It will be seen that most of the above variants are due to mere oversight. It is surprising, however, that so many mistakes seriously affecting sense and metre should have escaped the correction of the editor.
In the matter of spelling the variation is considerable, but all that need be said is that the Roxburghe editor preferred the classical to the medieval forms. On the other hand it is to be regretted that no attempt is made by him to mark the paragraph divisions of the original. A minor inconvenience, which is felt by all readers who have to refer to the Roxburghe text, arises from the fact that the book-numbering is not set at the head of the page.
In the case of the Cronica Tripertita we have the text printed by Wright in the Rolls Series as well as that of the Roxburghe edition. The latter is from the All Souls MS., while the former professes to be based upon the Cotton MS., so that the two texts ought to be quite independent. As a matter of fact, however, several of the mistakes or misprints of the Roxburghe text are reproduced in the Rolls edition, which was printed probably from a copy of the Roxburghe text collated with the Cotton MS.
The following are the variations of the Roxburghe text from that of the present edition.
Introduction, margin 2 prosequi (for persequi).
I. 1 om. et per (for fer) 7 bene non 15 consilium sibi 71 fraudis 93 cum (for dum) 132 hos (for os) 161 marg. om. qui S 173 ausam S 182 Sic (for Hic) 199 clientem 204 cepit (for cessat) 209 Regem (for Legem) 219 Qui est (for est qui)
II. 9 sociatus (for associatus) 61 manu tentum 85 marg. quia (for qui) 114 de pondere 156 sepulchrum 180 maledictum 220 Transulit 223 omne scelus 237 ipsum 266 Pontifice 271 malefecit 315 marg. derisu 330 marg. Consulat 333 adeo.
III. 109 prius S 131 viles S 177 conjunctus 188 sceleris 235 mane 239 nunc S 242 freta (for fata) 250 ponere 263 Exilia 285 marg. præter (for personaliter) 287 Nec 288 stanno 333 conquescat 341 auget 372 eo (for et) 422 marg. fidelissime 428 prius S
Of the above errors several, as we have said, are reproduced by Wright with no authority from his MS.[74], but otherwise his text is a tolerably correct representation of that given by the Cotton MS., and the same may be said with regard to the other poems Carmen super multiplici Viciorum Pestilencia, De Lucis Scrutinio[75], &c.
The Present Edition. The text is in the main that of S, which is supplemented, where it is defective, by C. The Cotton MS. is also the leading authority for those pieces which are not contained in S, as the four last poems.