The same uncritical spirit which we have noted in this editor’s choice of manuscripts for collation appears also in his manner of dealing with the revised passages. When he prints variations, it is only because he happens to find them in the Digby MS., and he makes only one definite statement about the differences of handwriting in his authority, which moreover is grossly incorrect. Not being acquainted with Dublin or the Hatfield MSS., he could not give the original text of such passages as _Vox Clamantis_, iii. 1-28 or vi. 545-80, but he might at least have indicated the lines which he found written over erasure, and in different hands from the original text, in the All Souls and Cotton MSS. Dr. Karl Meyer again, who afterwards paid some attention to the handwriting and called attention to Coxe’s misstatement on the subject, was preoccupied with the theory that the revision took place altogether after the accession of Henry IV, and failed to note the evidence afforded by the differences of handwriting for the conclusion that the revision was a gradual one, made in accordance with the development of political events. I think it well to indicate the chief differences of text between the Roxburghe edition of the _Vox Clamantis_ and the present. The readings in the following list are those of the Roxburghe edition. In cases where the Roxburghe editor has followed the All Souls or Digby MS. that fact is noted by the letters S or D; but the variations are for the most part mere mistakes. It should be noted also that the sense is very often obscured in the Roxburghe edition by bad punctuation, and that the medieval spelling is usually not preserved. _Epistola_ 37 orgine    _Heading to Prol._     3 somnum _Prologus_    21 Godefri, des atque D    25 ascribens D    27 nil ut laudes D    32 Sicque D     36 sentiat D     37 Sæpeque sunt lachrymis de D    38 Humida fit lachrymis sæpeque penna meis D 44 favent D     49 confracto D    50 At    58 Hujus ergo D