Compare two versions of Aye d'Avignon -l. 1785 of the manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris (ed. S. J. Borg, TLF, 134 [Geneva: Droz, 1967], p. 221) reads «En la chanpaingne furent [plus] de .c. chevalier», but the equivalent line in the Vuillafans fragment reads «Et sunt en sa compaigne plus de .c. chevalier» (l. 15; Borg, p. 297). Thus anyone seeking French parallels for PMC, l. 16 («En su conpaña .Lx. pendones») would, in the case of Aye, have to face the problem of deciding which version was available at the date in question, and there may, of course, have been circulating still other versions which have not left manuscript texts. See also n. 23 above.

Aymeri de Narbonne, ed. Louis Demaison, 2 vols. (Paris: SATF, 1887).

Kenneth Adams, «Possible French Influence on the Use of the Historic Present in the PMC», MLR, 75 (1980), 781-96, offers the kind of detailed study of a specific aspect of epic diction which would be necessary in this area, but even this author's final suggestions for future work (p. 796), fail to allow for the versions available to us being rather different in verbal detail from those in circulation at the beginning of the thirteenth century.

David Mackenzie, «Spanish Studies: Medieval Literature», YWMLS, 39 (1977), 280, refers to «striking parallels» in commenting on Walker's article, but notes that «the question of dating is crucial if a direct dependence is to be established, and it is perhaps more rewarding to consider a tradition of women beaten, along the lines taken by Gifford». An interesting footnote to the afrenta is provided by a rural Welsh custom -J. Geraint Jenkins, Life and Tradition in Rural Wales (London: Dent, 1976), p. 141, refers to the practice of holly beating known in many parts of Wales on Boxing Day. This was a «furious onslaught made by men and boys armed with large bushes of prickly holly on the naked ana unprotected arms of female domestics and others of like class until their arms bled». The custom was still apparently observed as late as 1879 in some areas. It has obvious affinities with the folk-traditional material noted by Gifford.

The chronological study and notes 1-24 are the work of Deyermond, and the remainder of the article and notes 25-54 are by Hook. The article as a whole reflects the views of both authors, who are grateful to Professor Karl D. Uitti for reading a draft of the first section and for help with an elusive bibliographical item, and to Dr. Ian Short for a number of helpful comments. Since this article was written, we have read the review of Walker's article by Ruth H. Webber, Olifant, vol. 7, no. 4 (Summer 1980), pp. 413-16 [actually published in September of 1981]. Webber finds Walker's parallels unconvincing as evidence for «direct textual borrowing», but seems prepared to accept the influence of Florence on the PMC through oral transmission. Our evidence (and in particular the Ovidian myth discussed in our article) would suggest that this is not very likely.