Besides such variations as appear in the foregoing specimen, there are in the second text many considerable additions, omissions, and transpositions. It would not be easy to account for the existence of two texts differing so much; but it is my impression that the first was the one published by the author, and that the variations were made by some other person, who was perhaps induced by his own political sentiments to modify passages, and was gradually led on to publish a revision of the whole. It is certain that in some parts of Text II. the strong sentiments or expressions of the first text are softened down. We may give as an example of this, the statement of the popular opinion of the origin and purpose of kingly government:-- TEXT I. TEXT II. Thanne kam ther a kyng, Thanne cam ther a kyng, Knyghthod hym ladde, Knyghtod hym ladde, Might of the communes The meche myghte of the men Made hym to regne. Made hym to regne. And thanne cam kynde wit, And thanne cam a kynde witte, And clerkes he made, And clerkus he made, For to counseillen the kyng, And concience and kynde wit, And the commune save. And knyghthod to-gederes, The kyng and knyghthod, Caste that the comune And clergie bothe, Sholde hure comunes fynde. Casten that the commune Kynde wit and the comune Sholde hem self fynde. Contrevede alle craftes, The commune contreved And for most profitable to the puple, Of kynde wit craftes, A plouh thei gonne make, And for profit of al the peple Wit leil labour to lyve, Plowmen ordeyned, Wyl lyve and londe lasteth. To tilie and to travaille, As trewe lif asketh. The kyng and the commune, And kynde wit the thridde, Shopen lawe and leauté, Ech man to knowe his owene. Nobody, I think, can deny that in this instance the doctrine is stated far more distinctly and far more boldly in the first text than in the second. In general the first text is the best, whether we look at the mode in which the sentiments are stated, or at the poetry and language.