The writer has already used the main idea of the allegory in the Ancrene Wisse (M 172, 271). The parallelism pointed out in the note on l. 82 of Sawles Warde is another indication of common authorship; it is not like a borrowing, nor can it be accounted for by independent use of the curt Latin original. Finally, the passage 125/268-278 in glorification of the ‘feire ferreden of uirgines in heouene,’ SK 2309, which is an addition of the author’s, strikes the dominant note of all his works. The Latin original of Sawles Warde was again adapted by the writer of the supplement to the Ayenbite of Inwyt, pp. 263-9, presumably Dan Michel of Northgate; his version is much closer to the original, and he does not seem to have been acquainted with that of his predecessor. 1. With the title comp. ‘Mid alle cunne warde (= custodia) . . . wite wel þine heorte, uor soule lif is in hire; ȝif heo is wel iwust,’ AR 48/5; ‘þonne se weard swefeð, | sawele hyrde,’ Beowulf, 1741 (with Holthausen’s note). 2. #Si# &c.: S. Matt. xxiv. 43: V has ‘veniret’ with S. Luke xii. 39. 3. #a bisne#: a forbisne T. 5. #to# is omitted by R: to wite{n} T: comp. ‘To wyten vs wyþ þan vnwihte,’ OEM 72/4; ‘ihereð hu ȝe schulen witen ou wið þes deofles wieles, þet he ou ne biwrenche,’ AR 224/20, and see 48/299 note. #þe unwiht of helle#: so HM 41/19; ‘of þe laðe vnwiht þe hellene schucke,’ id. 41/35. 6. #þes lauerd#: þe husebonde RT. 8. #hire#: so all MSS.; the writer is thinking of the allegory rather than of his grammar. With #breoken# comp. 62/20. #mon# &c.: R has, mon . in wið þe monnes wit iþis is þe huselauerd . , T, mon . Jnwið . þe mo{n}nes wit iþis h{us} is te huselau{er}d. Kluge, adopting the text of B, punctuates þis hus, . . ., is seolf þe mon inwið; þe monnes wit i þis hus is þe huselaverd; while W, omitting ‘i þis hus,’ which does not fit into his metrical scheme, has þis hus, . . . , is seolf þe mon . inwið þe monnes wit is þe huselauerd. In both cases ‘inwið’ is adverbial, as at 130/57, and the sense yielded is intelligible. But it diverges strangely from the original, ‘Pater iste familias animus potest intelligi, cuius familia sint cogitationes et motus earum, sensus quoque et actiones tam exteriores quam interiores. . . . Domus est conscientia, in qua pater iste habitans thesauros (see 118/27) virtutum congregat, propter quos ne domus effodiatur, summopere vigilatur,’ V 207 _e_, 208 _a_. All three writers appear to have been contending with a faulty archetype: the original may have been:-- þis hus þe ure lauerd spekeð of · is seolf þe mon nes inwit[;] wit i þis hus is þe huselauerd,