[p. 146, l. 17]. See below, pp. [442], [623]; but the words “and of other parts of North Wales” had better be left out.
p. 153, [note 1], for “muentione” read “inuentione.”
[p. 174, l. 4], for “from” read “for.”
[p. 175, l. 3]. I think we must accept this distinct statement as more trustworthy than the flourish of Orderic a few pages later, which I have quoted in p. 178, [note 1]. The present passage, besides its more distinct character, has the force of a correction.
p. 178, [note 3]. Suger is a discreet writer, or one might suspect him of exaggeration in his figures both ways. If we take “milites” in the strict sense of knights, the French numbers seem strangely small, and the English strangely large. But any other sense of “miles” would make the French numbers quite incredible.
p. 181, [note 1]. And by the Loir too; see below, [p. 276].
[p. 190, l. 9 from bottom], “superinducta” is the favourite epithet for her.
p. 201, [note 2]. “Fraterculus” is an odd word; but it most likely points to Geoffrey as being one of the “canonici pueri” of whom we hear sometimes (see below,[ p. 521]). “Frater” did not get its special meaning till the rise of the Friars, and we have seen the word “fratres” applied to the canons of Waltham. One might for a moment think that Geoffrey was a brother of the Bishop’s own, but this is forbidden by the account of his kindred which directly follows.
p. 207, [note 1]. This time, when William and Robert were together at Rouen, can only have been about September, 1096, just after the conference between the brothers spoken of in vol. i. p. 559, and just before Robert set forth on the crusade.
[p. 230, last line], for “he” read “we.”