^{page 115 note 1} Anc. Eng. Met. Rom. II, 270–313.

^{page 115 note 2} Altengl. Bill. IV, Introd. lx.

^{page 115 note 3} Described by Madan in the Summary Cat. of Western MSS. in the Bodleian, III, 426. Given to Hearne by John Murray, not later than 1721. Warton quotes part of the fragment, and notes references by Hearne (Warton, Bist. Engl. Poet. II, 97–100, 99 note). W. C. Hazlitt, in his edition of Warton, omits a part of Warton's (originally Hearne's) quotation from the manuscript, under the mistaken impression that the quotation is from the Ritson version. Hazlitt's note is curiously ironic, in view of this mistaken notion: “Ritson has printed these fragments entire in his Metrical Romances, 1802, and the editor could not perceive the advantage of quoting them to the extent that Warton, not knowing what they were, has done.”

^{page 115 note 4} Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle, Rolls Series, 86¹, xli.

^{page 115 note 5} According to the Cat. of MSS. in Libr. of Univ. of Camb. II, 505. For other authorities see Dr. Frances A. Foster in her introduction to the Northern Passion (E.E.T.S. Orig. Ser. 147, p. 14).

^{page 115 note 6} Cat. of MSS. in Libr. of Univ. of Camb. I, 520.

^{page 115 note 7} Fol. 12^r, on which the fragment begins, has been trimmed at the bottom. It contains thirty-five ruled lines, thus thirty-four spaces, two of which have been skipped, so that there are thirty-two lines of writing. The tops of some of the letters of a lost line appear, but they are unrecognizable. Comparison with the Auchinleck MS. indicates that a couplet has been lost here, from the account of King Sebard's burying. The next page, 11^r, contains thirty-five ruled lines, and thirty-four lines of writing. Tops of the letters of a lost line can be distinguished. Again comparison with the Auchinleck MS. indicates a couplet lost here, in the middle of the Ing story. 11^v has of course suffered the same mutilation, but at this point, in the midst of the account of the division of England, a long break occurs, equal to 267 lines in the Ritson MS., and to 272 lines in the Auchinleck MS. (R 362–628, A 1362–1633; this would make 8 pp. of 34 lines each). F. 6^r takes up the chronicle in the middle of the reign of Athelstan. 6^r has thirty-six ruled lines, the first of which has been skipped, leaving thirty-five lines of writing, increased to thirty-six by the insertion of a line at the side, which makes the couplets even. 6^V has thirty-six ruled lines, with the first blank and one skipped, leaving thirty-four lines of writing. Ff. 7^r and 7^V have been trimmed at the top and show twenty-seven ruled lines. 7^r has twenty-seven written lines; for although one ruled line was skipped, one written line was added at the bottom of the page, below the last ruled line. This last line we may assume to have been added (as on 6^r) to make the couplets even, and therefore below the thirty-six ruled lines originally allotted by the scribe. We may therefore assume that nine ruled lines have been lost by the trimming at the top. As the beginning of Edwin's reign is included in these nine lines, we may assume one line skipped between reigns, and perhaps a line given to “Edwynus Rex” (cf. “Edmundus Rex” before v. 399), as well as the usual skipped line at the top. That would mean six lines of rhyme lost. On comparison of this place with R 685–690, and A 1700–1705, we find six lines missing at the end of the reign of Edred and the beginning of the reign of Edwin. 7^v shows twenty-seven written lines. There are then probably nine lines missing, corresponding to eleven lines in Ritson and Auchinleck (R 717–727, A 1728–1738) in the middle of the reign of Edgar.

^{page 115 note 8} Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle, Rolls Series, p. 831 (App. EE, v. 20).

^{page 115 note 9} Sternberg, Engl. Stud. XVIII, 383 fi., gives comparisons. Robert of Brunne decried the tale (then common property) as “þat lye” and pointed it out as really belonging to “Hengiste doughter, Ronewenne” (v. Sternberg, pp. 381–2).

^{page 115 note 10} William of Malmesbury (Gesta Regum Anglorum, Rolls Series 90¹, pp. 163–4) gives Edwin's dates as 955–59; Robert of Gloucester (v. 5674) has “þre зer & somdel more.”

^{page 115 note 11} In speaking of King Sebard, Rawl. 17–18 and 21–22 parallel A 1255–6 and 1259–60; the missing couplet was probably cut off at the bottom of fol. 12^r (v. note 7 above). Again, the absence of the couplet needed as Rawl. 55–6 (A 1329–30) is almost certainly due to a similar mutilation at the bottom of fol. 11^r.

^{page 115 note 12} R 633, “Tofore the holy legioun · That is of gret remissioun,” following the mention of the spear, means nothing until we find in Robert of Gloucester: “& seint Morices banner · зut he sende him þar · þat to fore legion · whenne he wende hit bar.” (App. EE v. 29). We must assume that Ritson had in its original form the Robert of Gloucester reference to the banner and the spear (in the William of Malmesbury position however, after the spear, a juxtaposition which must have been made by X and passed on to both A and R), that half this reference somehow dropped out, together with the reference to the spear (“Oзaines sarraзines” etc., v. above note 8).

^{page 115 note 18} 1. Hengist-Rowena instead of Ing (R 329–40; v. above note 9). 2. R 695, giving Edwin's reign, correctly, as “foure” years (v. above note 10). 3. In R 325–27, a reference to Dioclician, making a right chronological position for the reference which follows, to St. Albon's martyrdom. (See Robert of Gloucester vv. 1806–09, 1825). A 1123 has this reference after mention of King Athelberd and St. Austin, Rawl. 25 after King Sebard—a discrepancy to be explained later. Both omit Dioclician. 4. R 683, giving Achelred's (Edred's) reign as “nyghe [nine?] yer” cf. A 1699 “tvo зer,” Rawl. 424 “þre зere.” William of Malmesbury I, p. 162 has 946–55, evidently agreeing with R.

^{page 115 note 14} Rawl. between lines 83 and 87 is a line short for the rhyme (there are five -ire endings). It is possible that the line corresponding to R 355 was dropped out in copying.

^{page 115 note 15} Camden's Britannia, translated by Edmund Gibson, London, 1695, p. 195 n. 56.

^{page 115 note 16} Besides these especially significant points of comparison, there are to be remarked three sets of verbal agreements between two out of the three versions. These sum up as follows: 15 agreements between Rawl. and R; 15 between A and R; 9 between Rawl. and A. Sheer enumeration of similarities then indicates cross-relationships between the three manuscripts, and so inter-relation, at any rate, of sources. The fact that the manuscripts C, P and E have not been examined, the evidence offered of general cross-relationships, including manuscripts which are lost to us, and the small area of comparison offered by the 197 remaining lines of Rawlinson, combine to reduce the significance of these verbal parallels, which I will therefore not reproduce.