O3, however, all after p. 378, note 1, above (which see) appears to be a later attempt to restore the text of a missing folio or folios and for this purpose a text of E1 type seems to have been used as source. It is not, therefore, certain that the present ending was the original ending of O3—though, because of the relationship of O group manuscripts to C, it is likely to have been so.

^{page 381 note 1} Probably sit is to be understood here.

^{page 381 note 2} Here with the word cunctis the Guisborough chronicle text in O4 ends and a postmedieval hand has written in the margin Hic desinit Chronicon Imperfectum. There follows immediately after cunctis a new chapter beginning Domino suo excellentissimo et in cultu Christiane religionis strenuissimo Guidoni uer’ de Valencia ciuitatis tripol’ glorioso pontiffici Philippus suorum minimus clericorum se ipsum (et interlineated) fidele deuocionis obsequiium. Quantum luna ceteris stellis est lucidior …

^{page 382 note 1} i.e. the Earl of Lincoln.

^{page 386 note 1} As Hearne suggests (I. 248, n. 1), some such word as gessit is required here, though wanting in D I.2, E1.

^{page 387 note 1} The bull Faciens misericordiam as addressed to the archbishop and bishops of the Southern province on ij id. Augusti is printed in Reg. Winchelsey, ed. Graham, Cant. & York Soc, pp. 1005–9. I have used this, as far as it is comparable, to warrant the emendations of the present text which are suggested in. footnotes.

^{page 388 note 1} Properly validius (Reg. Winch., p. 1006).

^{page 388 note 2} Properly prefati (Reg. Winch., p. 1006).

^{page 388 note 3} Properly honestati (Reg. Winch., p. 1006).

^{page 388 note 4} Properly debito (Reg. Winch., p. 1006).

^{page 388 note 5} Properly syndicos (Reg. Winch., p. 1006).

^{page 388 note 6} Properly probari (Reg. Winch., p. 1007).

^{page 389 note 1} Properly recitate (Reg. Winch., p. 1007).

^{page 389 note 2} Probably a corruption of tam as suggested by Hamilton, II. 283.

^{page 390 note 1} Probably a corruption of predicti, or possibly ulli ex predictis, as suggested by Hearne, I. 253, n. 1.

^{page 390 note 2} Obviously a corruption of eam, as suggested by Hearne, I. 253, n. 2.

^{page 390 note 3} Probably a corruption of hii as suggested by Hearne, I. 253, n. 3, and adopted by Hamilton, II. 284.

^{page 391 note 1} I Peter ii. 25.

^{page 391 note 2} ante : probably to be amended as anne, as suggested by Hearne (I. 255, n. 2) and as adopted by Hamilton (II. 286), though Hearne suggests also an in se as another possibility.

^{page 392 note 1} 24 May 1311. The prior of Guisborough was among those summoned to the council for this date (Reg. Greenfield IV, Surtees Soc. no. CLII, p. 365).

^{page 393 note 1} Properly sanctorum.

^{page 393 note 2} Properly sancti Cyriaci in Termis.

^{page 393 note 3} Properly sancti Angeli.

^{page 393 note 4} Probably a corruption of prefatis. Cf. Reg. Winchelsey, p. 1007, and Reg. J. de Halton, II. 5.

^{page 394 note 1} Probably a corruption of cuiuscunque as suggested by Hearne, I. 259, n. 1, and adopted by Hamilton, II. 290.

^{page 397 note 1} As Hamilton (II. 295, n. 8) points out, this would appear to be an error for Guido. Guy, Earl of Warwick died 10 August 1315.

^{page 397 note 2} Anglia : Hamilton (II. 296) extends Angl' as Angliam.

^{page 398 note 1} Henry de Lee, knight. This account of Adam Banaster's end is confirmed by Coram Rege Roll no. 254 (South Lancashire in the Reign of Edward II, ed. G. H. Tupling, Chetham Soc., Manchester, 1949, pp. 46 and 38).

^{page 398 note 2} Iubentis : presumably a corruption of Inuenti.

^{page 398 note 3} Here with the word quieuit Walter of Guisborough's chronicle ends in D1,D2 and C.C.C. Camb. MS. 100, a transcript of D2. In E1 the rest of the leaf (1½ pp.) is blank and there is also a chronological gap, for the remaining chronicle-matter in E1, extending to 1346, begins with the reign of Edward III. There is, moreover, a change of copyist at this point.