Evidently what is quoted above is a very insufficient summary of the _Vox Clamantis_, which in fact deals with the Peasants’ rising only in its first book; and notwithstanding the fact that this event so much overshadows the other subjects of the poem that the author in describing his work afterwards treated it as the only theme, there is some reason to question whether what we have is really the original form of the poem, and even to conclude that the work may have been originally composed altogether without this detailed narrative of the insurrection. For this idea there is some manuscript authority. It has not hitherto been noted that in one copy (MS. Laud 719) the _Vox Clamantis_ appears with the omission of the whole of the first book after the Prologue and first chapter[66]. At the same time the text of this manuscript seems to be complete in itself, and the books are numbered in accordance with the omission, so that there are six books only, our second book being numbered as the first[67]. There is really something to be said for this arrangement, apart from the fact that it occurs in a single manuscript. The first book, with its detailed account of the Peasants’ revolt, though in itself the most interesting part of the work, has certainly something of the character of an insertion. The plan of the remainder seems to be independent of it, though the date, June, 1381, which is found also in the Laud MS., ‘Contigit vt quarto Ricardi regis in anno, Dum clamat mensem Iunius esse suum,’ was doubtless intended to suggest that portentous event as the occasion of the review of society which the work contains. The prologue of the second book, which introduces the teachings of the vision with an invocation of God’s assistance, an apology for the deficiencies of the work, and an appeal to the goodwill of the reader, and concludes with a first announcement of the name of the succeeding poem, _Vox Clamantis_, would certainly be much more in place at the beginning of the whole work than here, after more than two thousand lines, and there is no difficulty in supposing that the author may have introduced his account of the Peasants’ revolt as an afterthought. The chief reason for hesitating to accept the Laud MS. as representing an authentic form of the poem, lies in the fact that the text of this MS. is rather closely related to that of another copy, MS. Digby 138, which contains the first book in its usual place; and it is perhaps more likely that the original archetype of these two MSS. was one which included the first book, and that this was omitted for some reason by the scribe of the Laud MS., than that the copyist of the Digby MS. perceived the absence of this book and supplied it from some other quarter.