The most noticeable fact about the text of this MS. is one to which no attention has hitherto been called, viz. the omission of the whole history of the Peasants’ Revolt. After Lib. i. cap. i. the whole of the remainder of the first book (nearly 2,000 lines) is omitted without any note of deficiency, and we pass on to the Prologue of Lib. ii, not so named here, but standing as the second chapter of Lib. i. (the chapters not being numbered however in this MS.). After what we commonly call the second book follows the heading of the Prologue of Lib. iii, but without any indication that a new book is begun. Lib. iv. is marked by the rubricator as ‘liber iii^{us},’ Lib. v. as ‘liber iiii^{us},’ and so on to the end, making six books instead of seven; but there are traces of another numbering, apparently by the scribe who wrote the text, according to which Lib. v. was reckoned as ‘liber iii^{us},’ Lib. iv. as ‘liber iiii^{us},’ and Lib. vii. as ‘liber v^{us}.’ It has been already observed that there is internal evidence to show that this arrangement in five (or six) books may have been the original form of the text of the _Vox Clamantis_. At the same time it must be noted that this form is given by no other MS. except the Lincoln book, which is certainly copied from L, and that the nature of the connexion between L and D seems to indicate that these two MSS. are ultimately derived from the same source. This connexion, established by a complete collation of the two MSS., extends apparently throughout the whole of the text of L. We have, for example, in both, i. Prol. 27, laudes, 58 Huius ergo, ii. 94 et ibi, 312 causat, 614 Ingenuitque, iii. 4 mundus, 296 ei, 407 amor (_for_ maior), 536 Hec, 750 timidus, 758 curremus, 882 iuris, 1026 Nil, 1223 mundus, 1228 bona, 1491 egras, 1584 racio, 1655 Inde vola, 1777 ibi, 1868 timet, 1906 seruet, 2075, 2080 qui, iv. 52 vrbe, 99 tegit, and so on. The common source was not an immediate one, for words omitted by D with a blank or ‘deficit’ as iii. 641, vii. 487 are found in L, and the words ‘nescit,’ ‘deus,’ which are omitted with a blank left in L at iii. 1574 and vi. 349 are found in D. If we suppose a common source, we must assume either that the first book was found in it entire and deliberately omitted, with alteration of the numbering of the books, by the copyist of the MS. from which L is more immediately derived, or that it was not found, and that the copyist of the original of D supplied it from another source.