For the MSS., it needs but a slight examination to show that they are from different hands. The fifteenth century had no “consistent orthography,” but a scribe would probably have of himself; would not, at the least, exhibit the systematic differences that mark the MSS. in question. That the differences _are_ due to the scribes is indicated by their occurrence even in proper names where E is, on the whole, much more accurate than C.[20] Add that C offers more traces of southern English influences; that it invariably gives the weak form _I_ for the _Ic_ or _Ik_ of E, and substitutes _can_ for the latter’s _gan_; that it regularly prefers _of_ to the _off_ which distinguishes E and in certain positions _i_ for _y_--these with other minor peculiarities, not being vital in character, are certainly due to individual idiosyncrasies in spelling. Ramsay is an honest scribe, who, at places, cannot read his original, and leaves a blank which must be supplied from the copy of the chaplain.[21] There is thus not the faintest reason for supposing but one scribe to have been at work. At the same time the essential agreement of the two transcripts shows that we are dealing with a single, complete, familiar poem which has suffered in precision of copying from the usual mishaps incident to its manner of publication and preservation. [20] And Koeppel, while granting the general superiority of C, gives as his opinion that in not a few cases E, nevertheless, where it differs from C, preserves the genuine, original reading (_Englische Studien_, x., p. 377, note). [21] IX. 492, XIX. 459, XX. 396. 3. THE PRESENT EDITION. The present edition of _The Bruce_ is based upon the printed text of the Cambridge MS., collated throughout with that of E--that is, upon the versions of Skeat and Jamieson. I have, however, adopted rather more readings from E than does Skeat, also a few more from Wyntoun, and offer some slight emendations--_e.g._, _luffys_ for _liffys_ in Bk. II. 527, _oft_ for _off_ in III. 194, _Fyn all_ for _Fyngall_ in II. 69, etc. I have profited, too, by criticism of the published text as in the adoption of Dr. Neilson’s _corn-but_ in Bk. II. 438. The question of Hart’s version has been discussed above; it is valid only as a check upon the MSS. Variants of any interest or importance are given in the footnotes.