The remnant of the “y” descender can be seen at the end of the fourth word, making this “mekely.” Additionally, “we” can be taken from initial “w” in the fifth word, although it is badly damaged.” Likewise, “make” can be determined from the bottom of the minims of the initial “m” in the sixth word. ↩

Although the suspension mark is missing due to damage, the still extant mark in “passioun” below and the context of the other panels supports its existence here. ↩

This line is badly damaged, but enough of the unique features of the letter forms – the otiose mark in “t” on the initial word; the ascender of “h” and the “ue” at the end of the second; the descender of the “or” ligature, the tittle and bottom of the minim of the “i” following, and the unique otiose mark and the bottom of the minim on “e” following that – to indicate the intended spelling of each. The initial two letters of the final word are determined from the manuscript witnesses and what remains in the panel. ↩

The crossbar of the “st” ligature in the first word is damaged, but the intention is clear from context. Likewise, the initial “o” in the third word can be determined, as can the lack of descender, making “oure” the intended word based on context and other practice in the chapel. ↩

The remaining lines are missing, although there is some indication on the sixth line that there was text there at one point. ↩