^{page xi note 1} On this title, see below, p. xviii.

^{page xi note 2} X. Gra. III Cn. A.

^{page xi note 3} See below, p. xiv.

^{page xi note 4} Vol. for 1882–7, P 281.

^{page xii note 1} Gertz states that the hand of one of these annotators belongs to the seventeenth or eighteenth century, but this is not possible, as the annotator in question is responsible for the three emendations to be mentioned below, and hence his activity antedates the making of Talbot's copy in 1566 (see below, p. xiii).

^{page xii note 2} Generally these are merely indications of the content of the adjacent part of the text.

^{page xii note 3} It will appear below (p. xvi) that there was probably a copy intermediate between the author's autograph and L, from which L and P are independently derived, and which introduced some errors common to L and P.

^{page xii note 4} See M. R. James, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover, p. 294. The medieval catalogue gives the title and press-mark in agreement with L, fo. ii (see above, p. xi, n. 2), and quotes the first word of fo. 2, so it is certain that the book referred to is L.

^{page xii note 5} See below, p. xiii.

^{page xii note 6} See below, p. xvii.

^{page xii note 7} M. Manitius, Geschichte der lat. Lit. des Mittelatters, ii. 331, fails to realise the identity of the Berlin and London manuscripts, and also alleges incorrectly that MSS. Cott. Claud. D ii and Harley 746 contain the Encomium. (These two manuscripts do actually contain brief texts about Knútr ; see Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue, i. 626.)

^{page xiii note 1} On the paper fly-leaf bound in with the manuscript there is a note of its present number, and it is stated that it was purchased 2 April 1887 from Dr. Lippmann (who, no doubt, represented the German authorities).

^{page xiii note 2} P. xii.

^{page xiii note 3} See Textual Notes to III, 1, 2 ; III, 4, 15. It may also be observed that V frequently reproduces marks of punctuation added to L by L'.

^{page xiii note 4} On this active antiquary, see D.N.B., xix. 337.

^{page xiii note 5} From L, not merely from an early copy of L, for V gives the emendations of L', and it follows that Talbot's copy, the source of V, was made from an exemplar, which had the notes of L'. Talbot copied, therefore, from a manuscript which was ancient, but had the sixteenth-century notes of L', and this could only be L itself. Comparison of the annotations on L with Talbot's autograph shows that he was not himself responsible for them.

^{page xiii note 6} Printed in the Cambrian Register, iii. 278 ff.

^{page xiii note 7} Archaeologia Cambrensis, 1869, p. 363.

^{page xiii note 8} Transactions of the Cymmrodorion, ii. 4 (1843), p. 409.

^{page xiii note 9} Report on Manuscripts in the Welsh Language, i. 1099.

^{page xiv note 1} Pertz's words are, that he found the Hamiltonian manuscript to be the identical codex ‘ cuius apographum Chesnius typis expressit’. These words do not imply that Duchesne used a copy of L, though Gertz so interprets them with disapproval (Scriptores Minores, ii. 384). Cf. Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue, iii. 5.

^{page xiv note 2} Examples of such common errors of V and C are : puerili for pueruli, I, 1,8; baculis for batulis, II, 5, 6; habet for habes, II, 19, 15.

^{page xiv note 3} Loc. cit.

^{page xiv note 4} It is impossible that C is derived from V or V from C. C has innumerable independent errors in places where V agrees with L. On the other hand, V has some errors which are not in C, and sometimes writes in the first place errors which are also in C, but afterwards corrects them (e.g., in II, 1, 10, C has vitam for in tam, V uitam altered to in tam) I have not considered it worth the space to exemplify the independent errors of C and V.

^{page xiv note 5} The loss of a leaf after fo. 47 in L is certain, as fo. 47V ends in the middle of a word (regio\ne). The lost leaf contained the supposed allegation of Queen Emma's virginity at the time of her marriage to Knútr, and this was perhaps too much for the patience of some reader, who accordingly destroyed the leaf.

^{page xiv note 6} See below, p. xvi.

^{page xiv note 7} On this scholar, see D.N.B., ix. 895,

^{page xiv note 8} I again spare space by not exemplifying the errors of B, for which I refer to Gertz's apparatus.

^{page xv note 1} Scriptores Minores, ii. 382, 384.

^{page xv note 2} L' proposes a good many other emendations : some of these (e.g., ignari for incogniti, II, 10, 26) T evidently did not accept, as they are not found in V and C ; ‘others are found in V and C, but are mere corrections of an obvious nature, and prove nothing concerning the relationships of the manuscripts.

^{page xv note 3} Practically all writers who refer to the MS. P date it in the fifteenth century. An exception is Stubbs (William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, Rolls Series, p. xxii), who places the manuscript in the sixteenth century, and this appears to be correct at least of the leaves containing the Encomium.

^{page xv note 4} Occasional similarities of phrase and vocabulary probably explain why the scribe of P thought that the Historia Gildae and the Encomium were by the same writer.

^{page xv note 5} See Textual Notes on I, 1, 14 ; I, 2, 1 ; I, 5, 1 ; II, 4, 5 ; III, 6, 19 ; III, 7, 1 ; III, 9, 5 ; III, 10, 2 ; III, 11, 2.

^{page xv note 6} Descriptive Catalogue, i. 628.

^{page xvi note 1} See Textual Note on III, 14, for P's version of the ending.

^{page xvi note 2} I refer the reader to the editions of Pertz and Gertz for the errors of P : both these editors give an excellent selection of them, and it would be mere waste of space to do this again.

^{page xvi note 3} In this passage P has a definite value, even if it be regarded as derived from L, for, while its text is very inferior to that of T, it confirms the anomalous form iusiurando and the readings temporum and illi (cf. Linguistic Note on II, 16, 7).

^{page xvi note 4} See Textual Notes on II, 2, 1 ; II, 7, 13 ; II, 10, 22 ; II, 13, 10 ; III, 1, 19; III, 5, 12 ; cf. Ill, 13, 4.

^{page xvi note 5} See Textual Notes on II, 18, 2 ; II, 20, 1.

^{page xvi note 6} See Textual Notes on II, 3, 6 ; II, 7, 11 ; II, 8, 9 ; II, 9, 7 ; II, 9, 14 ; II, 21, 8 ; III, 1, 24 ; III, 3, 8 ; III, 5, 3 ; III, 5, 16 ; III, 6, 16 ; III, 9, 16 ; cf. also below, p. xxxvi, on forms in which L and P have inorganic h.

^{page xvi note 7} See Textual Notes on II, 11, 4 ; II, 13, 18 ; III, 6, 11 (postquam) ; III, 9, 2 ; III, 10, 11.

^{page xvi note 8} For possible exceptions, see Textual Notes on II, 2, 12 ; II, 16, 21.

^{page xvi note 9} Vitalibus auris ; cf. Aen. i. 387–8.

^{page xvii note 1} See Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecse regiæ, iv (1744), p. 218 ; Bibliotheca Illustris (London, 1687), P 85, no. 98Google Scholar.

^{page xvii note 2} Since the errors of Pertz are carefully pointed out by Gertz in his apparatus, I have not thought it necessary to record them again, but it is desirable that attention should be drawn to the fact that Pertz wrongly alleges an agreement of P and C against L in a number of places. The readings concerned are posthabitis, II, 9, 4, iniquo III, 2, 4, reuehitur, III, 8, 6, where Pertz incorrectly states that L has postpositis, maligno, reuertitur. Pertz states that P and C have omnis, II, 1, 3, against L's omnes, but L actually has omnos altered from omnis, and Talbot no doubt misread it as omnis (cf. above, p. xvi, n. 5). Pertz is correct in giving Geldefordia, III, 4, 18, as L's reading against Gildefordia, P, C, but this is a special case, see p xviii, n. 1.

^{page xviii note 1} No sound evidence that C used P can be advanced. P makes in the text, and C in the margin, the very obvious emendations contingere, I, 1, 2, and oculos utrosque, III, 6, 10, but they would occur to any reader, though they may not be correct. Similarly L's Geldefordia, III, 4, 18, may have been altered to Gildefordia (so T) by P and Talbot independently ; but the name in L has been rewritten by an early corrector, and it is possible that Gil- was the original form used by the Encomiast, and that P has preserved it, while Talbot reverted to it, as being the better known in his time. Both forms are found early, see Ekwall, Dict, of Eng. Place-names, p. 197.

^{page xviii note 2} See Textual Notes on II, 4, 6 ; II, 7, 13 ; II, 10, 22.

^{page xviii note 3} I, 1, 2 ; III, 9, 10.

^{page xviii note 4} See Linguistic Notes on Prol., 14 ; Arg., 9 and 12 ; II, 7, 21 ; II, 9, 7 ; II, 10, 6 ; II, 16, 6 and 7 ; II, 18, 10 ; III, 5, 16 ; III, 6, 10 ; III, 10, 5. On Gertz's emendation in III, 12, 2, see below, p. xxxii, n. 1.

^{page xviii note 5} See below, p. 3.

^{page xviii note 6} In one case Gertz's arrangement is much better : see Linguistic Note on I, 1, 27.

^{page xviii note 7} Quoted above, p. xvii.