Reviews and Notes 639 in this part have been corrected, but on p. xxiii rich still appears for rial (Cleanness 1082) and fortynkej for forlpynke^ (Cleanness 285). The short passages from Piers Plowman on pp xxv-vi still contain a number of misprints, as compared with the texts in Skeat's edition of the poem. On p. xix line 117 of Cleanness (not 124 as in footnote) is misquoted thus: & ay a segge so(b)e(r)ly semed by her wedej. Only b should have been inserted at Morris's suggestion. I mention it partly to show Bateson's need of more exactness in scholarship, partly to propose a new reading of the line (see an article in Publ. of Mod. Lang. Ass'n, XXXIV, 494): & ay a[s] segge[s] soerly (that is serly) etc. Lede) of the preceding line requires a plural, as does the sense, and the extra s's may be assumed as having been lost in the following s sounds. The text has been revised to correspond with the Morris revised text of 1869, as I suggested in my review of the first ed- ition (Mod. Lang. Notes XXVIII, 171), except that quoth still appears for quod in lines 85, 205, 347, 493, and destine (49) is printed without the MS. accent. Bateson has adopted certain emendations of Gollancz's edition, as $e for he (122), first pro- posed by Zupitza, Raguel for Ragnel (188), haled for hale (219), on to for un to (240), sayde for say (313), bonkes for bonk (343) but has rightly rejected tyme for tyne (59), and lauce for lance (250, 489). Gollancz's on to for un to in 240 seems to me need- less, since hym un to may be 'unto him' and the following be an infinitive 'to be,' thus making excellent sense. An infinitive without to is not infrequent in the poem, or a second to may have been omitted in copying. With Gollancz's reading Raguel (188) I dealt in Mod. Lang. Notes XXXI, 1, an article which Bateson does not appear to have seen, and in Mod. Lang. Rev. XIV, 154 Gollancz has withdrawn his bonkes for bonk in 343. In my article last cited I tried to show that there is no sufficient reason for Gollancz's quatrain arrangement, an innovation Bateson does not venture upon, although he partly accepts it in the Notes and indicates an omission after 513 in order to make the lines of the poem a multiple of four. Bateson has bracketed and italicized the first er of recoverer (278) where Morris and Gollancz print only italics as repre- senting an abbreviation. He should have bracketed the 3 of te (122) and the first n of non (348). He adopts EkwalFs hater in 189, and the metrical emendations by Luick of doted(e) in 196 and sluchched(e) in 341, while he has himself made loke into loke(n) in 350 without great necessity. He has also accepted from the late Professor G. C. Macaulay what seems
to me an impossible compound tye-devel-haf in 460. My pro-
