For the _Vox Clamantis_ four manuscripts have been collated with S word for word throughout, viz. CHDL, and two more, viz. GE, have been collated generally and examined for every doubtful passage. TH₂ have been carefully examined and taken as authorities for the original text of some of the revised passages. As regards the record of the results of these rather extensive collations, it may be stated generally that all material variations of C and H from the text of S have been recorded in the critical notes[76]. The readings of E, D and L have been printed regularly for those passages in which material variations of other MSS. are recorded, and in such cases, if they are not mentioned, it may be assumed that they agree with S; but otherwise they are mentioned only when they seem to deserve attention. The readings of G are recorded in a large number of instances, but they must not be assumed _ex silentio_, and those of T and H₂ are as a rule only given in passages where they have a different version of the text. A trifling liberty has been taken with the text of the MSS. in regard to the position of the conjunction ‘que’ (and). This is frequently used by our author like ‘et,’ standing at the beginning of a clause or between the words which it combines, as ‘Sic lecto vigilans meditabar plura, que mentem Effudi,’ or ‘Cutte que Curre simul rapidi per deuia currunt,’ but it is also very often used in the correct classical manner. The MSS. make no distinction between these two uses, but sometimes join the conjunction to the preceding word and sometimes separate it, apparently in a quite arbitrary manner. For the sake of clearness the conjunction is separated in this edition regularly when the sense requires that it should be taken independently of the preceding word, and the variations of the manuscripts with regard to this are not recorded. Again, some freedom has been used in the matter of capital letters, which have been supplied, where they were wanting, in the case of proper names and at the beginning of sentences. The spelling is in every particular the same as that of the MS. The practice of altering the medieval orthography, which is fairly consistent and intelligible, so as to make it accord with classical or conventional usage, has little or nothing to be said for it, and conceals the evidence which the forms of spelling might give with regard to the prevalent pronunciation. The principal differences in our text from the classical orthography are as follows: _e_ regularly for the diphthongs _ae_, _oe_. _i_ for _e_ in _periunt_, _rediat_, _nequio_, &c. (but also _pereunt_, &c.). _y_ for _i_ in _ymus_, _ymago_, &c. _i_ for _y_, e.g. _mirrha_, _ciclus_, _limpha_. _v_ for _u_ or _v_ regularly as initial letter of words, elsewhere _u_. vowels doubled in _hii_, _hee_, _hiis_ (monosyllables). _u_ for _uu_ after _q_, e.g. _equs_, _iniqus_, _sequntur_.