It will be seen that most of the above variants are due to mere oversight. It is surprising, however, that so many mistakes seriously affecting sense and metre should have escaped the correction of the editor. In the matter of spelling the variation is considerable, but all that need be said is that the Roxburghe editor preferred the classical to the medieval forms. On the other hand it is to be regretted that no attempt is made by him to mark the paragraph divisions of the original. A minor inconvenience, which is felt by all readers who have to refer to the Roxburghe text, arises from the fact that the book-numbering is not set at the head of the page. In the case of the _Cronica Tripertita_ we have the text printed by Wright in the Rolls Series as well as that of the Roxburghe edition. The latter is from the All Souls MS., while the former professes to be based upon the Cotton MS., so that the two texts ought to be quite independent. As a matter of fact, however, several of the mistakes or misprints of the Roxburghe text are reproduced in the Rolls edition, which was printed probably from a copy of the Roxburghe text collated with the Cotton MS. The following are the variations of the Roxburghe text from that of the present edition. _Introduction, margin_ 2 prosequi (_for_ persequi). I. 1 _om._ et    per (_for_ fer)    7 bene non 15 consilium sibi    71 fraudis    93 cum (_for_ dum)    132 hos (_for_ os) 161 _marg. om._ qui S    173 ausam S    182 Sic (_for_ Hic) 199 clientem    204 cepit (_for_ cessat) 209 Regem (_for_ Legem) 219 Qui est (_for_ est qui) II. 9 sociatus (_for_ associatus)    61 manu tentum 85 _marg._ quia (_for_ qui) 114 de pondere 156 sepulchrum    180 maledictum 220 Transulit    223 omne scelus 237 ipsum 266 Pontifice 271 malefecit    315 _marg._ derisu    330 _marg._ Consulat 333 adeo. III. 109 prius S    131 viles S    177 conjunctus 188 sceleris 235 mane    239 nunc S    242 freta (_for_ fata)    250 ponere 263 Exilia 285 _marg._ præter (_for_ personaliter) 287 Nec 288 stanno    333 conquescat    341 auget 372 eo (_for_ et) 422 _marg._ fidelissime    428 prius S Of the above errors several, as we have said, are reproduced by Wright with no authority from his MS.[74], but otherwise his text is a tolerably correct representation of that given by the Cotton MS., and the same may be said with regard to the other poems _Carmen super multiplici Viciorum Pestilencia_, _De Lucis Scrutinio_[75], &c. THE PRESENT EDITION. The text is in the main that of S, which is supplemented, where it is defective, by C. The Cotton MS. is also the leading authority for those pieces which are not contained in S, as the four last poems.