[p. 355, side-note], for “1091–1093” read “1091–1098.” See vol. ii. p. 267.
[p. 375, note 6], for “perversitatam” read “perversitatem.”
[p. 385, l. 2], for “undoubtedly” read “by himself.”
[p. 408, l. 15]. There must however have been some exceptions. See the Additions and Corrections to vol. ii. p. 508.
[p. 450, l. 3 from bottom]. Yet the guarantors, even on William’s own side, held him to be in the wrong. See [p. 461].
[p. 469, note 1.] The reference is to the passage of Orderic, quoted in vol. ii. p. 537. But it is hard to understand how Henry can have been at war with William in 1094. Yet there is the passage from Sigebert quoted in [p. 471, note 3], where the date must be wrong, but which seems to hang together both with this passage of Orderic and with the suspicions on the Kings part implied in the narrative in the Chronicle.
[p. 469, l. 10], and [note 3], for “son” read “grandson.”
[p. 485, l. 3], for “of” read “to.”
[p. 492, l. 2], put semicolon after “within.”
[p. 506, note 2]. This passage is very singular, especially the words “nec ipsum advertere posse putaverunt.” On this last point the bishops seem to have been right, as Anselm himself nowhere puts forward any such claim to exemption.