25 f. Compare with this the author’s note on Mirour de l’Omme, 21266-78.
61. Cp. Ovid, Pont. iv. 14. 41.
64. Cp. Pont. iv. 9. 10.
67 f. Cp. Tristia, ii. 301 f.
82. Cp. Pont. ii. 2. 128.
LIB. III.
1-28. The form of these lines which stood originally in S is given by the Trinity College, Dublin, and the Hatfield MSS. The passage has been rewritten over erasure in CHG, and it must be left doubtful what text they had originally. From the fact that the erasure in G begins with the second line, it may seem more probable that the original text of this manuscript agreed with that which we have now in S, rather than with TH₂: for in the latter case there would have been no need to begin the erasure before l. 4. In CH the whole passage has been recopied (the same hand appearing here in the two MSS.) so that we can draw no conclusion about the point where divergence actually began. EDL have the same text by first hand. It will be noted that the lines as given by TH₂ make no mention of the schism of the Papacy.
11 ff. With this we may compare Mirour de l’Omme, 18769 ff.
22. nisi, for ‘nil nisi’: cp. l. 32.
41. Cp. Ovid, Amores, iii. 8. 55.