initial _h_ omitted in _ara_ (hăra), _edus_ (haedus), _ortus_, _yemps_, &c. initial _h_ added in _habundat_, _heremus_, _Herebus_, &c. _ch_ for _h_ in _michi_, _nichil_. _ch_ for _c_ in _archa_, _archanum_, _inchola_, _choruscat_, &c. (but _Cristus_, when fully written, for ‘Christus’). _ci_ for _ti_ regularly before a vowel e.g. _accio_, _alcius_, _cercius_, _distinccio_, _gracia_, _sentencia_, _vicium_. _c_ for _s_ or _sc_, in _ancer_, _cerpo_, _ceptrum_, _rocidus_, _Cilla_. _s_ for _c_ or _sc_, in _secus_ (occasionally for ‘caecus’), _sintilla_, &c. single for double consonants in _apropriat_, _suplet_, _agredior_, _resurexit_, &c. (also _appropriat_, &c.). _ph_ for _f_ in _scropha_, _nephas_, _nephandus_, _prophanus_, &c. _p_ inserted in _dampnum_, _sompnus_, &c. _set_ usually in the best MSS. for _sed_ (conjunction), but in the Cotton MS. usually ‘sed.’ It has been thought better to print the elegiac couplet without indentation for the pentameter, partly because that is the regular usage in the MSS. and must of course have been the practice of the author, but still more in order to mark more clearly the division into paragraphs, to which the author evidently attached some importance. Spaces of varying width are used to show the larger divisions. It is impossible that there should not be some errors in the printed text, but the editor can at least claim to have taken great pains to ensure correctness, and all the proof-sheets have been carefully compared with the text of the manuscripts. For convenience of reference the lines are numbered as in the Roxburghe edition, though perhaps it would be more satisfactory to combine the prologues, as regards numbering, with the books to which they belong. In regard to the Notes there are no doubt many deficiencies. The chief objects aimed at have been to explain difficulties of language, to illustrate the matter or the style by reference to the works of the author in French and in English, and to trace as far as possible the origin of those parts of his work which are borrowed. In addition to this, the historical record contained in the _Cronica Tripertita_ has been carefully compared with the evidence given by others with regard to the events described, and possibly this part of the editor’s work, being based entirely upon the original authorities, may be thought to have some small value as a contribution to the history of a singularly perplexing political situation. FOOTNOTES: [1] 2nd Series, vol. ii. pp. 103-117. [2] _Script. Brit._ i. 414. [3] _Itin._ vi. 55. From Foss, _Tabulae Curiales_, it would seem that there was no judge named Gower in the 14th century. [4] _Script. Brit._ i. 414. This statement also appears as a later addition in the manuscript.