If for the sake of conformity with the German investigations, we designate Cambr. MS. Gg. 9. 27. 2. as #A#, Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 10036 as #B#, Harl. MS. 2382 as #C#, Cambr. MS. Dd. 1. 1. as #D#, Cambr. MS. Ff. 2. 38. as #E#, and Chetham MS. as #Ch.#, then the interrelations of the different texts of this version are about as follows (F. Gierth, Engl. Stud. vii, pp. 1 ff.). #A# and #B# form a special group as opposed to #C#, #D#, #E#, on the one hand, and to #Ch.# alone, on the other. No one of these versions is the direct source of any other. The different texts may be characterized somewhat as follows: #A# offers the best text as far as it goes. #B# introduces many important changes, and seems to be somewhat confused in the order of events, but in the passages preserved intact, preserves the text and the rime better than do #C#, #D#, or #E#. #C# gives best the true course of the story, but often alters the rime, in particular, individual rime words. #D# has many gaps, and is particularly defective after the entrance on the scene of Thomas. #E# stands in closer relation to #D# than to #C#, and often takes an intermediate position between #C# and #D#. #Ch.# (cf. M. Schwarz, Engl. Stud. viii, p. 460) we must regard as a compilation of different MSS., and owes its origin perhaps to oral tradition. In the case of #Ch.#, as in the case of the other texts of this version, it will be safer not to set up any diagram representing the interrelations of MSS., since these MSS. are no doubt all of them influenced by written as well as by oral tradition, and, as has been pointed out above, there is at least a possibility, as in the case of #Ch.#, of mixed versions. In dealing with legend, even less than in dealing with romance, does one have to do with a purely epic growth. § 8. TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. We have already seen that the author of Cursor Mundi attributes the authorship of this version of the Assumption to Edmund of Pontenay (pp. liii, liv, above). But we have also seen the probable source of his error. In one thing the Northern writer is no doubt right, when he says (v. 20061), “In sotherin englis was it draun.” The poem is undoubtedly Southern in origin. To gain more definite knowledge is not easy. The rimes, our usual guide in such cases, in this poem are very uncertain. The writer’s ear seems to have been not a delicate one. He does not distinguish carefully open _ę̨̄_ and close _ẹ̄_, e.g. _here_ : _lere_ 4 Add., _wel_ : _del_ 212 C, 206 D, 218 Add., 256 C, 262 Add., _were_ : _here_ 716 Add., etc.