S has the Lancaster dedication and the rewritten epilogue, and with these the three additional passages, v. 6395*-6438*, 7086*-7210*, vii. 3207*-3360*, omitting v. 7701-7746, and transposing vi. 665-964. In correctness it is inferior only to F, and these two stand far above all others as primary authorities. Their independence of one another is certain, and the general agreement of their text gives it the highest guarantee of authenticity. The spelling is practically the same, as will be seen in those passages which are printed from S in this edition, e.g. vii. 3207*-3360*, indeed in most places the two texts are absolutely the same, letter for letter. As regards f. 50, which is in a different hand, it should be noted not only that it is far less correct than the rest, but also that it is copied from a different original, a MS. of the unrevised first recension, distinctive readings of which are given in iii. 1686, 1763, 1800, 1806, while no trace of such readings appears in any other part of S. Δ. SIDNEY SUSSEX COLL., CAMB. Δ. 4. 1 (Bern. Cat. i. 3. 726). Contains _Confessio Amantis_, with ‘Explicit’ (six lines) and ‘Quam cinxere,’ (ff. 2-202 v^o), and then an English version of Cato’s _Disticha_. Paper, ff. 211 (of which four blank), 11½ × 8½ in., in quires of 12 with catchwords and signatures. Written in double column of 41-48 lines in a fairly good hand, middle fifteenth century, with a good many contractions. Latin summaries usually in text, sometimes in margin. No decoration. The first leaf is lost, containing Prol. 1-140. The book was left to the College by Samuel Ward, Master, 1643. One of the blank leaves has the word ‘temsdytton’ (i.e. Thames Dytton) in an early hand. In regard to form of text this MS. agrees throughout with S, and it must no doubt have had the Lancaster preface. It is remarkable as containing the additional lines printed by Caxton at the end of the Prologue (which may have been also in S), and it has eleven Latin hexameters substituted for the prose summaries at Prol. 591 and 617, beginning, ‘Dormitans statuam sublimem rex babilonis,’ and again four after the Latin prose at vii. 2891, beginning, ‘Sede sedens ista iudex inflexibilis sta.’ The text has many corruptions and the spelling is not very good. Δ does not give the first recension readings on f. 50 of S, which of itself is sufficient proof that it is not derived from that manuscript, for the insertion of this leaf must be much earlier than the date of Δ.