1. #Leofemen#: like ‘Men þa leofestan’ of the Blickling Homilies: the writer also uses, ‘Gode men.’ But ‘Lordinges and leuedis,’ 215/31 is French = Seingnurs & dames. #ȝe willeliche#: Zupitza prints ȝewilleliche (_adv._, meaning gladly), and the separation of the words in the manuscript is of no weight against it. But the prefix #ge# is in this text commonly reduced to _i_, and ȝewilleliche occurs nowhere else and has nothing to correspond in OE., the forms in which are #willīce#, #willendlīce#, while willeliche is in AR 396/20. #ȝe# is probably a repetition of the preceding by mistake for ec, which very frequently goes with and in these homilies (comp. 76/4, 78/68). 2. #hit# belongs to lusten as well as to understonden; comp. ‘þe luste nulleð þesne red,’ OEH i. 63/161, and for the postponement of #hit#, ‘Al hit us mei rede ⁊ to lare ȝif we wulleð,’ id. i. 15/5, where to goes with rede. 3. #fredome#: the Latin version in Harley 2851 has for title Priuilegia diei dominice. 4. #blisse# &c.: see 78/77. 6. #erming#, only here and at 76/22, 31 as adjective, for the usual armliche. OE. #earming#, a miserable person. #rest of#: comp. 78/96; ‘þæt is sio an ræst eallra urra geswinca,’ Boethius, 144/27; ‘hwonne him lifes weard, | frea ælmihtig frecenra siða | reste aȝeafe,’ Genesis, 1426; ‘lagosiða rest,’ id. 1486. Rare in ME., but for the verb comp. ‘thei rest of her traueilis,’ Apoc. xiv. 13 (Purvey). 7. #to soþe# &c.: see 90/73 note. 8. #þet wes#: comp. 1/10, where the verb is plural. 10. #hu--ferde#, how things went on there: ‘quia deus voluit ut Paulus videret penas inferni,’ B iv. 75/5. #Mihhal--wuniende#, there is nothing corresponding in B iv, but James has, ‘dixit [angelus] mihi: Veni et sequere me, et ostendam tibi animas impiorum et peccatorum ut cognoscas qualis sit locus,’ 28/17, and Adam de Ros, ‘Seint michiel en ueit auant | Sein pol ses hores disant,’ Ward, ii. 410. 15, 16. #eȝen#: probably a mistake for eren (= ‘auribus’ B iv), as Kölbing pointed out in ES xxii. 137. #hefede#, by the hair, ‘capillis.’ #heorte#: a strange substitution for ‘brachiis’ of B iv. 16. #ouen--leies#: ‘fornacem ignis ardentem per septem flammas in diversis coloribus,’ B iv. #he#, i.e. ouen; if not a mistake for þe, a striking example of parataxis. 17. #eateliche to bi haldene#: comp. ‘eatolice on to seonne,’ Beda, 240/21; the _dat. inf._ answers to the L. supine as in terribilis aspectu. In #sead . . . to iseonne#, 133/30, it corresponds to the genitive of the L. gerund, aspiciendi. 18. #strengre#: see 21/94 note, and comp. ‘ne geþæncaþ hio na, hu strang hit biþ an helle to bionne,’ Wulfstan, 225/12.