The new digital transcription and translation presented here, both of which have been mapped to a high quality digital facsimile of the Roll, are products of the Canterbury Roll Project. The ongoing project is a partnership between UC History, the UC Arts Digital Lab, the UC internship programme, the Collaborative Research Centre 933 of Heidelberg University, and Nottingham Trent University (UK).

The Canterbury Roll is a 15th-century, hand-written genealogy that begins with Noah and traces the rulers of England from the mythical Brutus to King Edward IV. The genealogy is accompanied by an extensive commentary in Latin. The five-metre long manuscript roll was purchased by the University of Canterbury in 1918 from the Maude family of Christchurch.

Introduction

The Canterbury Roll – Christchurch, University of Canterbury, MS 1 – is a 15th-century English genealogical text. The Roll measures 4890x334mm and comprises six pieces of parchment joined at length. A detailed exploration of the text’s evolution between its creation in the late 1420s/ early 1430s and the final revisions made to it, most probably during Richard III’s reign, appear on the accompanying website. The Roll’s fate between the late-15th century and its acquisition in 1918 by Canterbury College, the University of Canterbury’s predecessor, is at present unclear. Prior to 2010, the manuscript was known as the “Maude Roll”, a nomenclature derived from the family who sold it to the University and who it is presumed were responsible for bringing it to New Zealand. The text was first edited and translated by Professor Arnold Wall in 1919. Wall’s edition, completed in difficult circumstances and with minimal resources, is a remarkable piece of scholarship. It has remained for nearly a century the only means by which scholars outside New Zealand have been able to access the Roll. Arnold Wall (ed. and trans.), Handbook to the Maude Roll: Being a XVth century MS. Genealogy of the British and English Kings from Noah to Edward IV., with Marginal History, Christchurch, Whitcomb & Tombs, 1919 Wall achieved some notable successes. He identified two of at least four scribal hands that appear on the document and recognized several of the major sources employed by the text’s original compiler. The century since the appearance of his edition has, however, witnessed significant advances in our understanding of the context in which the Roll was produced. These advances highlight particular problems with Wall’s introduction and notes. Wall believed the Roll a unique item connected with the Maude family. We now know it to be part of the “Noah” group of manuscripts, other examples of which exist in British and American libraries. No evidence suggests an early connection with the Maudes. Wall’s edition also contains a number of errors, omissions, and questionable readings. By creating a new transcription as part of a digital edition, our aim is to offer scholars a clearer appreciation of the link between text and manuscript. At the same time, a new translation is intended to make a significant and complex medieval source more accessible to students and the wider public. The Project The Canterbury Roll Project is a multi-stage initiative led by the UC History Department. The project enables New Zealand students, who have few opportunities to engage with medieval material directly, to develop their knowledge of palaeography and medieval Latin, while simultaneously developing skills in digital humanities that can be transferred to the world beyond academia. The project is designed to engage student participation at a range of levels, from undergraduate, via the UC internship programme, through to doctoral. Where possible, initiatives and problem solving are student-led. Although directed by a team of academic specialists, the project consciously seeks to establish and operate in a team-led environment in which collective responsibility is adopted for its various elements. The project was initiated in 2012/13 with the launch of a website designed to provide a new introduction to the Roll and access to images of the manuscript. In collaboration with the UC Arts Digital Lab and Collaborative Research Centre 933 of Heidelberg University, Stage 1 was completed in 2017. Stage 1 involves the creation of a digital edition of a new transcript and translation using TEI (Text Encoding Initiative). This version is accompanied by two sets of notes. The first, accessible via the “Notes” button, includes apparatus that explains editorial, transcription, and translation decisions. The second, accessible via the “Wall’s Reading” button, identifies points of departure between Arnold Wall’s original transcription/translation and the new version. Stage 1 also involves a significant increase in the quality of the digital images of the Roll available online. Stage 1.5, which accompanies this release, adds capability to the Stage 1 version that enables it to be viewed via a tablet or mobile device. Stage 2 of the project is being conducted in collaboration with Nottingham Trent University (UK) with an expected release date of 2019. This involves the creation of a database that will be linked to the existing transcription/translation. The database will allow users to click on any individual mentioned in the Latin or English text and view a detailed entry, with accompanying bibliography, on that person. Further stages in the project, are intended to enable the reconstruction of the various scribal “layers” and to develop more detailed notes that will establish the relationship between the text and its sources. Project Timeline Stage Major outcome Timeline 0 Information website with basic photographic facsimile of Roll 2013 1 Release of TEI edition with high quality images, transcription, and translation. Accompanied by textual notes & indications of where the new version departs from the Wall edition 2017 1.5 Release of tablet/mobile-accessible version 2017 2 Integration of a comprehensive database of all individuals who appear on the Roll 2019 3 A digitally “layered” version of the manuscript, intended to reveal the work of each scribe - 4 An expanded set of notes including commentary and indications of the original sources used on a line-by-line basis - The aim of the Canterbury Roll Project is to produce a high quality edition of the Roll that can be used for a range of research and teaching purposes. It is conceived as much as a teaching opportunity as it is a research-driven project. Its key distinction from a “traditional” transcription/translation is that while each stage of the project is subject to peer-review, the stages are not considered to be definitive versions in the manner of a print edition, which becomes “locked” on publication. A digital approach with a modular release schedule enables the team to respond to ongoing peer-review over the lifetime of the project with the ultimate objective of creating a better resource. The project team welcomes corrections and criticism, which can be submitted to the team via the General Editor. CNJ

Access & Citation The Digital Edition is freely available to anyone who wishes to use it. The edition should be credited whenever it is cited. The Canterbury Roll Digital Edition should be cited in bibliographies and reference lists as follows: MLA Jones, Chris, Chris Thomson, Maree Shirota, Elisabeth Rolston, Thandi Parker, and Jennifer Middendorf, editors. “The Canterbury Roll – A Digital Edition.” 2017, www.canterbury.ac.nz/canterburyroll Chicago Chris Jones, Chris Thomson, Maree Shirota, Elisabeth Rolston, Thandi Parker, and Jennifer Middendorf, ed., “The Canterbury Roll – A Digital Edition,” The Canterbury Roll Project. Accessed December 1, 2017. http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/canterburyroll OR Chris Jones et al., ed., “The Canterbury Roll – A Digital Edition,” The Canterbury Roll Project. Accessed December 1, 2017. http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/canterburyroll Individual passages in the commentary should be cited in-text or in footnotes/endnotes by CRC number in the format CRCXXX. For example: MLA (Canterbury Roll CRC001) Chicago 1. “The Canterbury Roll – A Digital Edition,” The Canterbury Roll Project, accessed December 1, 2017, “The Canterbury Roll – A Digital Edition,” The Canterbury Roll Project, accessed December 1, 2017, http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/canterburyroll , CRC001. Individual roundels should be cited in-text or in footnotes/endnotes by CRN number in the format CRNXXX. For example: MLA (Canterbury Roll CRN001) Chicago 1. “The Canterbury Roll – A Digital Edition,” The Canterbury Roll Project, accessed December 1, 2017, “The Canterbury Roll – A Digital Edition,” The Canterbury Roll Project, accessed December 1, 2017, http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/canterburyroll , CRN001. CNJ

The Transcription The Canterbury Roll’s central genealogical tree is accompanied by a Latin commentary. The commentary consists of a history of the world from Noah’s Flood to the end of the reign of the English king, Edward IV. The commentary is broken down into passages of varying length, distributed at intervals across the whole of the Roll. Longer elements of text are placed on either side of the central tree; shorter sections also appear to either side of the tree but are sometimes placed along the central axis of the tree or linked to specific roundels. In this edition, each element of the commentary is identified by a unique CRC number (Canterbury Roll Commentary number). In transcribing the commentary, most decisions were based on the intention of providing a Latin text that is useful for modern readers, but also faithful to the manuscript. The Conseils pour l’édition des textes médiévaux was employed as a guide in editorial decisions, although its advice has not been followed on all points. As this is a digital edition, editorial decisions have also been shaped by TEI requirements (Text Encoding Initiative). Françoise Vielliard and Olivier Guyojeannin, Conseils pour l’édition des textes médiévaux, Fascicule I: conseils généraux, Paris, École nationale des chartres, 2014 The final transcription is not intended for use in specialized linguistic or palaeographical studies. Instead, it is intended to offers students and those researching medieval historiography an accessible text. Consequently, some medieval conventions are retained, while the spelling of certain words has been transformed so that they are closer to the standard spellings employed in modern English scholarship. The Script The Roll’s commentary was produced by two main scribes, who are labelled in this edition as the Lancastrian Scribe and the Yorkist Scribe. The various “layers” of scribal hands can be removed using the Scribal Hand Slider, allowing, for example, the reader to view the Lancastrian Scribe’s work in the transcript without the later additions. In Stage 3 of the project, the intention is to extend the ability to “remove” layers of scribal hands to the manuscript itself The Lancastrian Scribe The script of the original scribe is, for the most part, clear. The handwriting follows many typical conventions of 15th-century English gothic cursive bastarda script. Arnold Wall labels the script the “ordinary blackletter of the day” in his introduction to his 1919 edition For instance, the lowercase a is generally single-compartment with an acute angle, a feature that appeared in the 15th century in England; the lowercase f and s are long and similar; u, m, and n were written quickly, making them look identical at times; and c and t are often almost the same. Other typical features include a left loop ascender for the lowercase d, and the lowercase w, which is a curly elaborate affair. The scribe employs three forms of lowercase r: A version that looks like a modern z

A line that looks like a modern j (without the dot)

(without the dot) What looks like a modern r that dips below the baseline and then curves upwards Overall, the handwriting is neat, evenly spaced, and usually consistent, which suggests a trained scribal hand. The Yorkist Scribe The Yorkist hand is less clear to read than that of the original scribe. This is due to a combination of factors: Fading ink

Smaller writing

An informal script style The script is a late 15th-century cursive with early “secretary hand” features. Notable points are: A very acute left-leaning upper case A

The lowercase r drops significantly below the base line

drops significantly below the base line The lowercase e is rolled back so that it looks almost like a modern o There are two forms of the lowercase s: A long, thick, and right-leaning vertical, with a right hook at the top, features that make it very similar to the lowercase f

A short, stout version that looks like a “squashed down” modern number 6 The lowercase d still looks very similar to the original hand with a left-side loop on the ascender. The lowercase c and t are sometimes very alike, although there is greater variation of how visible the horizontal strikethrough for t is. At times the baseline does not run evenly straight across several words and the letters are not consistent in size. This suggests an informal script by someone who was perhaps not as well-trained in formal writing as the original scribe. Spelling i – j When a j is stylistically long, it has been modified to an i . For example: hijs becomes hiis

is stylistically long, it has been modified to an . For example: becomes Spelling has been changed to reflect the conventional modern usage in English scholarship when the i or j is interchangeable. For example: periurus becomes perjurus c – t It was often difficult to determine if the scribe had written a c or a t. The letters have been used interchangeably – however much like i/j – the version closer to modern usage in English scholarship has been preferred Double Consonants The use of double consonants has been retained. For example: Affrica or Issabella Numbers The commentary contains a mix of number formats. The Lancastrian Scribe largely employed Indo-Arabic notation, both here and in the Roll’s roundels. At a later stage, a scribal hand – labelled in this edition the Roman Numerals Scribe – translated much of the original Indo-Arabic notation into Roman numerals. These translated numerals were usually placed in the margins of the Roll but are also sometimes provided as an interlinear gloss within the commentary. On rare occasions a gloss was, for unknown reasons, also provided by the original Lancastrian Scribe. All Roman numerals have been capitalized

Indo-Arabic notation has been retained as it appears in the text

A superscript ° is retained wherever it appears. For example: 1066°

Abbreviations used in connection with Roman numerals have been expanded. For example: M et The scribal hand is indicated either when it differs from the hand responsible for the rest of a passage or where a later modification has been made. Superscript has been employed to indicate the presence of an interlinear gloss. The “layers” of scribal hands can be added or subtracted using the Scribal Hand Slider. This allows, for example, the reader to view the commentary with or without the amendments made by the Roman Numerals Scribe. In Stage 3 of the project, the intention is to extend the ability to “remove” layers of scribal hands to the manuscript itself On occasion the numbers in the marginal gloss, are faded and extremely difficult to read. An explanation, accessible via the “Notes” button, is provided in instances where a degree of informed reconstruction is required. Abbreviations As the primary intention of the transcription is not to produce a version for specialist linguistic study, abbreviations are not identified in brackets or italics. Where there is some uncertainty about the way in which the abbreviation should be expanded or it seemed potentially unusual, an explanation is accessible via the “Notes” button. Most abbreviation symbols have been removed. For example, the Latin abbreviation 9 is spelled out as -us. Occasionally, where it was thought that there might be pedagogical value in retaining an abbreviation symbol, these are included and are discussed in the notes. Letters that have been expanded from an abbreviation are not italicized. Proper Names If the ending of a name is abbreviated, it is signalled with an apostrophe to allow for possible variations. For example, Willm’ could be expanded as Will elmus, Will ielmus, or Wil helmus (even without considering the Latin cases); similarly Joh’ could be expanded as Joh annes, Joh anes, or Joh annus. An abbreviation mark has been retained in such cases in order to avoid assigning decisions about the spelling of proper names to the scribe on the basis of no evidence.

could be expanded as elmus, ielmus, or helmus (even without considering the Latin cases); similarly could be expanded as annes, anes, or annus. An abbreviation mark has been retained in such cases in order to avoid assigning decisions about the spelling of proper names to the scribe on the basis of no evidence. The expansion of Philippus (in the case of Philip IV the Fair) is an exception to the above rule. This name is spelled out in full on one occasion before abbreviations such as Phm’ or Phi’ are employed, which make the scribe’s original intention clear.

(in the case of Philip IV the Fair) is an exception to the above rule. This name is spelled out in full on one occasion before abbreviations such as or are employed, which make the scribe’s original intention clear. When only one or two letters are abbreviated and the intended spelling/case is not in any doubt, the name has been spelled out in full. For example: Annā is Annam; Edmūdus is Edmundus. Greek Letters Used in Abbreviations Χρς has been given as Christus

has been given as Although in X’anus the X is no longer used as a letter of the Greek alphabet, the transcription converts X into Chris-. For example, X’anus is transcribed Christianus Grammar To improve the ease of reading, commas have been inserted into lists and relative clauses. When a passage is overly long, a full stop has been employed to split the text into shorter sentences. Both changes inevitably involve a degree of intervention on the part of the transcriber but in all cases the intention has been to balance making sense of the text against the aim of retaining a version as close to the original as possible. The first letter of a word has been capitalized if the word is: At the beginning of a paragraph

At the beginning of a sentence

A proper name of a person, place, or book

Used to refer to a person or a divinity. For example: Deus and Imperatrix (the latter when referring to the Empress Matilda)

and (the latter when referring to the Empress Matilda) The name of a month

A certain day of the year. For example: Dominica Palmarum The text has been laid out to match the line breaks as they appear in the manuscript. The window in which the transcription is viewed, the “Manuscript” tab, is manually adjustable – horizontally and vertically – by the user. If the “Manuscript” tab is made too narrow, the text of any given line will “wrap” on to the next line and break at the point where the line would normally have ended. The original layout, as it appears on the manuscript, can be restored by stretching the window horizontally. Where words are split between two lines in the manuscript, the transcription places the complete word on the first line. The subsequent line begins with the first complete word in that line

Interlinear gloss appears in superscript with an indication of the scribal hand

Marginal gloss is placed, with an indication of scribal hand, in the appropriate margin as close to the relevant line with which it is connected as possible Rubrication, Illegible Text, & Scribal Corrections Both the Lancastrian and Yorkist scribes are in the habit of adding a red vertical line to proper names. This is not indicated in the transcription. However, we have taken advantage of the digital format to indicate whole words or sentences that appear in red ink. Intentional erasures that remain visible are transcribed but struck through. Text that was mistakenly repeated by the scribe is transcribed but “faded” out. Illegible sections of text are placed in square brackets ([ ]). Where the text is completely uncertain it is given as […] with a suggested reading accessible via the “Notes” button

Where the reading is certain but the text is illegible it is supplied within square brackets with an explanation accessible via the “Notes” button Insertions Square brackets ([ ]) have been employed to indicate additions to the text by the transcriber and the editorial team. Unless the issue is purely grammatical, an explanation is provided, accessible via the “Notes” button. In certain instances the scribes added commentary text around particular roundels but with the intention that it be read with the text within the roundel as an integral element. In such cases the text outside the roundel, considered here as part of the commentary, appears in square brackets when the roundel is selected; on the other hand, the text supplied from the roundel appears in square brackets when the commentary text is selected. Wall’s Edition – The Commentary The orthography in the new transcription frequently departs from that provided by Arnold Wall in his 1919 edition. Major variations or cases where Wall’s readings are entirely different to the new transcription can be consulted by using the “Wall’s Reading” button. However, this latter is not intended to provide a comprehensive list that includes all minor variations. For a fuller understanding, the reader is invited to consult Wall’s original edition. Wall’s text contains a number of errors and questionable readings, all of which are corrected here. The new transcription also includes a number of passages that were omitted from Wall’s edition. MSH

The Roundels The transcription of the Canterbury Roll’s roundels posed unique challenges, and was undertaken separately from the commentary. Re-establishing the Roll’s original form helps to uncover the motivations of its various scribes and their agendas. For example, examining the translation of the Indo-Arabic notation in the roundels into Roman numerals reveals a deliberate decision by a later scribe to change the length of one ruler’s reign (Edward III). In this edition, each roundel is identified by a unique CRN number (Canterbury Roundel Number). The Structure The central genealogical tree of the Canterbury Roll consists of a series of roundels, which are linked together to indicate either lineage or the transfer of rulership. The text within the roundels, if not the roundels themselves is, in the majority of cases, the work of the Lancastrian Scribe. A small number of roundels with accompanying text were added, with considerably less care, by the Yorkist Scribe. The central genealogical tree begins with Noah’s Ark and concludes with King Edward IV. In addition to sub-branches of the central tree, there are 3 separate sub-trees, all of which feed into the main stem. These sub-trees comprise the line of Norman dukes, beginning with Rollo; the line of French kings, beginning with Louis IX; and a line representing the Mortimer family. Each roundel includes a name, occasionally a title and, if applicable, the length of rule of the individual who appears in it. In the Lancastrian Scribe’s original version, the regnal period was noted in Indo-Arabic notation below the name of the ruler. At an unknown point – but presumably before the additions of the Yorkist Scribe were incorporated – a third scribe, who we have designated the Roman Numerals Scribe, translated some of the regnal years into Roman numerals and appended these to the relevant roundels. These additions usually appear above the ruler’s name. The same scribe translated much of the Indo-Arabic notation in the commentary. Towards a New Edition Generally speaking, the same editorial rules have been applied to the roundels as have been used in the commentary. At the same time, a more liberal approach has been taken to the expansion of abbreviated names. Our aim in this project was to represent the Roll as accurately as possible. All the roundels are included, even those that are repeated or left blank. Similarly, all the annotations that include Roman numerals are present. Where the Roman Numerals Scribe does not, for whatever reason, accurately represent the original Indo-Arabic notation an explanation is accessible via the “Notes” button. The Roman Numerals Scribe’s decision to omit the numbering of certain rulers who received Indo-Arabic notation is also noted. Rubrication, Illegible Text, & Scribal Errors We have taken advantage of the digital format to indicate whole words or sentences that appear in red, or, on one occasion, blue ink within the roundels. Intentional erasures that remain visible are transcribed but struck through. Text that was mistakenly repeated by the scribe is transcribed but “faded” out. Illegible sections of text are placed in square brackets ([ ]). Where the text is completely uncertain it is given as […] with a suggested reading accessible via the “Notes” button

Where the reading is certain but the text is illegible it is supplied within square brackets with an explanation accessible via the “Notes” button Insertions Square brackets ([ ]) have been employed to indicate additions to the text by the transcriber and editorial team. Unless the issue is purely grammatical, an explanation for each insertion is made available via the “Notes” button. In certain instances the scribes added commentary text around particular roundels but with the intention that it be read with the text within the roundel as an integral element. In such cases the text outside the roundel, considered here as part of the commentary, appears in square brackets when the roundel is selected; on the other hand, the text supplied from the roundel appears in square brackets when the commentary text is selected. Wall’s Edition – The Roundels While Arnold Wall’s Handbook to the Maude Roll is a useful overview of the manuscript, upon close inspection it is clear Wall omitted much potentially useful information. The most striking material to be omitted are the Roman numerals added to the roundels (the Roman Numerals Scribe was not identified until 2016). In order to avoid unnecessary and repetitive notes, Wall’s consistent omission of the Roman numerals is not highlighted via the “Wall’s Reading” button. However, by using the Scribal Hand Slider, readers are able to view the text with or without the additions of the Roman Numerals Scribe. In Stage 3 of the project, the intention is to extend the ability to “remove” layers of scribal hands to the manuscript itself Cases in which Wall omitted, misidentified, or misread the content of roundels are otherwise noted. His transcriptions can be consulted via the “Wall’s Reading” button. A good example is the case of Edward I’s daughter, Eleanor, who became Countess of Bar. In Wall’s transcription/translation she is, mistakenly, identified as “countess of Bath”. Wall also omitted, re-arranged, and added whole roundels in his edition. Omissions usually occurred when the roundel was blank or in cases where the roundel was duplicated and Wall believed, presumably, that it was therefore superfluous. Re-arrangements and additions occurred where Wall sought to clarify relationships that could not be easily represented in a print edition. The Digital Edition restores the reader’s ability to view all the roundels as they appear on the Roll. TRP

The Translation The aim of this translation has been to produce a version of the commentary and roundels that is clear and understandable to a reader of modern English, while remaining true to the Latin. Where possible, the idiomatic phrasing of the original has been retained. For example, the common phrase duxit in uxorem is translated as “led into marriage” rather than simply as “married”. At the same time, this is not a word-for-word literal translation of the Roll; the result would be almost unintelligible. To ensure readability, some sentences have been re-arranged and some phrases modified. Interventions of this nature have, however, been deliberately kept to a minimum. Scribal Hands & Errors The translation does not incorporate notes indicating the various changes in scribal hand. Nor does it include, for the commentary, “duplicated” information, such as the numbers that are presented in Indo-Arabic notation by the Lancastrian Scribe and in Roman numerals by the Roman Numerals Scribe (this information is, however, included for the roundels). It is suggested that readers who are interested in the change in scribal hands read the English version with the Latin button toggled to the “on” position. Scribal errors are noted and corrected in the Latin transcription. The translation follows these corrections. An explanation for specific corrections is accessible via the “Notes” button. Generally, these replicate the notes that appear in the Latin text. However, on occasion additional notes are included with the translation. These are employed to indicate particularly complex passages in the Latin where the meaning remains ambiguous but also highlight instances in which Wall’s translation differs significantly from that given here. The latter variations can be consulted using the “Wall’s Reading” button. Names, Places & Units of Measurement Translating names, places, and units of measurement present challenges. Units of measurement have been anglicized if there is a commonly accepted translation, such as pounds or acres; they are left in Latin if no such common translation exists (for example, the currencies of denarii and solidi). To retain one important aspect of the Roll’s idiosyncratic structure, modern Indo-Arabic numbers have been used where the Lancastrian Scribe employs Indo-Arabic notation; numbers are, however, spelt out where the same scribe uses Roman numerals. In the case of the Yorkist Scribe, the standard convention of translating Roman numerals into modern notation has been employed. As noted above, the Roman Numerals Scribe’s work has not been included in the commentary. Where possible, spellings for the names of people and places reflect modern English usage to ensure easy recognition. Proper names in the commentary have been standardized with those in the roundels. Any cases where ambiguity over an identification exists have been signalled in the notes, and will be more fully explored in Stage 2 of the project. For Anglo-Saxon names the spellings used in the Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England have been preferred. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes, & Donald Scragg (ed.), Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, 2nd edn, Chichester, Blackwell, 2014 Where useful, traditional archaic names for regions of Britain – such as Cambria, Loegria, and Albany – have been retained. Names such as Wallia, Hibernia, and Anglia have been systematically anglicized, in this case as “Wales”, “Ireland”, and “England” respectively. The Roll consistently refers to the Vikings and their descendants as “Dacians”. This is translated as “Danes” to aid clarity, although a number of instances of “Dacians” early on in the text have been retained. Insertions Square brackets ([ ]) have been employed to indicate additions to the text by the translator. These are often necessitated by “missing” content in the original Latin, the absence of which obscures the meaning in modern English. Where the reading is ambiguous an explanation is accessible via the “Notes” button. In certain instances the scribes added commentary text around particular roundels but with the intention that it be read with the text within the roundel as an integral element. In such cases the text outside the roundel, considered here as part of the commentary, appears in square brackets in the translation when the roundel is selected; on the other hand, the text supplied from the roundel appears in square brackets when the commentary text is selected. The translation is presented as a continuous text. No attempt has been made to match the English to the layout of the original manuscript. Wall’s Translation This translation offers a new reading of the text, one that varies in a number of instances from Wall’s original. Significant variations can be consulted using the “Wall’s Reading” button. The majority of the differences originate in mistakes in Wall’s Latin edition but a small number result from Wall’s lack of familiarity with medieval vocabulary. For example, Wall translates miles as “warrior”; this version prefers “knight”. On occasion Wall also made mistakes. In CRC128, labelled paragraph 99 in Wall’s original text, Wall misread blodea as bladea. Taking this as a scribal error for blado, his translation reads: “This line, which is placed in the middle of the page and is red ...” as opposed to “This blue and red line, placed in the middle ...”. The aim is to offer the reader a more nuanced translation than Wall, working with limited resources, was able to accomplish. It also includes material that was not translated by Wall. EMR