^{page 96 note 1} Pp. 105 f.

^{page 96 note 2} So also on p. 19 Britton says: ‘His name is said, by the Canon of Wells, to be inscribed on a tomb here.’

^{page 96 note 3} Historiola de Primordiis Episcopatus Somersetensis (‘Ecclesiastical Documents,’ published by Hunter, John for the Camden Society, 1840), p. 21:Google Scholar ‘Gyso… sepultus est in ecclesia quam rexerat, in emiciclo facto in pariete a parte aquilonali prope altare, sicut Duduco praedecessor ejus sepultus est a meridie juxta altare.’

^{page 96 note 4} Britton himself does not assign this tomb to Bishop Drokensford, but gives him the monument of William Bitton I, which stands a little to the north-east. The mistake had been made in the second edition (1814) of Davis's, JohnGuide to the Cathedral, though not in the first (1809)Google Scholar.

^{page 97 note 1} Collinson, iii, 399 f. Collinson has assigned W. Bitton I's tomb to W. Bitton II, and vice versa.

^{page 97 note 2} The Latin edition published in 1616 adds nothing of importance for our present inquiry.

^{page 98 note 1} Leland's, Itinerary, vol. iii. p. 107 (ed. 1744): p. 293Google Scholar of Miss Toulmin Smith's ed.: I quote from the useful reprint of his notices of Somerset, in the Som. Archaeol. Soc. Proceedings, XXXIII, ii. 108ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 98 note 2} It may be noted here that all these tombs were drawn by John Carter at the end of the eighteenth century. His sketches are preserved in the British Museum (Addit. MS. 29926).

^{page 102 note 1} Hunter reads episcopatu; but the MS. has ‘Æpo’.

^{page 103 note 1} It is of interest to observe that the Hyde, Liber Vitae (edited by W. de G.Birch, for the Hampshire Record Society in 1892),Google Scholar which contains lists of bishops which are clearly intended to be complete, agrees with the Wells tradition in making Sigar the first bishop of Wells. The list, which belongs to a portion of the manuscript written c. 1020-1030, is as follows: ‘i. Sigar, ii. Byrhthelm, iii. Cyneþerd, iiii. Cynsige, v. Æþine, vi. Byrhtþig. I have also since found that the Anglo-Saxon Gospels written at Bath Abbey, c. 1090 (C.C.C. Camb. 140), has a list of bishops of Wells beginning with Sigarus, and closely corresponding with that of the Historiola.

^{page 104 note 1} As edited by Thorpe: but the best manuscript of Florence (C.C.C. Camb. 92) omits ‘Merewit qui et Brihtuui’, reading ‘Byrhwinus, Byrhtwinus’.

^{page 105 note 1} Neither Leland nor Godwin names any effigy save that of Burwold: Godwin merely conjectured that Dudoc and Giso were the easternmost on either side.

^{page 106 note 1} I have adopted here the view which now prevails as to the date of the eastern portion of the church. It is consistent with such evidence as we have from the documents; but I could wish that the architectural evidence might be more thoroughly investigated,

^{page 107 note 1} The mitre on the bishop's head in the north porch at Wells is somewhat low, but this is sufficiently accounted for by the exigency of its position. It does not at all resemble the two mitres in question.

^{page 107 note 2} Since this paper was read, and in consequence of the discussion which followed it, I have carefully measured and compared the mitres of both the Wells figures. In each of them the back of the mitre, which is not separated from the slab beneath, is preserved intact; but the top of the front has suffered damage from standing out unprotected, like the feet. I now think it certain that about an inch has been broken off at the top. At present the lowest part (at the side) is 2¼ in., and the highest (in front) only 2¾ in. Yet even when we have conjecturally raised the difference from half an inch to an inch and a half, these mitres still remain quite extraordinarily low.

^{page 107 note 3} I have sought in the above statement to convey the impression produced on my mind by the discussion which followed the reading of this paper. I owe a great debt to the criticisms offered by Professor Lethaby, Mr. St. John Hope, and Mr. Gardner, which led me to abandon my original view that the two effigies with the low mitres were the earliest of the series. I have also learned much from the section on the Wells statues in Medieval Figure-Sculpture in England (Prior, and Gardner, ), pp. 296Google Scholar ff., which I had not seen when I wrote my paper.

^{page 108 note 1} They admitted that the monks of Bath had elected Reginald's successor, Savary, without their concurrence; but they denounced this as a disgraceful trick.

^{page 110 note 1} As an example of the way in which confusion of this kind might arise, we may note that in the ancient (Glastonbury) Calendar bound up with the Leofric Missal we find, inserted apparently by the same hand, at Nov. 9, ‘Obitus eadulfi episc.,’ and at Aug. 29, ‘Obitus aelfwini episc’ The former was the first bishop of Crediton († 934); the latter was bishop of Wells († 998).