Note: The modern rendering of W&W offered here is based on the vari¬ous editions and translations itemised above, p. ix, and on my own independent interpretations. In places where the original is defective, Turville-Petre provides important hypothetical readings, generally adopted by Trigg and Ginsberg. I draw freely on the modern English versions provided by Gollancz and Millett. The former, however, stays so close to the original that it sometimes obscures meanings, and the suggested readings are not always secure; Millett is therefore a default, though I also deviate from her understanding in a few places (see, for example, the discussion of line 387 above, p. 68 and n. 21). No attempt has been made to preserve the allitera-tive style of the original, though some relatively archaic forms (for example, ‘laund’ at lines 49, 54 and 209 and ‘comely king’ at lines 86 and 199) are retained for their particular technical sense (in the former case: see p. 16) or their more general literary reverberation (in the latter: see p. 10, n. 28).

Here begins a treatise and a good short debate between Winner and Waster