^{page xi note 1} And, if Mr. J. G. Edwards is right, this lasted long enough to produce a second, now lost. Mr. Edwards, has suggested (Eng. Hist. Rev., xliii (1928), 103–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar) that it is to a lost Guisborough chronicle that the ‘ Anonimalle Chronicle ’ (ed. V. H. Galbraith, Manchester 1927) is indebted for its most valuable passages. A more likely hypothesis, however, seems to be that of Pollard, A. F. (Eng. Hist. Rev., liii (1938), 577–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

^{page xii note 1} Cotton Vesp. A. ix (fos. 122–49) begins exactly where N.L.S., 33.5.3, leaves off (below, p. 297, notes 1 and 2). It is identical with it in writing and plummet markings and (in the original foliation) is foliated continuously with it (‘ 171 ’ and ‘ 172 ’). They were together in the sixteenth century. N.L.S., 33.5.3, has on the top margin of fo. 1 the cipher signature of Henry Savile of Banke. It is in fact the missing part of item 26 in the catalogue of Henry Savile's library, whose other parts J. P. Gilson identified in Cotton Vesp. A. ix (fos. 122–49) and Cotton Calig. A. xiii (fos. 5–15) [Gilson, J. P., ‘The Library of Henry Savile, of Banke’, Trans. Bibliographical Soc., vol. ix (1906–8), 155–6]Google Scholar.

Earlier in the sixteenth century item 26 was owned by a John Riddell, about whom I am much indebted to Sir H. Idris Bell for the following note :

‘… I cannot do better than quote the relevant parts of the inscriptions by him in our MSS. Vespasian A. ix, f. 153, reads “ Ad ioannem Rydell sacellanum Ex mero iure teste Radulpho Carton cap.^o ”. Caligula A xiii. f. 15b, after a note of a brood of rooks being taken at Knaresborough, 20 Dec. 1534, has “ quorum vnum vidit Johannes Riddell cap.^nus cum multis aliis ” followed by “ per me Johannem Riddell verum huius possessorem …” The reference to Knaresborough leaves little doubt but that he can be identified with the Sir John Riddell who in 1537 witnessed the will of Robert Kirby, priest, of Harrogate which is printed from the Knaresborough Court Rolls in Surtees Soc., civ, p. 32 ; while Catton is, equally certainly, the Sir Rauff Catton (obviously a priest) to whom William Hall of Pannal in 1524 made bequests for a trental (ibid., p. 19) and who, in 1529, witnessed a will of John Lokwood of Pannal (ibid., p. 24).’

In the archbishops' registers in the Borthwick Institute of Historical Research at York I have myself found only a John Riddall, who was ordained subdeacon on 22 December, 1514, deacon on 3 March, 1515, and priest on 19 December, 1517, and who at each grade was sponsored for ordination by Easby Abbey (ad titulum monasterii Sancte Agathe iuxta Richmund, Reg. no. 27 (Thos. Wolsey), fos. 166, 167 and 179). There is nothing to associate him with Knaresborough, but there is no other person of the name in the ordination-lists of 1508–44 and we are probably safe in assuming that John Riddall was John Riddell. However this may be, John Riddell of Knaresborough or the district seems to have had neither benefice nor chantry, not even one of the two chantries in the church of Knaresborough. He may have been a private chaplain in a local family or, equally well, he may have been one of the number of stipendiary priests serving the large, and at that time nourishing, parish of Knaresborough, which included Harrogate.

One would not expect diocesan record of such private employments. It is less likely, but not impossible, that he was the ‘John Riddyall’ who is mentioned in an account of the King's receiver of 1541–2 as having been paid an annuity of twenty shillings on the suppression of Arthington, nunnery (Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series, xlviii. 92Google Scholar). All that can be said is that such a connection with Arthington would not be incompatible either with employment of the kinds suggested in or near Knaresborough, or with a title from Easby Abbey at ordination many years before.

This does not establish a monastic connection of John Riddell. Even if it did, it still would not, of course, in itself suffice to establish monastic ownership of the manuscript. John Riddell remains the earliest known owner of manuscript B.

^{page xiii note 1} Edited Lumby (Rolls Series, 2 vols., 1889–95), but better in Twysden, Roger, Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores X (London 1652)Google Scholar.

^{page xiii note 2} Clarke, Maud V., in Eng. Hist. Rev., xlv (1930), 103–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page xiv note 1} Galbraith, V. H. in Eng. Hist. Rev., xliii (1928), 203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the same writer in Essays in History presented to R. L. Poole, ed. Davis, H. W. C. (Oxford 1927), pp. 379–98.Google Scholar

^{page xiv note 2} Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores Quinque [Gale, Thomas] (Oxford, 1687), pp. 451–594Google Scholar, being vol. II of Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores (Fulman and Gale), 3 vols (Oxford 1684, 1687, 1691).

^{page xiv note 3} See below, Appendix A.

^{page xv note 1} For present knowledge of Guisborough books and identifications, see Ker, N. R., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain (London 1941Google Scholar).

^{page xv note 2} British Museum Guide to the Exhibited Manuscripts, Pt. ii. (1923), p. 61, and Clarke, M. V. in Eng. Hist. Rev., xlv (1930), 103–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page xvi note 1} In this, as in the other groups, the letter, showing the group, is the significant thing: the numeration within the group is quite arbitrary.

^{page xvi note 2} Individual, that is, except for Cambr. Univ. Libr., MS. Dd. 2.5 (which Liebermann for this reason classified as B₃ along with Lansdowne 239, as B₁) ; but this, as one of the Osney-Abingdon compilations, requires, and has here been given, separate classification as O₃.

^{page xvi note 3} I.e. to 1312. Chronologically, there is a hiatus between 1312, the end of D group, and 1327, the opening of the part proper to E.

^{page xvi note 4} For this we rely mainly, but not exclusively, upon a complete collation of the passage ‘ Qui quidem rex … saluauerat sibi ’ (pp. 188–207) in the manuscripts, this passage being, as a glance at diagram A will show, the longest stretch of chronicle that will give us a conspectus of all the manuscripts (save, of course, E₂ and E₃), adaptations as well as ordinary texts. Short as this is, the passage within it common to all the manuscripts is even shorter, pp. 193–204 only.

^{page xvi note 5} The evidence of length and structure given in Appendix B can be supported by textual evidence : pp. 194, n. i ; 200, n. g and 314, n. c, where A₃ differs from A_1.2 and Gale.

^{page xvi note 6} Pp. 148, n. e ; 201, n. k ; 203, n. f.

^{page xvii note 1} The only possible test (one manuscript corrupt and the other pure) is impracticable. From Knighton alone one cannot be sure of a corruption in γ (Leyc). A corruption in A₃ could arise as easily in the course of transcription from γ (Leyc) as from any other source.

^{page xvii note 2} Pp. 151, n. n ; 182, n. b ; 193, n. f—where in each case A₃ and Knighton give a passage that A1 omits.

^{page xvii note 3} Pp. 195, n. h ; 210, n. e—where A₃ and Knighton give what A₂ omits.

^{page xvii note 4} Pp. 151, n. o ; 182, n. b ; 193, n. f—where A₃ and Knighton give what Gale omits.

^{page xvii note 5} Pp. 194, n. i ; 197, n. k ; 200, n. g—where in each case A₂ gives words omitted by A₃ and Knighton alike and therefore by A₃'s source. Similarly pp. 308, n. d, and 309, n. d, where A₂ gives passages whose omission is a marked feature of Knighton (Twysden 2522–3) as well as of A₃.

^{page xvii note 6} As the text of Walter of Guisborough's chronicle known at Leicester was like A₃ in length (Appendix B), there can be no doubt about the length of A₃'s source.

^{page xvii note 7} Pp. 190, n. l, and 200, n. w—where A2.3 and Knighton make the same omissions.

^{page xvii note 8} Pp. 151, notes n and o ; 182, n. b ; 193, n. f—where A₂ and A₃ and Knighton, and therefore the common source of A₂ and of A₃'s source, give what A₁ and Gale omit.

^{page xvii note 9} They ended at the same point (since A_1.2.3 and γ (Leyc) were alike in length there can be no doubt about A₁ and γ‴) and had, e.g., the following textual identities : pp. 154, n. b, and 186, n. a.

^{page xviii note 1} Pp. 190, n. l, and 200, n. w—where A₁ gives what A_2.3 and Knighton (and therefore γ‴ also) omit.

^{page xviii note 2} P. 151, n. 0—where A_2.3 and Knighton (and therefore γ‴) give what Gale omits, and where clearly the source of A₁ gave it, because while A₁ itself has a very similar omission (p. 151, n. n) it is independent of Gale's, is peculiar to A₁ and could not have arisen in transcription from a manuscript which made Gale's omission. Similarly p. 197, n. w—where A_1.2.3 and Knighton give what Gale omits.

^{page xviii note 3} See p. xvi above.

^{page xviii note 4} Pp. 188, n. e ; 199, n. e ; 201, n. f—where in each case Gale, A_1.2.3 and Knighton agree on a reading different from that of all other manuscripts.

^{page xviii note 5} Pp. 154, n. b, and 186, n. a—where Gale is pure and A_1.2.3 and Knighton (and therefore γ′) are corrupt.

^{page xviii note 6} Pp. 193, n. g; 195, notes m and þ ; 199, n. e—where Gale, A_1.2.3 and Knighton (and therefore their common source) omit words or passages given by all other manuscripts, those of O group included. There is ample other evidence on this point between p. 193, n. 1, and p. 204, n. 1, the portion of the chronicle common to all manuscripts.

^{page xviii note 7} Pp. 142, notes a and g; 196, n. j ; 201, n. g.

^{page xviii note 8} Pp. 27, n. h ; 195, n. s ; 199, n. g.

^{page xviii note 9} Pp. 170, n. e ; 188, n. k ; 210, n. j.

^{page xviii note 10} Pp. 166, n. m, and 197, n. w.

^{page xviii note 11} Pp. 195, n. j, and 209, n. h.

^{page xix note 1} The evidence in note 9 of the preceding paragraph, being common to D2 and E1, applies to their common source as well.

^{page xix note 2} Gale, A1.2.3, Kn. “ A ” and “ MS ” are each excluded by p. 199, n. e ; B by p. 183, n. 6 ; C by p. 197, n. h ; each of O1.2.3.4 (it is obvious from Appendix C that it cannot have been O5) by p. 196, n. a. In each case D2 and E1 (and therefore their common source) give what these omit.

^{page xix note 3} The evidence in note 8 of the preceding paragraph, being common to D2 and E1, applies to their common source as well.

^{page xix note 4} The references given in note 2 will serve here also. What they prove for δ″ they also prove for the common source of D1 and δ″ (that it can have been none of these manuscripts), for in each case D1 also gives, i.e. D1.2, E1 alike give, what these manuscripts omit.

^{page xix note 5} Pp. 166, n. k (though A3 and Kn. “ A ” and “ MS ” are not available, p. 162, n. a, there is no possible doubt about the reading of γ′), and 197, n. g.

^{page xix note 6} P. xviii, note 6, above.

^{page xix note 7} Pp. 171, n. k (though A3 and Kn. “ A ” and “ MS ” are not available there is no possible doubt about the reading of γ′), and 199, n. e.

^{page xix note 8} Pp. 174, n. a, and 183, n. b—where γ′ gave what B omits. Both these references fall outside the portion of the chronicle chosen for complete collation, and so A2 and Kn. “ A ” and “ MS ” have not been tested : but when Gale, A1 and A3 agree there is no possible doubt about the reading of γ′

^{page xix note 9} Pp. 190, n. q, and 197, n. h—where Gale, A1.2.3, Kn. “ A ” and “ MS ” and B (and therefore their common source) give what C omits.

^{page xix note 10} Pp. 196, n. j ; 201, n. g, and 205, n. d—where Gale, A1.2.3, Kn. “ A ” and “ MS ” and B (and therefore their common source) do not possess these features of D1.2, E1 (which were therefore features of γ′).

^{page xix note 11} Pp. 195, n. g, and 196, n. a. It is obvious from Appendix C that it cannot have been O5.

^{page xix note 12} Pp. 167, n. m ; 175, n. a, and 197, n. g.

^{page xx note 1} This follows from the fact that the common source of D1 and γ″ (i.e.γ′) was not any extant manuscript (p. xix, notes 2 and 4).

^{page xx note 2} Pp. 167, n. h, and 201, n. g.

^{page xx note 3} Pp. 190, n. q, and 197, n. h.

^{page xx note 4} Pp. 166, n. k (though A3 and Kn. “ A ” and “ MS ” are not available there is no possible doubt about the reading of γ″ or ofγ, and 197, n. g.

^{page xx note 5} Pp. 195, n. g, and 196, n. a, and (against O5) Appendix C.

^{page xx note 6} Pp. 141, n. a, and 171, n. j.

^{page xx note 7} Pp. 51, n. f (where Gale, A1.2.3 and B are all corrupt in such a way that clearly γ too must have been corrupt) ; 125, n. e (though I have not collated A2 or D2 or E1 and though Kn. “ A ” and “ MS ” are not here available, there can be no doubt from the readings of Gale, A1.3, B and C, D1 respectively about the readings of γ and 8) ; 166, n. k (the combination Gale, A1.2, B is sufficient to establish the reading of γ).

^{page xx note 8} The references in note 5 will serve here also.

^{page xx note 9} For form see above, p. xiv ; for brevity, Appendix C ; and for Henry of Almaine, compare Appendix C sub anno 1270 with Hie autem Henricus … patris sui comitis Symonis (pp. 205–6, below). In this matter of the murder, whatever additions they make, O2.3.4 (even 64 with its mention of three murderers, Simon the younger as well as Guy and Guy's father-in-law) have as their common base either a Guisborough text or one identical with it. Guisborough and O2.3.4 all mention Guy's father-in-law as a murderer. This they have in common with Wykes (Ann. Monast., iv. 241). O5, like the Osney annals (Ann. Monast, iv. 243), knows only the two brothers as murderers and does not seem to know of Wykes's account.

^{page xxi note 1} Pp. 195, notes g and o, and 199, n. o ; and, for their common interpolations from Osney annals, pp. 202, n. b, and 204, n. g.

^{page xxi note 2} Pp. 193, n. i ; 200, n. i ; 202, n. m, and 204, n. g.

^{page xxi note 3} P. 193, notes b and e—where, unlike O1 which gives the letters in addition to Guisborough's account, O3.4 give them instead of it. P. 197 At ille … optinuit—where clearly O3.4 alike derive from a text wanting the clause ne … esset, and sibi (O3) and decepcionem et (O4) are simply their respective efforts to make sense of the text before them (note γ). O1's exemplar, on the other hand, clearly contained ne … esset or a corruption of it : it did not omit it entirely. O1's variants (notes s and u) arise from misreading (uir) and consequent misunderstanding (deciperetur) of the clause, not from lack of it. P. 199, n. i.

^{page xxi note 4} Pp. 201, n. n, and 202, n. p.

^{page xxi note 5} Pp. 192, n. f, and 200, n. v.

^{page xxi note 6} Pp. 198, n. h, and 201, n. d.

^{page xxi note 7} P. 194, n. w. P. 197 At ille … optinuit—where the common source of O3.4 lacked ne … esset, (see above note 3) but O2 has it and is, indeed, the only extant O manuscript to give it in its pure state.

^{page xxi note 8} This needs no demonstration beyond Appendix C.

^{page xxi note 9} The references given above, in note 3, will serve for this purpose too.

^{page xxi note 10} Pp. 193, n. i, and 194, n. r—where O1.3.4 (and therefore their common source) omit what O2 gives.

^{page xxi note 11} P. 201, n. b. Likewise p. 243, n. c, the passage usque ad … velle sequi, which is accidentally omitted after prosequi velle by O2 but which is clearly behind the readings of O3 (dicens, eciam si nullus sibi auxilium prestaret, se uelle ius suum prosequi cum uno puero et equo usque ad mortem. Qui omnes unanimiter responderunt dicentes se eum uelle sequi in uitam et in mortem, fo, 116v) and O4 (Dicens se uelle ius suum prosequi velle cum vno puero et equo vsque ad mortem qui omnes, vnanimiter responderunt dicentes se eum velle sequi in vitam et in mortem, fo. 82v), so that even with no reading from O1 we can say that O′ cannot have derived from O2.

^{page xxi note 12} Pp. 193, notes f and i, and 200, n. r.

^{page xxii note 1} The peculiar structure of A3 and the Guisborough text used at Leicester is described in Appendix B.

^{page xxii note 2} Although only O3 and O4 are informative, they do tell us these things. They are normal at pp. 308–13 giving what A3 omits, and they contain the text of Guisborough's chronicle down to at least 1307 (Diagram A and, for O3, pp. 378, n. 1, and 380, n. 1 ; for O4, p. 381, n. 2).

^{page xxii note 3} Pp. 195, n. c ; 196, n. l; 197, n. g; 198, n. f, and 202, n. a.

^{page xxii note 4} Pp. 193, notes m and n ; 194, n. a ; 196, n. j ; 197, n. l; 199, n. h ; 200, n. e ; 201, notes a and g.

^{page xxii note 5} P. 197, n. h—where O1.2.3.4 (and therefore their common source) give what C accidentally omits. Similarly p. 224, n. o—where O2.3.4 (and therefore O) give what C accidentally omits.

^{page xxii note 6} Pp. 198, n. 5 ; 204, n. e ; the interpolation at p. 216, n. d of the story of Earl Warenne and the Rusty Sword, found in manuscripts of this chronicle only in C and O2.3.4 ; and at p. 264, n. e another interpolation peculiar to C and O2.3.4.

^{page xxii note 7} The possibility cannot be ruled out, as a corrupt reading in 01.2.3.4 is proof of corruption in O, but no proof of corruption in δ (O). The doubt and the alternative possibilities I have indicated in Diagram B by broken lines.

^{page xxii note 8} P. 218 : owing to a coincidence of accidental omissions by other manuscripts (notese and f), it alone has preserved Johannem … ut pacem.

^{page xxii note 9} Diagram A.

^{page xxii note 10} Compare Diagrams A and B.

^{page xxiii note 1} P. xiv above and Appendix A.

^{page xxiii note 2} Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne (Oxford Historical Society), x. 259, 268, 278–9, 307–8, 390Google Scholar.

^{page xxiii note 3} Cf. p. 263, note a, below.

^{page xxiii note 4} ‘ Quae ex Hearnii et Hamiltonii libris excerpseram usque ad a. 1297, cum A2, inde usque ad a. 1300, cum B2 et a. 1300–1307, cum B1 contuli’ (M.G.H., SS., xxviii. 629), i.e. with A2, B and C in my nomenclature.

^{page xxiii note 5} E.g. pp. 16, n. 2 ; 101, n. 1 ; 215, n. 2 ; 241, n. 1 ; 330, n. 1 ; 346, n. 2.

^{page xxiv note 1} M. R. James, The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, no. 704 (ii. 178).

^{page xxiv note 2} P. 398, note 3, and Hearne ii. 267 and Hamilton ii, 297. Cf. p. xvi above and p. 157, n. k, below.

^{page xxiv note 3} Pp. 396–8.

^{page xxiv note 4} I am greatly indebted to Mr. N. R. Ker, Librarian of Magdalen College, Oxford, for the following note on E2 : ‘ The title Gualterus Gisburne is in John Bale's hand, and has, I fancy, no more authority than that. This [referring to the whole codex, Magd. Coll. MS. lat. 53] is a volume of scraps of MSS. which Bale assembled from various sources, inter alia Norwich and St. Albans : it passed from him to John Foxe and was given to us by Samuel Foxe, John's son.’

^{page xxiv note 5} On the Historia Aurea, Galbraith, V. H. in Essays in History presented to R. L. Poole, ed. Davis, H. W. C. (Oxford, 1927), pp. 379–98Google Scholar, and Eng. Hist. Rev., xliii (1928), 203–17. In the Historia Aurea manuscript, Lambeth Pal. Libr. MS. 12, too, at fo. 228V, the reign of Edward III is introduced anonymously with the title De edwardo 30. et ceteris euentibus illius temporis and there is no marginal attribution to Walter of Guisborough or anything to associate it with Guisborough priory.

^{page xxiv note 6} P. 1, n. a.

^{page xxiv note 7} See Frontispiece for photograph.

^{page xxv note 1} Twysden, , Scriptores X (London 1652), cols. 1209 and 1278Google Scholar.

^{page xxv note 2} Salter, H. E., ‘William of Newburgh’, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii (1907), 510–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, ix (ed. Clay, 1952), 249.

^{page xxv note 3} Walter of Guisborough makes no use of Huntingdon after this point.

^{page xxvi note 1} P. 49.

^{page xxvi note 2} On Hist. p. Bedam see Hunt, xlix–1; Hoveden xxvi–xxviii, xxxi–xxxiii, xxxvi ff. ; Brit. Mus. Catal, of King's and Royal MSS. on MS. Royal 13 A VI.

^{page xxvi note 3} P. 102, notes 2 and 3 ; p. 105, notes 1 and 2; pp. 106, n. 1, 108, notes 1 and 2, and 106, n. 2 ; p. 116, n. 1 ; p. 127, n. 1. In Walter of Guisborough the passages are clearly interposed ; in Langtoft, except for the first and last, they are consecutive. It is inconceivable that Langtoft took them from Walter of Guisborough.

^{page xxvi note 4} Pp. 144, n. 1 ; 148, n. 2, and 149, n. 1.

^{page xxvi note 5} Cf. Palgrave, , Documents and Records illustrating the History of Scotland i. (1837), p. 68Google Scholar (cf. p. civ), and Liebermann, , Mon. Germ. Hist., SS., xxviii, p. 631Google Scholar.

^{page xxvi note 6} There is no mention of Guisborough between the notice of the foundation of the priory (P 33) and the notice of the fire of 1289 (p. 225). Cf. Liebermann, op. cit., p. 628.

^{page xxvi note 7} The deaths of Richard I and John, the priest's vision, the story of Eustace the Monk, pp. 141–4, 154–6 and 159–60.

^{page xxvi note 8} Pp. 150–1. Cf. Liebermann, op. cit., p. 628.

^{page xxvi note 9} Pp. 162–75.

^{page xxvi note 10} For something similar in a monastic register, Register of Worcester Priory (Camden Soc., 1865), pp. 138a–149bGoogle Scholar and, as to the sequence, the note on p. cxviii. Even the conflation of the 1217 and 1225 issues of the Charters can be paralleled (below, pp. 162, n. 1, and 169, n. 2) and in such collections the text of Magna Carta 1225 is quite commonly given from the inspeximus of 12 October 1297 (below, p. 163, n. 1).

^{page xxvii note 1} Pp. 178–82.

^{page xxvii note 2} Pp. 188–204.

^{page xxvii note 3} Related, but slighter, French compilations are in print in Le Livere de Reis de Brittanie e Le Livere de Reis de Engletere, ed. Glover (Rolls Series, 1865).

^{page xxvii note 4} Pp. 149, 161, 175, 182, 215 and 218.

^{page xxvii note 5} Each containing a Scala mundi, the Chron. Martini and the Compilacio in that order.

^{page xxvii note 6} P. 228.

^{page xxvii note 7} Pp. 222, n. 1 ; 223–4 ; 228–30 ; 239 ; 355 ; 356 and 363–4. These passages are consecutive in the source.

^{page xxvii note 8} P. 238, n. 1, and the further references there given.

^{page xxvii note 9} E.g. pp. 231–2, 239–40, 259, 259–60, 269–70, 272, 284–6, 296–7, 301–2, 305–8, 333 and 363.

^{page xxvii note 10} See p. 235, n. 1, and p. 257.

^{page xxvii note 11} pp. xxviii, 244 and 261.

^{page xxviii note 1} P. 290, n. 1.

^{page xxviii note 2} See Eng. Hist. Review, lx (1945), 25.

^{page xxix note 1} P. 293, n. 1. At the least it is a confusion and, if so, another chronological gaffe. The king did go to Portsmouth in 1297, but well before, not after, the muster and other events of 7–16 July.

^{page xxix note 2} The writs for this are dated 21 October 1297 (Parl- Writs, i. 302–4, nos. 1–2).

^{page xxix note 3} Notably pp. 222, n. 3 ; 251, n. 1 ; 260, n. 1.

^{page xxx note 1} See above, p. xxvii.

^{page xxx note 2} Ed. Galbraith, Eng. Hist. Rev., Iviii, 51–78.

^{page xxx note 3} Compare Eng. Hist. Rev., lviii. 284 and lx. 308.

^{page xxx note 4} P. 204, note 2.

^{page xxx note 5} If begun before, the entry s.a. 1295 was still being written in 1298 (p. 260, note 1).

^{page xxxi note 1} M.G.H., S.S, xxviii. 627