The remnant of the suspension mark can be seen above the “y.” ↩

The line is damaged, but enough remains of the letter forms to determine the intended spelling in most cases. The “u” in both “heuenly” and “deuyse” are determined based on the remains of the minims and the general practice of the scribe in only using “v” as the initial letter of words. ↩

This line is badly damaged, but the top portion as well as the terminal “e” of the second word remains, the bottom portion of the final two letters of the third word remains, the bottom chamber of the “a” in the fourth word remains, and the bottom of the minims of the fifth word remains. The sixth can be determined from the minims of the initial “o” and the otiose mark that terminates both “f” and “t.” The seventh word can be determined by remnants of the minims and crossbar of the two-chambered “a” and the manuscript witnesses, which indicate that the remainder of the word is two “l’s” rather than two minims of a single letter. The remnants of the bow for the initial “p,” the top of the “l,” the diagonal for the chamber of the “e”, and the bottom chamber of the “a” can all be determined in the eighth word, which indicates the intended spelling. ↩

The double “f’s” in both the sixth can seventh words can be determined based on comparison between the connected crossbars of each and the scribe’s consistent rendering of “u” and “n” with two distinct finishing strokes (see “and” in line four of this panel for an example). The addition of the past participle “gaffid” at this line is unique to Long Melford. ↩