[2.] The English text in the Appendix consists of nine four-lined stanzas, and is distinct from either of the two current versions of the poem. It appears to have been suggested by the opening lines of A, and may be regarded as a single sub-type of A, not affecting the main line of argument of the Introduction. (See Appendix, p. 46.)
[3.] This is repeated on each page of Bateman’s text, and is, perhaps, his own design.
[4.] See Bateman’s Preface.
[5.] Probably not the author but the copier of the MS.: see Notes.
[6.] All the stanzas of the B version are four-lined except MS. Porkington.
[7.] v. Wanley’s Catalogue.
[8.] My attention was called to this MS. by the kindness of Prof. Priebech.
[9.] MS. Laud Misc. is not written throughout in metrical lines, but the divisions of the stanzas, and, in most cases, of the lines, are clearly indicated.
[10.] The first leaf of this text has been torn out and the verses in brackets are only conjectural.
[11.] MS. Laud represents, in the main, the same version as MS. Lamb., but the variant readings preclude the idea of its being a copy of Lamb., unless the scribe deliberately tried to modify his original on the lines of Harl. 4486 and Rawl. P. The changes in the text (ll. 26, 27, 47: see Notes) show that it cannot be the original of Lamb. It appears to be a transcript from the same original made about the same date, or a little earlier than the Lambeth text.