[1818]. It en is not = Flemish het en es niet. Evidently when this was written Caxton had become more familiar with Flemish than with his native language.
[1826]-[1910]. The names of English towns in this list are added by Caxton.
[2214]-[259]. The enumeration of ecclesiastical and civil dignitaries is much more full here than in Michelant’s text, but it is probable that Caxton had before him an amplified copy of the original work, as the mention of the pope’s residence at Avignon obviously cannot have been inserted by him. The names of English bishoprics, however, are most likely added by Caxton.
[246]. Bogars in the French column (rendered by lewd freris, i.e. lay brothers) appears to be a mistake for Begars, Beghards.
[2637]. Spoylle the cuppe. Another proof that Caxton had forgotten his English. The Flemish is spoel den nap, ‘rinse the cup’; the English spoil of course never had the sense ‘to rinse.’
[2912]. Byledyng is an attempt at literal interpretation of the French deduit, delight.
[2913]. Serouge (serourge) is properly ‘brother-in-law’; it is not clear whether Caxton’s rendering cosen alyed is a mistranslation, or whether the French word was used at Bruges in the extended sense.
[304-6]. This reference to the truce between the English and the Scots is not, as might perhaps be thought, an insertion by Caxton. Michelant considers the truce in question to be that of the year 1340.
[3030-33]. Michelant’s text omits these lines, to the manifest injury of the sense.
[3523-25]. Caxton seems here to have found his MS. illegible: Michelant’s text has ‘Fremius [? read Fremins] ses voisins Dist qu’el vault bien son argent.’