The present note argues that editors of The Dream of the Rood have not fully apprehended the extent of the textual corruption in lines 75–7 of the transmitted text, and that this sequence of lines has consequently been edited inadequately throughout the poem’s critical history. Editors concur that the text is defective at this point and generally posit that a single omission is responsible for its defects. This conviction is reflected in the way the text is edited by Michael Swanton, for example, in the most recent freestanding critical edition of The Dream of the Rood:

中文翻译：

---

圆梦第75-7行的经文条件

本说明认为，《圆梦》的编辑人员尚未完全理解所传送文本第75至7行中文本损坏的程度，因此，在这首诗的批判历史中，对这一系列行的编辑不充分。编辑者同意，此刻文本是有缺陷的，并且通常认为其遗漏仅归因于一个遗漏。这种信念反映在迈克尔·斯旺顿（Michael Swanton）编辑文本的方式中，例如，在最新的独立式批评版《圆梦》中：