The Piers Plowman Electronic Archive, Vol. 7: <list><item>London, British Library, MS Lansdowne 398 </item><item>Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson Poetry 38</item></list> – Passus 11William LanglandEdited by Robert AdamsAssociate Editors: Patricia R. Bart, M. Gail Duggan and Catherine A. FarleyTechnical Editor: Daniel Pitti Graduate Research AssistantMichael Blum, John Ivor Carlson, Carrie Lindley, Janice McCoy, Ashley Opps, Timothy L. Stinson, and Jordan Taylor. Computer Consultants and ProgrammersRobert Bingler, Shayne Brandon, Cynthia Girard, Chris Jessee, Daniel Pitti, David Seaman, and John Unsworth.The Medieval Academy of America and SEENET by Boydell and Brewer, LTDWoodbridge, SuffolkISBN: (Individual) 9781843840947 (Institutional): 9781843840930

Commercially available:

copyright 2011, by SEENET

2006 </titleStmt><editionStmt><edition>Combined facsimile & documentary edition.</edition><respStmt><resp>Identification of hands</resp><name>IRA = Robert Adams</name></respStmt></editionStmt><extent>1 computer optical disk : col. ; 4 3/4 in.</extent><publicationStmt><publisher>The Medieval Academy of America and <hi rend="bold">SEENET</hi>, by Boydell and Brewer, LTD.</publisher><pubPlace>Woodbridge, Suffolk</pubPlace><date> </date><idno type="callNo">Source copy consulted: London, British Library, MS Lansdowne 398 and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson Poetry 38</idno></publicationStmt><seriesStmt><p>SEENET, A.9 </p></seriesStmt></biblFull></sourceDesc></fileDesc><encodingDesc><editorialDecl><p> <list><head>Attribute Values</head><item> <label>br</label> <term>brown ink</term></item><item> <label>ab</label> <term>anglicana bastarda</term></item><item> <label>it</label> <term>italic</term></item><item> <label>lc</label> <term>Lombard Cap</term></item><item> <label>o[number]</label> <term>ornamented capital, N lines high</term></item><item> <label>rb</label> <term>rubricated</term></item><item> <label>tr</label> <term>touched in red</term></item><item> <label>tx</label> <term>textura</term></item><item> <label>ul</label> <term>underlined</term></item><item> <label>ur</label> <term>underlined in red</term></item><item> <label>gr</label> <term>green ink</term></item><item> <label>bl</label> <term>blue ink</term></item></list></p></editorialDecl></encodingDesc><profileDesc><langUsage><language id="lat">Latin</language><language id="fre">French</language><language id="ger">German</language></langUsage><handList><hand id="hand1"/><hand id="hand2"/><hand id="handsecx"/><hand id="handx"/><hand id="hand15x"/><hand id="handrub2"/><hand id="handrub3"/><hand id="handitalx"/><hand id="hand16x"/><hand id="handmodx"/></handList></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change><date>November 2005 </date><respStmt><resp>revise header, update DTD and ent files </resp><name>Hoyt N. Duggan </name></respStmt><item>New header created </item></change></revisionDesc></teiHeader><!-- 2012/12/04 PAB converted line numbers and ids to new format. Source text was SVN; COR uncertain. Will need to be rechecked. --><text><body><!-- Transcribed Sean Taylor, 1996 Proofed against MS: IRA 1998 Notes completely revised: IRA 2004- Feb2005 COR transferred to Janice McCoy to have notes inserted 24 March 2005 Revised notes from IRA inserted: JM April 5, 2005 Revised notes based on "More Corrections to R Notes.doc" from IRA: JM June 14, 2005 Changed marginal adds to marginalia: June 17 2005 JM Partial proof entry 1 March 2006 EKK MGD 20060306 HND MGD PRB proof entry finished. 20060405 alpha vs. beta app tagging completed EKK MGD 20060417 app tags proofed except omitted lines HND MGD PRB EKK 20060622 notes checked and corrected for spelling of L EKK 20060626 final app proof MGD PRB EKK 20101012 All shadow hyphen markup entered and proofed. HND --><!-- Transcribed Sean Taylor, 1996 Proofed against MS: IRA 1998? Notes supplied by IRA entered by HND 15, 17 Dec 03 Notes completely revised: IRA 2004- Feb2005 COR transferred to Janice McCoy to have notes inserted 24 March 2005 Revised notes from IRA inserted: JM April 5, 2005 Changed marginal adds to marginalia: June 17 2005 JM Partial proof entry 1 March 2006 EKK MGD 20060306 HND MGD PRB proof entry finished. App tagged 15 March 2006 EKK MGD 20060405 alpha vs. beta app tagging completed EKK MGD 20060417 app proofing completed except line omissions HND MGD PRB EKK 20060622 notes checked and corrected for spelling of L EKK 20060626 final app proof MGD PRB EKK --><!-- Transcribed Sean Taylor, 1996 Proofed against MS: IRA 1998? Notes supplied by IRA entered by HND 15, 17 Dec 03 Notes completely revised: IRA 2004- Feb2005 COR transferred to Janice McCoy to have notes inserted 24 March 2005 Revised notes from IRA inserted: JM April 12, 2005 Revised notes based on "More Corrections to R Notes.doc" from IRA: JM June 14, 2005 Changed marginal adds to marginalia: June 17 2005 JM Partial proof entry 1 March 2006 EKK MGD 20060306 HND MGD PRB finished proof entry. RESUME APP TAG AT R3.221 App tagging complete 03202006 EKK MGD 20060405 alpha vs. beta app tagging completed EKK MGD 200604018 HND MGD PRB app poroofed to KD3.203. 20060419 app proofing finished HND MGD EKK 20060622 notes checked and corrected for spelling of L EKK 20060626 final app proof completed EKK MGD PRB --><!-- Transcribed Sean Taylor, 1996 Proofed against MS: IRA 1998? Notes supplied by IRA entered by HND 15, 17 Dec 03 Notes completely revised: IRA 2004- Feb2005 COR transferred to Janice McCoy to have notes inserted 24 March 2005 Revised notes from IRA inserted: JM April 14, 2005 Changed marginal adds to marginalia: June 17 2005 JM 20060307 HND MGD PRB Proof entry finished. App tags entered 03202006 EKK MGD 20060405 alpha vs. beta app tagging completed EKK MGD 20060622 notes checked and corrected for spelling of L EKK 20060626 final app proof completed EKK PRB Resume at passus 5 --><!-- Transcribed Sean Taylor, 1996 Proofed against MS: IRA 1998? Notes supplied by IRA entered by HND 15, 17 Dec 03 Notes completely revised: IRA 2004-Feb2005 COR transferred to Janice McCoy to have notes inserted 24 March 2005 Revised notes from IRA inserted: JM April 19, 2005 Revised notes based on "More Corrections to R Notes.doc" from IRA: JM June 14, 2005 Changed marginal adds to marginalia: June 17 2005 JM 20060307 HND MGD PRB Proof entry finished. App tags partially completed 03202006 EKK MGD PRB 20060321 App tagging completed MGD PRB 20060405 alpha vs. beta app tagging completed EKK MGD 20060419 app proofing to R5.33 EKK MGD 20060424 HND MGD PRB EKK app tagging completed. 20060622 notes checked and corrected for spelling of L 20060628 final app proof PRB MGD EKK completed. --><!-- Transcribed Sean Taylor, 1996 Proofed against MS: IRA 1998? Notes supplied by IRA entered by HND 15, 17 Dec 03 Notes completely revised: IRA 2004- Feb2005 COR transferred to Janice McCoy to have notes inserted 24 March 2005 Revised notes from IRA inserted: JM April 19, 2005 Revised notes based on "More Corrections to R Notes.doc" from IRA: JM June 14, 2005 Changed marginal adds to marginalia: June 17 2005 JM 20060313 HND MGD PRB Proof entry finished. 20060321 MGD PRB finished app tagging. 20060405 alpha vs. beta app tagging completed EKK MGD 20060425 MGD PRB preliminary app tag proof completed. HND needs to review pink items on Rob's lists. 20060425 HND MGD PRB app proof finished. 20060627 notes checked and corrected for spelling of L EKK 20060703 MGD PRB final app proof completed. --><!-- Transcribed Sean Taylor, 1996 Proofed against MS: IRA 1998? Notes supplied by IRA entered by HND 15, 17 Dec 03 Notes completely revised: IRA 2004- Feb2005 COR transferred to Janice McCoy to have notes inserted 24 March 2005 Revised notes from IRA inserted: JM April 22, 2005 Revised notes based on "More Corrections to R Notes.doc" from IRA: JM June 14, 2005 Changed marginal adds to marginalia: June 17 2005 JM 20060313 HND MGD PRB Proof entry finished. 20060321 MGD PRB app tagging finished. 20060410 MGD EKK alpha vs. beta app tagging completed 20060425 MGD PRB partially proofed app tagging, to R7.69 20060426 HND MGD PRB finished app tag proof. 20060627 notes checked and corrected for spelling of L EKK 20060703 MGD PRB final app proof completed. --><!-- Transcribed Sean Taylor, 1996 Proofed against MS: IRA 1998? Notes supplied by IRA entered by HND 15, 17 Dec 03 Notes completely revised: IRA 2004- Feb2005 COR transferred to Janice McCoy to have notes inserted 24 March 2005 Revised notes from IRA inserted: JM April 22, 2005 Revised notes based on "More Corrections to R Notes.doc" from IRA: JM June 14, 2005 Changed marginal adds to marginalia: June 17 2005 JM 20060313 HND MGD PRB Proof entry finished. 20060321 MGD PRB app tagging finished. 20060410 MGD EKK alpha vs. beta app tagging finished. 20060426 HND MGD PRB app proofed to R8.51. 20060501 MGD PRB preliminary app proof finished. Awaits HND session. 20060502 MGD PRB HND finished app proofing session with HND. 20060627 notes checked and corrected for spelling of L EKK 20060703 MGD PRB begun; MGD PRB EKK finished final app proof 20060705 --><!-- Transcribed Sean Taylor, 1996 Proofed against MS: IRA 1998? Notes supplied by IRA entered by HND 15, 17 Dec 03 Notes completely revised: IRA 2004- Feb2005 COR transferred to Janice McCoy to have notes inserted 24 March 2005 Revised notes from IRA inserted: JM April 28, 2005 Revised notes based on "More Corrections to R Notes.doc" from IRA: JM June 14, 2005 Changed marginal adds to marginalia: June 17 2005 JM Changed note to 8.186 added for ROB: Nov 25 2005 HND 20060313 HND MGD PRB Proof entry finished. 03272006 App tagging completed EKK MGD PRB 20060410 alpha vs. beta app tagging finished MGD EKK 20060501 HND MGD PRB app proofing finished. 20060627 notes checked and corrected for spelling of L EKK 20060705 final app proof MGD PRB EKK --><!-- Transcribed Sean Taylor, 1996 Proofed against MS: IRA 1998? Notes supplied by IRA entered by HND 15, 17 Dec 03 Notes completely revised: IRA 2004- Feb2005 COR transferred to Janice McCoy to have notes inserted 24 March 2005 Revised notes from IRA inserted: JM April 28, 2005 Revised notes based on "More Corrections to R Notes.doc" from IRA: JM June 14, 2005 Changed marginal adds to marginalia: June 17 2005 JM 20060313 HND MGD PRB Proof entry finished. 03272006 App tagged EKK MGD (see section from KD297-308 for line omission issue) 20060410 alpha vs. beta app tagging finished MGD EKK 20060502 MGD PRB app proof through to R10.328, resume at R10.329 20060502 HND MGD PRB finished app proofing. 20060621 PRB started corrected to spelling of L in notes here at passus 10. EKK started at Prologue. 20060629 notes checked and corrected for spelling of L EKK 20060705 final app proof completed MGD PRB EKK --><!-- Transcribed Sean Taylor, 1996 Proofed against MS: IRA 1998? Notes supplied by IRA entered by HND 15, 17 Dec 03 Notes completely revised: IRA 2004- Feb2005 COR transferred to Janice McCoy to have notes inserted 24 March 2005 Revised notes from IRA inserted: JM June 1, 2005 Revised notes based on "More Corrections to R Notes.doc" from IRA: JM June 14, 2005 Changed marginal adds to marginalia: June 17 2005 JM 03273006 partial app tagging EKK MGD PRB 20060328 app tagging completed, some not entered (such as omitted lines and questionable lemmata), none proofed, MGD, EKK, PRB. 20060410 alpha vs. beta app tagging finished MGD EKK 20060503 partial app proofing completed MGD HND EKK 20060510 app proofing completed MGD EKK 20060516 final app proofing HND MGD PRB finished. 20060629 notes checked and corrected for spelling of L EKK 20060705 final app proof completed MGD PRB EKK --><div1 n="R.11" type="passus"><marginalia place="marginRight" hand="handsecx" id="R.11.0.m.1">p<unclear reason="poorly written"><expan>re</expan></unclear>sens<lb/>dauid</marginalia><fw type="guideWords" place="marginRight" id="R.11.0.f.1">x</fw><head id="R.11.0.h.1"><foreign lang="lat"><hi rend="rb">Passus <orig><sic>x<expan>us</expan></sic><corr>x[j]<expan>us</expan></corr></orig><reg><sic>decim<expan>us</expan></sic><corr>[un]decim<expan>us</expan></corr></reg> de vis<expan>ione</expan> vt sup<expan>ra</expan> <seg type="lineFiller">—</seg> <seg type="lineFiller">—</seg> <seg type="lineFiller">—</seg></hi></foreign> <note type="codicological" id="R.11.0.h.1.n.1"><ref>R.11.0:</ref> Above the passus heading, a later reader has inscribed <hi rend="it">david</hi>. Below the passus heading, the same reader has inscribed <foreign lang="lat">p<unclear reason="poorly written">(re)</unclear>sens david</foreign>.</note><note type="codicological" id="R.11.0.h.1.n.2"><ref>R.11.0:</ref> In the extreme right margin, on the same line as the passus heading, there are traces of the rubricator's guide, but nothing is discernible except an <hi rend="it">x</hi>.</note></head><lb/><lg type="strophe"><l id="R.11.1" n="KD.11.1"> <hi rend="o16"><hi rend="bl">Þ</hi></hi>anne<note type="codicological" id="R.11.1.n.1"><ref>R.11.1:</ref> It appears that the blue initial <Þ> originally had a drawing within it (as with the Passus 10 initial), but it was partially erased long ago.</note> sc<expan>ri</expan>ptur<expan>e</expan> scorned me  and a skile tolde .</l><l id="R.11.2" n="KD.11.2"> And lakked me <app loc="R.11.2"><lem wit="R">a</lem><rdg wit="All beta mss">in</rdg></app> latyn<note type="textual" id="R.11.2.n.1"><ref>R.11.2:</ref> Beta agrees with the P family of <hi rend="bold">C</hi> manuscripts in reading this phrase as <hi rend="it">in latyne</hi>; Russell-Kane opt for that reading as representing <hi rend="bold">Cx</hi> as well, but the X family of <hi rend="bold">C</hi> manuscripts clearly agrees with R, and probably alpha (F reads this line eccentrically), in rendering it <hi rend="it">a latyn.</hi> There is, of course, no semantic difference between these two phrases.</note>  & liȝt by me <app loc="R.11.2"><lem wit="R F">he</lem><rdg wit="Beta (L M Cr W Hm)">she</rdg></app><note type="lexical" id="R.11.2.n.2"><ref>R.11.2:</ref><hi rend="it">He</hi>, "she."</note> sette .<note type="codicological" id="R.11.2.n.3"><ref/> In the right margin, in black ink, there is an early ownership stamp for the Bodleian Library.</note></l><l id="R.11.3" n="KD.11.3"> And seyde <foreign lang="lat">multi multa sciunt  & se ip<expan>sos</expan> nesc<expan>iunt</expan> .</foreign></l></lg><lb/><lg type="strophe"><marginalia place="supralinear" hand="handsecx" id="R.11.4.m.1">p<unclear reason="poorly written"><expan>re</expan></unclear>sens p<unclear reason="poorly written"><expan>ri</expan></unclear>me</marginalia><l id="R.11.4" n="KD.11.4"> ¶ Þo wepte I for <app loc="R.11.4"><lem wit="R F">sorwe</lem><rdg wit="All beta mss">wo</rdg></app><note type="textual" id="R.11.4.n.1"><ref>R.11.4:</ref> Cf. alpha's <hi rend="it">sorwe</hi> to beta's properly alliterating <hi rend="it">wo</hi>. <hi rend="bold">Cx</hi> agrees here with beta.</note>  and wrath of hir<expan>e</expan> speche .</l><marginalia place="marginRight" hand="handsecx" id="R.11.5.m.1">your for me elin<lb/>Bower<lb/>Rondull wylly</marginalia><l id="R.11.5" n="KD.11.5"> And in a wynkyng<expan>e</expan> wrath<note type="textual" id="R.11.5.n.1"><ref>R.11.5:</ref> This word amounts to an inappropriate and virtually meaningless repetition of the same term from the previous line, but it is witnessed by the beta manuscripts as well as R (F offers six inauthentic lines); indeed the entire line appears to have been corrupt in <hi rend="bold">Bx</hi>. Kane and Donaldson conjecture a sort of metathesis distorting original <hi rend="it">worþ</hi>; Schmidt concurs.</note>  <app loc="R.11.5"><lem wit="R">til I was</lem><rdg wit="Most beta mss">wex I</rdg></app><note type="textual" id="R.11.5.n.2"><ref>R.11.5:</ref> R's <hi rend="it">til I was</hi> is unique. Beta reads <hi rend="it">wex I</hi>.</note> a<seg type="shadowHyphen">-</seg>slepe </l><l id="R.11.6" n="KD.11.6"> A m<expan>er</expan>ueylous metles  <app loc="R.11.6"><lem wit="R F">me tydde to dreme</lem><rdg wit="All beta mss">mette me þanne</rdg></app> .<note type="textual" id="R.11.6.n.1"><ref>R.11.6:</ref> The b-verse is from alpha and is clearly inferior, in its redundancy, to beta's <hi rend="it">mette me þanne</hi>.</note></l><l id="R.11.7" n="KD.11.7"> <app loc="R.11.7"><lem wit="R F">For</lem><rdg wit="All beta mss">Þat</rdg></app><note type="textual" id="R.11.7.n.1"><ref>R.11.7:</ref> Beta reads <hi rend="it">Þat</hi>, but <hi rend="bold">Cx</hi> clearly agrees with alpha's <hi rend="it">For</hi>.</note> I was rauesched riȝt þer<expan>e</expan>  <app loc="R.11.7"><lem wit="R">for</lem><rdg wit="All other mss">and</rdg></app><note type="textual" id="R.11.7.n.2"><ref>R.11.7:</ref> Both beta and F read <hi rend="it">and</hi> where R has <hi rend="it">for</hi>. The reading of <hi rend="bold">Cx</hi> is uncertain: the P family omits all conjunctions, while the X family agrees with R.</note> fortune me fette .</l><l id="R.11.8" n="KD.11.8"> And in<seg type="shadowHyphen">-</seg>to þe lond of longyng<expan>e</expan>  <app loc="R.11.8"><lem wit="R">& loue</lem><rdg wit="All other mss">allone</rdg></app><note type="textual" id="R.11.8.n.1"><ref>R.11.8:</ref> Both beta and F read <hi rend="it">allone</hi> in place of R's <hi rend="it">& loue</hi>. It appears that a majority of the X family of the <hi rend="bold">C</hi> version supports this F/beta variant, but the P family and two X-family copies (YcUc) agree with R's harder reading.</note> sche me brouȝte .</l><l id="R.11.9" n="KD.11.9"> And i<expan>n</expan> a merour<expan>e</expan> þ<expan>a</expan>t hiȝt myddelerd  sche made me to beholde .</l><l id="R.11.10" n="KD.11.10"> Sitthen sche seide to me  her<expan>e</expan> miȝtow se wondres .<note type="codicological" id="R.11.10.n.1"><ref>R.11.10:</ref> Extending from R10.510 to this line in the right margin is an erased note, horizontally written, approximately seven lines long.</note></l><l id="R.11.11" n="KD.11.11"> And knowe þ<expan>a</expan>t þow coueytest  & come þ<expan>er</expan><seg type="shadowHyphen">-</seg>to par<seg type="shadowHyphen">-</seg>aunter .</l></lg><lb/><lg type="strophe"><l id="R.11.12" n="KD.11.12"> ¶ Þanne hadde fortune folwyng<expan>e</expan> hir<expan>e</expan>  to fair<expan>e</expan> damoysoyles .</l><l id="R.11.13" n="KD.11.13"> <foreign lang="lat">Concupisce<expan>n</expan>cia carnis</foreign>  men called þe elder mayde .</l><l id="R.11.14" n="KD.11.14"> And coueytise of eyȝes  Icalled was þat other .</l><l id="R.11.15" n="KD.11.15"> Pruyde of parfit lyuynge  pursued hem bothe .</l><l id="R.11.16" n="KD.11.16"> And bad me for my contenance  acounte clergie liȝte .</l></lg><lb/><lg type="strophe"><l id="R.11.17" n="KD.11.17"> ¶ <foreign lang="lat">Concupiscencia carnis</foreign>  colled me a<seg type="shadowHyphen">-</seg>boute þe nekke .</l><l id="R.11.18" n="KD.11.18"> And seyde þow art ȝonge and ȝeep<expan>e</expan>  & hast ȝeres I<seg type="shadowHyphen">-</seg>nowe .</l><l id="R.11.19" n="KD.11.19"> For to lyue longe  and ladyes to louie .</l><l id="R.11.20" n="KD.11.20"> <app loc="R.11.20"><lem wit="R"><sic>And þis</sic><corr>And [in] þis</corr></lem><rdg wit="Most other mss">And in þis</rdg></app> myrour þow miȝt se  murthes ful many .</l><milestone n="47v" unit="fol." entity="B.R47v"/><l id="R.11.21" n="KD.11.21"> Þat leden þe <app loc="R.11.21"><lem wit="R">wel</lem><rdg wit="Most other mss">wil</rdg></app> to likyng<expan>e</expan>  alle þi Iif<seg type="shadowHyphen">-</seg>tyme .</l><l id="R.11.22" n="KD.11.22"> Þe secounde seyde þe same  I schal sewe þi wille .</l><l id="R.11.23" n="KD.11.23"> Til þow be a lorde and haue londe  lete þe I nelle .</l><l id="R.11.24" n="KD.11.24"> Þat I ne schal folewe þi felaschip<expan>e</expan>  if fortune it like .</l><l id="R.11.25" n="KD.11.25"> He schal fynde me his frende  q<expan>uo</expan>d fortune þ<expan>er</expan>e<seg type="shadowHyphen">-</seg>after .</l><l id="R.11.26" n="KD.11.26"> Þe freke þat folweth my wille  failed neu<expan>er</expan>e blisse .</l></lg><lb/><lg type="strophe"><l id="R.11.27" n="KD.11.27"> ¶ Þanne was þer<expan>e</expan> on þ<expan>a</expan>t hiȝt elde  þ<expan>a</expan>t heuy was of cher<expan>e</expan> .</l><l id="R.11.28" n="KD.11.28"> Man q<expan>uo</expan>d he if I mete with þe  by marie of heuene .</l><l id="R.11.29" n="KD.11.29"> Þow schalt fynde fortune  þe faile at þi moste nede .</l><l id="R.11.30" n="KD.11.30"> And <foreign lang="lat">co<expan>n</expan>cupiscencia carnis</foreign>  clene þe forsake .</l><l id="R.11.31" n="KD.11.31"> Bitt<expan>er</expan>lich schaltow banne þanne  both dayes and niȝtes .</l><l id="R.11.32" n="KD.11.32"> Coueitise of eye  þat eu<expan>er</expan>e þow hir<expan>e</expan> knewe .</l><l id="R.11.33" n="KD.11.33"> And pruyde of <app loc="R.11.33"><lem wit="R">þi</lem><rdg wit="All other mss">nil</rdg></app><note type="textual" id="R.11.33.n.1"><ref>R.11.33:</ref> R's <hi rend="it">þi</hi> is a unique addition to the text of <hi rend="bold">Bx</hi>. This addition is also unwitnessed in any <hi rend="bold">C</hi> copy.</note> parfit lyuynge  to muche peril þe brynge .</l></lg><lb/><lg type="strophe"><l id="R.11.34" n="KD.11.34"> ¶ Ȝee recche þe neu<expan>er</expan>e q<expan>uo</expan>d recchelesnesse  stod forth in ragged cloþes .</l><l id="R.11.35" n="KD.11.35"> Folewe forth þat fortune wole  þow hast wel fer to elde .</l><l id="R.11.36" n="KD.11.36"> A man may stoupe tymes I<seg type="shadowHyphen">-</seg>now  whan he schal tyne þe croune .</l></lg><lb/><lg type="strophe"><l id="R.11.37" n="KD.11.37"> ¶ <foreign lang="lat">Homo p<expan>ro</expan>ponit</foreign> q<expan>uo</expan>d a poete <app loc="R.11.37"><lem wit="R F">þo</lem><rdg wit="All beta mss">nil</rdg></app><note type="textual" id="R.11.37.n.1"><ref>R.11.37:</ref> Alpha's <hi rend="it">þo</hi> is omitted by beta but supported by <hi rend="bold">Cx</hi>.</note>  and plato he hiȝte .</l><l id="R.11.38" n="KD.11.38"> And <foreign lang="lat">deus disponit</foreign> q<expan>uo</expan>d he  lat god do his wille .</l><l id="R.11.39" n="KD.11.39"> If treuth wil witnesse it be wel do  fortune to folwe .</l><l id="R.11.40" n="KD.11.40"> <foreign lang="lat">Concupiscencia carnis</foreign>  ne coueytise of eyes .</l><l id="R.11.41" n="KD.11.41"> Ne schal nouȝte greue þe <app loc="R.11.41"><lem wit="R F">graythly</lem><rdg wit="All beta mss">gretly</rdg></app><note type="textual" id="R.11.41.n.1"><ref>R.11.41:</ref> Beta reads <hi rend="it">gretly</hi>, a more obvious reading, but one which is also the reading of <hi rend="bold">Cx</hi>.</note>  ne begile þe but þow wolt .</l></lg><lb/><lg type="strophe"><l id="R.11.42" n="KD.11.42"> ¶ Ȝee farewel fipp q<expan>uo</expan>d fauntelte  and forth gan me drawe .</l><l id="R.11.43" n="KD.11.43"> Til <foreign lang="lat">concupiscencia carnis</foreign>  acorded <app loc="R.11.43"><lem wit="R">til</lem><rdg wit="Most beta mss">nil</rdg></app><note type="textual" id="R.11.43.n.1"><ref>R.11.43:</ref> R's second <hi rend="it">til</hi> is a unique addition to the text witnessed by F and beta. However, <hi rend="bold">Cx</hi> agrees with R on this variant's presence.</note> alle my werkes .</l></lg><lb/><lg type="strophe"><l id="R.11.44" n="KD.11.44"> ¶ Allas eyȝe q<expan>uo</expan>d elde  and holynesse bothe .</l><l id="R.11.45" n="KD.11.45"> Þat wit schal turne to wrecchednesse  for wille to haue his likyng<expan>e</expan> .<note type="codicological" id="R.11.45.n.1"><ref>R.11.45:</ref> The <y> of <hi rend="it">likynge</hi> appears to have been subpuncted by two red dots but no correction has been made. In reality, the "subpuncting" is probably accidental offset from the red boxing on the facing page at 11.80.</note><note type="textual" id="R.11.45.n.2"><ref>R.11.45:</ref> Hereafter alpha omits four lines present in the beta manuscripts (KD11.46-49): <lb/> <hi rend="it">Coueityse of eyghes conforted me anon after <lb/> And folwed me fourty wynter and a fyfte more <lb/> Þat of dowel ne dobet no deyntee me ne þouȝte <lb/> I had no lykynge leue me if þe leste of hem auȝte to knowe</hi>. <lb/>F then omits the next two lines of <hi rend="bold">Bx</hi> as well. The obvious cause of alpha's four-line omission was eyeskip, since KD11.46 begins with the same phrase as KD11.50: <hi rend="it">Coueytyse of eyes</hi>.</note></l></lg><lb/><lg type="strophe"><l id="R.11.46" n="KD.11.50"> ¶ Coueytise of eyȝes  cam ofter in my mende .</l><l id="R.11.47" n="KD.11.51"> Þanne dowel or do<seg type="shadowHyphen">-</seg>bet  amonges my dedes alle .</l><l id="R.11.48" n="KD.11.52"> Coueytise of eyȝes  conforted me ofte .</l><l id="R.11.49" n="KD.11.53"> And seyde haue no consience  how þow come to goed .</l><l id="R.11.50" n="KD.11.54"> Go co<expan>n</expan>fesse þe to su<expan>m</expan> frere  and schewe hym þi synnes .</l><milestone n="48r" unit="fol." entity="B.R48r"/><l id="R.11.51" n="KD.11.55"> <hi rend="ul">For whiles fortune is þi frende  <app loc="R.11.51"><lem wit="R">su<expan>m</expan> frer<expan>e</expan></lem><rdg wit="All other mss">Freres</rdg></app></hi><note type="textual" id="R.11.51.n.1"><ref>R.11.51:</ref> R's <hi rend="it">sum frere</hi> is unique; <hi rend="bold">Bx</hi> reads <hi rend="it">Freres</hi>, as does <hi rend="bold">Cx</hi>.</note><note type="codicological" id="R.11.51.n.2"><ref/> These lines present a very good illustration of a difficulty sometimes encountered in R: it is nearly impossible here and in some other instances to distinguish later readers' underlinings from the residue of the original ruling for text.</note> wil þe louie .</l><l id="R.11.52" n="KD.11.56"> <hi rend="ul">And <app loc="R.11.52"><lem wit="R">fette</lem><rdg wit="All beta mss">fecche</rdg></app></hi><note type="textual" id="R.11.52.n.1"><ref>R.11.52:</ref> Cf. F's <hi rend="it">sette</hi> and beta's <hi rend="it">fecche</hi>. R's verb is almost certainly that of alpha (a closely related synonym of beta's variant), a form misread by F on account of <f> being mistaken for tall <s>.</note> <hi rend="ul">þe to her<expan>e</expan> frat<expan>er</expan>nite  and for þe by<seg type="shadowHyphen">-</seg>seche .</hi></l><l id="R.11.53" n="KD.11.57"> <hi rend="ul">To her<expan>e</expan> priour<expan>e</expan> p<expan>ro</expan>uincial  a pardou<expan>n</expan> for to haue .</hi></l><l id="R.11.54" n="KD.11.58"> And preyen for þe pol by pol  if þow be pecunious .<note type="textual" id="R.11.54.n.1"><ref>R.11.54:</ref> Though the B group agrees with alpha's <hi rend="it">pecunious</hi>, beta presumably had <foreign lang="lat">peccuniosus</foreign>. Some <hi rend="bold">C</hi> manuscripts agree with beta. However, four of the X family copies of the <hi rend="bold">C</hi> version (P<hi rend="sup">2</hi>KUcDc) agree with the P family in supporting alpha's anglicized form (both <title>OED2 and MED, both s. v. pecunious, agree in citing this line from Langland as the earliest occurrence of pecunious in English. PenaSet pena peculariapecuniariaR.11.55: R's pecularia is unique error. The other witnesses (both B and C) have pecuniaria. non sufficit  pro spiritualibus delictis. ¶ By wissynge of þis wenche I dedewrouȝteR.11.56: R's dede is unique among the B manuscripts; most of the others read some form of wrouȝte, while F, which rewrites the a-verse, attests wrowhte. However, Cx agrees with R's reading.  hire wordes were so swete . Til I forȝat ȝouthe  and ranR.11.57: Beta shows ȝarn, while F has ȝeede. Only Hm agrees with R's reading. Among the C witnesses, there are various lections attested here, including a mixed group of six that agrees with R; however, it seems clear that Cx probably read yorn. into elde . And þan was fortune my foo  for alle hire faire beheste . And pouerte pursued me  and putte me lowe . And þo fonde I þe frere aferde  and flitynge bothe . Aȝeynes oure furste forwarde  for I seide I nolde . Be buried at here hous  but at my parisch cherche . For I herd ones  how conscience it tolde . Þat þere a man were cristened  be kende he schulde be buried . Or where he were anil parischene  riȝt þere he schulde be grauen . And for I seyde þus to freres  a foel þei me helden . And loued me þe lasse  for my lele speche . Ac ȝeet I cried on my confessour  þat held hym-self so kunngeynge . Be my feyth frere quod I  ȝe faren like þis woweres . Þat wedden non wydewes  but for to welde here goedgodis .R.11.70: R's singular form is unique; Bx reads godis, as does Cx. Riȝt so bi þe rode  rouȝte ȝe neuere . Where my body were buried  by so ȝe hadde my siluer Ich haue muche merueyle of ȝow  and so hath many other . Whi ȝoure couent coueyteth  to confesse and to burie . Rather þan to baptize barnes  þat ben catekumelynges . Baptizinge and buriynge  bothe beth ful nedful . Ac muche more meritorie  me þinketh it is to baptize . For a baptized man  may as meystres telleth . Þoruȝ contricioun come  tiltoR.11.79: Beta has to while F reads into. þe heȝe heuene . Sola contricio &cetera . ¶ Ac a barne with-outen bapteme  may nouȝt so be ysauedsaued . Nisi quis renatus fuerit loke ȝe lettred men whetur I lye or do nouȝt And lewete þonilR.11.83: Beta omits alpha's þo. loked on me  and I loured after .R.11.83: After this line, the scribe fails to insert a blank line to separate his verse strophes. Presumably, he omits the blank because the next line is the last one ruled for this side. ¶ Wherefore lourestow quod lewte  and loked on me harde. ¶ Ȝif I durst quod I amonges men  þis meteles auowe . ¶ Ȝe be peter and be poule quod he and takeR.11.86: Though most beta manuscripts read took here, R's take is supported by LMG. hem bothe to witnesse . Non oderis fratres secrete in corde tuo  sed publice argue illos. ¶ Þei wol aleggen al-so quod I  and by þe gospel preuen . Nolite iudicare quemquam  &cetera . ¶ And where-of serueth lawe quod leute þannenilR.11.90: R's þanne is a unique addition to the text of Bx. In an almost identical line, no C witness includes R's addition.  if no lif vndertoke it . Falsnesse ne faytrie  for sum-what þe apostle seide . Non oderis fratrem . and in þe sauter al-so  seyth dauid þe prophete . Existimasti inique quod ero tui similis . et c. It is licitum for lewedmenlewed men  to segge þe sothe . If hem liketh and lest  vch a lawe it graunteth . Except persones and prestes  and prelates of holy cherchescherche .R.11.96: R's plural is unique; Bx reads cherche. It falleth nauȝt for þat folke  noneR.11.97: Beta reads no. tales to telle . Þouȝ þe tale were trewe  and it touched synne .AcnilR.11.99: Beta omits the conjunction, while F reads A instead. þinge þat alle þe worlde wote  wherefore schuldestow spare . And reeden it in rethorike  to a-raten dedly synne . Ac be neuer-more þe furste  þe defaute to blame . Þouȝ þow se euel sey it nauȝt furste  be sori it nere amendit . No þinge þat is priue  publiche þow it neuere . Neither for loue lakkelaudeR.11.104: R's first use of lakke in this line is unique; the majority of the beta manuscripts read laude and F, typically, rewrites the a-verse. The C line is virtually unchanged, but the verb phrase in question appears as labbe it out. it nouȝt  ne lakke it for enuye . Parum lauda vitupera parcius. ¶ He seith þenilR.11.106: R's þe is a unique addition to the text here witnessed by both Bx and Cx. sothe quod scripture þo  and skypte an heyȝ and preched . Ac þe matere þat sche meued  lewedif lewed men it knowekneweR.11.107: The omission of if at the head of the b-verse completely alters the meaning of this line, but it must have occurred in alpha since F also bears witness to its absence. Likewise, alpha's aberrant knowe is attested in F's distorted b-verse (lewede men not knowe yt). The authorial status of the line as it appears in beta is warranted by its agreement with Cx: Ac þe matere þat she meuede if lewede men hit knewe. . Þe lasse as I leue  loueyen it þey wolde . Þe bileueBut þei beleven þat[of] þat lord  þaton þe lettred menmen hem techeth .R.11.109: This line is absent from beta, and F's version is sufficiently different from R's that the reconstruction of alpha must remain conjectural. F reads the line: But þei be-leven on þe lord / þat lettrid men hem techeþ. It seems likely, however, that R's version of this line is more faithful to alpha than is F and that the omission of the preposition of from the a-verse occurred in R or its immediate ancestor. ¶ Þis was hire teme  and hire tixte  I toke ful gode hede . Multi to a mangerie  and to þe mete were sompned . And whanne þe poeple was plener come  þe porter vnpynned þe ȝate . And plukked in pauci priueliche  & lete þe remenant go rome .R.11.113: Here the scribe omits his usual blank line separating strophes, presumably because the next line is the last one ruled for this side. ¶ Al for tene of hire tixst  tremeled myn herte.And In a were gan I wex . And in a were gan I wex  and with my-selue to despute . Whether I were chose or nouȝt chose  on holy cherche I þouȝte . Þat vnderfonge me at þe fonte  for oen of godes chosene . ¶ For crist cleped vs alle  come if we wolde .R.11.118: In the right margin, a black brace extends from this line down to 11.122. Sarasines and sismatices  and so he dede þe Iewes . O vos omnes scicientesR.11.120: R's scicientes is variant spelling of the Vulgate form sicientes. It is found in many B manuscripts (including L, M, and F) and is not rare in late medieval Latin generally. venite &cetera . And bad hem souke for synne  sauesauflyR.11.121: RF here read saue against beta's saufly. At first glance, the occurrence of saue appears to be an alpha error, either for safly, or for Kane-Donaldson's conjectured saufte. However, saue is also found at this point in the X family of C manuscripts (the P family = sauete). As evidenced by MED, save can have nominal, adjectival, or adverbial senses. See s. v. saue, (n. 1) and sauf (adj. and adv.). Moreover, Russell and Kane seem to have recanted their emendation, since their edition now offers saue as the original C reading. In light of the shared witness of the X family of C, and the ample evidence that SWMidlands phonology treated /v/ and /f/ as allophonic, R's reading probably is equivalent to "safe" and directly mirrors Bx while beta represents an attempt at glossing the harder reading. at his breste . And drinke bote for bale  brouke it ho-so miȝte . ¶ Þanne may alle cristene come quod I  and clayme þere entre . Be þe blodR.11.124: Beta adds þat before he. The C version of the line appears to support beta (though some X family copies omit þat). heþat he bouȝte vsvs [wiþ]vs withR.11.124: The omission of with at the end of the a-verse is unique to R and alters the meaning and grammatical status of the clause. Cx confirms that R is in error.  and þoruȝ baptesme after .R.11.124: In the right margin, a hand points to this line.☜ Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit &cetera . For þouȝ a cristen man coueyted  his cristendom to receyuereneye .R.11.126: Alpha generated this error (receyue for reneye); it makes nonsense of the statement as a whole (which runs into the next line), though it makes limited sense within its own line. Cx shows the same verb as beta. Riȝtfulliche to reneye  no reson it wolde . ¶ For may no cherle chartre make  ne his catel selle . With-outen leue of his lorde  nenoR.11.129: R's ne is unique; both Bx and Cx read no. lawe wile it graunte . Ac he may rennen in a-rerage  and rennerowmeR.11.130: Beta has rowme so; F reads rayke. Cx agrees with beta on the verb in question but agrees with alpha on the omission of so. fro home . And as hea rennethreneyed caytif  rechelesliche aboute . R's reading of the a-verse of this line is unique. Beta reads And as a reneyed caityf. The problem seems to have begun at line 130, where R's b-verse involves an awkward redundancy (cf. beta's rowme). However, this redundancy probably mirrors alpha, while F seeks to repair the mistake by varying the verb to rayke. At line 131, R's continued confusion then would be merely reproducing serious corruption in alpha that began in the previous line. F, typically, attempts to repair the lapse in sense with & þey he renne recchesly / or romeþ a-bowte (F8.128), but Bx presumably read something like beta's And as a reneyed caityf recchelesly gon aboute. Ac reson schal rekne with hym  and rebuken hym at þe lastenil . Beta omits KD11.131b-32a, presumably as a result of eyeskip involving with hym, which occurs midline in both lines. Cx agrees completely with alpha here. And consience a-counteshal acounte with hymnil  & casten hym in a-rerage . And putten hym after in prisone  in purgatorie to brenne .R.11.134: The word purgatorie has been cancelled by a later reader with a horizontal black line. AndnilR.11.135: Beta omits And from the opening of this line. The cognate C line is slightly revised from B, but its opening phrase is the same (as is the previous line). Most of the P family copies support the beta omission while most of the X family support alpha's reading for his a-rerages rewarden hym þereriȝtenilR.11.135: Beta completely omits this alliterative stave-word; F rewrites the b-verse completely and is irrelevant. The a-verse of Cx is slightly revised from B, but its b-verse is identical to R's and affirms the authority of riȝte. to þe day of dome . But if contricion wel comeR.11.136: The spelling of the modal in this phrase is relatively unusual, but OED2, s. v. will, recognizes wel as an acceptable Anglian form for will in the fourteenth century.  and crie be hys leuelyueR.11.136: R's leue is unique; the other copies have lyue; the reading of C for this final stave (in a slightly revised line) agrees with that of F and beta. . Mercy for his misdedes  with mouth or with herte . ¶ Þat is soth seyde scripture  may no synne lette Mercy may alalle toR.11.139: Alpha's may al is rendered by beta as alle to; C revises the a-verse slightly but clearly attests the presence of alpha's may al. amende  þatand mekenesse hehir folweth .R.11.139: By uniquely substituting þat for if, and he for hym (= F) or hir (= beta), R appears here to lose the drift of Langland's thought, which is the conditional operation of Mercy. Beta's version of this line reads Mercy alle to amende and mekenesse hir folwe. Cx seems to agree with beta. For þei beth as oure bokebokesR.11.140: R's singular is unique; Bx has bokes. Cx confirms the majority B reading. telleth  aboue godes werkes . Misericordia eius super omnia opera eius. ¶ Ye baw for bokes quod on  was broken oute of helle . Hiȝte troianus had ben a trewe kniȝt  toke witnesse at a pope .R.11.143: The word pope is cancelled by a later reader using a horizontal line. It is the same ink as was used to cancel purgatorie at 11.134 above; also the same as used to draw the pointing hand at 11.124. How he was dede and dampned  to dwelle in pyne . For an vncristene creature  clerkes witen þe sothe . Þat alle þe clergie vnder criste  R.11.146: Most B manuscripts agree with R here in the loss of the negative required for appropriate sense: ne miȝte me cracche. The CrWHm group may have restored the negative through scribal conjecture. miȝte me cracche fro helle . But oneliche loue and mynilR.11.147: R's my is a unique addition to the text of Bx. leute  ofandR.11.147: Beta reads and for alpha's of. my lauful domes . ¶ Gregori wist þis wel  and wilned to my soule . Sauacion for þenilR.11.149: R's for þe is an alpha reading. Beta omits þe, but Cx confirms alpha's reading on this point. sothenesse  þat he seithseighR.11.149: R's seith is unique in tense; the other B and C copies have a preterite form. ofinR.11.149: Beta reads in; Cx confirms beta's reading. my werkes . And after þat he wepte  and wilned me were graunted . Grace with-outen eny bede biddynge  his bone was vnderfonge . And I saued as ȝe nowmayR.11.152: The adverb now is unique to R. Bx and Cx have may. R's error presumably resulted from a misreading of an alpha form such as mow(e). se  with-outen syngynge of masses . R.11.153: R's line is marred by an omitted preposition at its head (beta = By), but the error appears to stem from alpha; F seems to have attempted to correct the deficit by adding Þoru but failed to notice the resulting faulty parallelism created later in the line. LoueBy loue and bi lernynge  of my lyuynge in treuthe . Brouȝt me fro bitter peyne  þere no byddynge miȝte . ¶ Lo ȝe lordes what leuteleute [dide]leute didR.11.155: Omission of the verb at the end of the a-verse (F = doþ and beta = did) is a unique error in R.  by an emperoure of rome . Þat was an vncristene creature  as clerkes fyndeth in bokes . Nouȝt þoruȝ preyere of a popeR.11.157: The word pope is again cancelled (cf. 11.143 above) by a later reader using a horizontal line. It is the same ink as was used to cancel purgatorie at 11.134 above; also the same as used to draw the pointing hand at 11.124.  but for his pure treuthein Episcopum Romanum Was þat sarasyn saued  as seynt gregori bereth witnesse . Wel auȝt þeȝe lordes þat lawes kepe  þis lessoun to haue in mynde . And on troianus treuth to thenke  and do treuthe to þe poeple . ¶ Þis matir is merke for mani of ȝow  acsave men of holy chercheR.11.161: Kane and Donaldson, lines 11.160-70 (= R 11.161-71) were omitted by the beta manuscripts and are preserved solely in R and F. F's rendering of these lines is sufficiently different from R's that F's lines should be cited in their entirety (cf. Appendix 1, R11.161-71, for details and any cross-references to the C version): Þis matere is merk for manye / save men of holy chirche. Þe legende sanctorum / lerneþ ȝow ; more largere þan y ȝou telle. & þus leel love / & leel lyvynge in trewthe Pytten owt of peyȝne / a payȝnym of Rome. I-blessid be trowþe / þat brak so helle ȝaatys. & savede þat sarsyȝn / fram sathenases powher. / Þere no Clergie ne cowhde / ne conynge of lawis. Þan is love & lewte / ryght a leel science. God wrouht it / & wroot it / with his owne fynger. & took it Moyses on þe Mount / alle men / it to leere. Þe legende sanctorum ȝow lerethlerneþ ȝow  more larger þan I ȝow telle . Ac& þus lele loue  and lyuyngeleel lyvynge in treuthe . Pultepytten oute of pynepeyȝne  a paynym of rome . I-blessed be treuthe  þat so brakbrak so helle ȝates . And saued þeþat sarasyn  fram sathanas and hissathenases power Þere no clergie ne couthe  ne kunnynge of lawes . LoueÞan is love and leute isryght a lele science  For þat is þe boke blessede  of blisse and of ioyenilR.11.169: The line appears uniquely in R. . God wrouȝt it and wrot hit  with his onowne fynger . And toke it moyses vponon þe mount  alle men toit to lere ¶ Lawe with-oute loue quod troianus  leye þere a bene .I lefte hereR.11.173: A sixteenth-century reader has inscribed for himself a personal bookmark. The note is in the same hand as the marginal note at 43v. Or any science vnder sonne  þe seuen artz and alle . But þei ben lerned for oure lordes loue  Ilostloste is alle þe tyme . For no cause to cacche seluer þer-by  ne to be cald a mayster . But alle for loue of oure lorde  & þe bet to loue þe poeple For seynt Iohan seyde it  and soth aren his wordes . Qui non diligit manet in morte  — ho-so loueth nauȝte leue me  he lyueth in deth-deyinge . And þat alle maner men  enemys and frendes . Louen her eyther other  and lene hem as here-selue . FornilR.11.182: Beta omits For. ho-so leuethR.11.182: Kane-Donaldson transcribe R here as agreeing with beta in reading leneth. Contextually, leneth must be what Bx read, but there is no reason in this instance to construe R's <u> as <n> (even though the character forms sometimes overlap in R), especially since the testimony of F (be-leveþ) indicates that the error derived from alpha. nauȝt he loueth nauȝte  oure lordegodR.11.182: Both beta and F read non-alliterating god in place of R's oure lorde. wote þe sothe . And comaundedcomaundethR.11.183: Although O agrees with alpha in reading a preterite verb form here, beta clearly had the present form comaundeth. vch creature  to conforme hym to louye . And souereyneliche pore poeple  and here enemys after . For hem þat haten vs  is oure merite to louye And pore poeple to plese  here preyeres may vs helpe . For oure ioye and oure euelheleR.11.187: R's euel makes no sense and fails to alliterate properly; beta's hele and F's helthe are contextually appropriate but also fail the alliteration test. Kane-Donaldson conjecture alpha and Bx, on the basis of R, as Iuel.isnil ihesuR.11.187: Beta omits is. crist of heuene . In a pore mannes apparaile  pursueth vs euere . And loketh on vs in here likenesse  and þat with louely chere To knowen vs be oure kende herte  and castynge of oure eyes . WheWhe[ther]Wheþer we loue þe lordes here  by-for oure lorde of blisse . ¶ And exiteth vs by þe euauangelie  þat whan we maken festes . We schulde nouȝte clepe oure kyn þerto  ne none kyne riche . Cum facitis conuiuia nolite inuitare amicos . Ac calleth þe careful þere-to  þe croked and þe pore . For ȝoure frendes wolen fede ȝow  and fonden ȝow to quite . Ȝoure festynge and ȝoure fayre ȝiftes  vch frende quitquytethR.11.197: Beta reads quyteth; F has ȝeldeth. so other .Ac for þe pore I schal paie  and puire wel quiten here trauail .R.11.198: A pattern of tiny pinholes (in the shape of saw teeth, with three crests and two troughs facing the page gutter) runs down the left margin, from this point to R11.201. Þat ȝiueth hem mete or mone  and loueth hem for my sake .Almiȝty god hath made richeGod myghte ryche a maad al  men if he wolde .R.11.200: This line is omitted by beta and apparently garbled in alpha; Kane-Donaldson conjecture from R's shape and F's content (God myghte ryche a maad al) that Bx read as follows: Alle myȝte god haue maad riche men if he wolde. AcnilR.11.201: R's Ac for is unique; F has But for and beta simply reads For. for þe beste ben somme riche  and somme beggeres . & pore . For alle ar we cristes creatures  and of his coferes riche . AsAndR.11.203: R's As is unique; F and beta read And. Cx agrees with the B majority. bretheren as of o blode  as wel beggeres as erles . For atonR.11.204: Beta has For on, but Cx attests At. caluarie of cristes blode  cristendom gan springe . And blody brethern we by-come  þere of one body ywonne . As quasi modo geniti  and gentil men vchone . No beggere ne boy amonges vs  but if it synne made . Qui facit peccatum seruus est peccati . ¶ In þe olde lawe  as þeholyR.11.209: Beta reads holy in place of alpha's þe. The C copies are divided: the P family omits any modifier before lettre while the X family agrees with alpha's þe. lettre telleth . Mennes sones menR.11.210: The word men is bracketed by two slanting lines, apparently drawn by an early reader, perhaps to call attention to what might have been sensed, at first glance, as a case of scribal redundancy eligible for "correction."  called vs echone .hijus Of adames issue and eue  ay til god man deyede . And after his resurrexiounredemptor was his name . And we his brethern þoruȝ hym Ibouȝte  bothe riche and pore ¶ For-þi loue we as leue childernbretherenR.11.214: Beta has bretheren, but Cx agrees with alpha's childern. schal  & vch man lauȝh vp oþer . And of þat vche man may forbere  amende þere it nedeth . And eueri man helpe oþer herenilR.11.216: Beta omits here, and Cx agrees with beta.  for hennes schulle we alle . Alter alterius onera portate . And be we nauȝt vnkende of oure catel  ne of oure kunnygekunny[n]gekunnynge noþer . For noet no man how neyȝ it is  to be Inome fro bothe . For-þi lakke no lif oþer  þouȝ he more latyn knowe . Ne vndernyme nauȝt foule  for is noen with-oute defaute . For what-euer clerkes carpe  of cristendom or elles . Criste to a comune woman seyde  in comune at a feste . Þat fides sua schulde sauen hire  and saluen hire of alle synnes . ¶ Þanne is bileue a lele helpe  abueab[o]ueaboue logike or lawe . Of logike ne of lawe  in legenda sanctorum . Is litel alowedallowaunce þei bothmadeR.11.227: For RF's alowed, beta has allowaunce. The phrase þei both is unique to R (F omits the words) but probably mirrors alpha. Beta's entire a-verse reads: Is litel allowaunce made.butbut if by-leue hem helpe . For it is ouer-longe ar logike  ani lesson assoyle . And lawe is lothe to louie  but if he lacche seluer Bothe logyke and lawe  þat loueth nauȝt for totoR.11.230: R's for is a unique addition to the archetypal text. lye . ¶ I conseile alle cristene  cleue nauȝt þere-on to sore For somme wordes I fynde write  were of feithes techynge . Þat saued synful men  as seynt Iohan bereth witnesse . Eadem mensura qua mensi fueritis  remecstieturremecietur vobis . For-þi lerne we þe lawe of loue  as oure lorde tauȝte . And as seynt gregorie seyde  for mannes soule helth . Melius est scrutari scelera nostra quam naturas rerum. ¶ Why I meue þis matire  is moste for þe pore . For in here liknesse oure lorde  ofof[t]ofte hath be I-knowe . Witnesse in þe pasqe woke  whan he ȝede to emaus . Cleophas ne knewe hym nauȝte  þat he criste were . For his pore paraile  and pilgrimes wedes . —h ijus Til he blissed and brak  þe brede þat þei eten . So be his werkes þei wisten  þat he was ihesus . Ac be clothynge þei knewe hym nouȝte  ne be carpynge of tonge . And alle waswas in ensaumple for-sothenilR.11.246: R's for-sothe is unique; it is omitted by both beta and F. Nevertheless, it may well be original: Cx here reads sothly.  to vs synful here . Þat we schulde be lowe  and loueliche of speche .in vestitum miletentio And apparailen vs nauȝt ouer proudly  for pilgrimes are we alle . And in þe paraileapparailleR.11.249: In place of R's paraile, beta has apparaille. F omits the entire line. Some C manuscripts of both major families support R's form and some support beta's. of a pore man  and pilgrimes liknesse . Many tyme god hath ben ymettemette  amonges nedy poeple .to punysh m\ þe Between these two lines, Hand2 has tried to indicate an insertion point for þe in the previous line where the scribe had already written þe. Also Hand2 has drawn a tail on the original character's descender to make its identity more explicit. Apparently, he understood the scribe's form in line 251 as ye and was attempting to fix it. Þere neuere segge hym seyȝ  in secte of þe riche . ¶ Seint Iohan and other seyntes  weren seyn in pore cloþinge. And as pore pilgrimes  preyude menmennesR.11.253: Beta reads mennes. goedes . ¶ Ihesu crist on a Iewes douȝter a-liȝte  gentel woman þouȝ asheR.11.254: R's a (= "she") is unique; other manuscripts have she. were .To ponyshe mein shrift AnilR.11.255: Although Hm and Y have sche / she, beta omits all pronoun reference, beginning the line with Was. F omits the line. Cx agrees with beta's omission. was a puir pore mayden  and to a pore man Iweddede . ¶ Martha on marie maudeleyne  and huge pleynt sche made . And to oure saueoure selue  seyde þis wordes .Nota Domine non est tibi cure &ceteraquod soror mea reliquit me solam ministrare .R.11.258: Here R uniquely omits the end of the citation, which in F and beta reads: quod soror mea reliquit me sola(m) ministrare &c. Among the C manuscripts, the P family agrees with Bx while the X family offers various truncations of the citation. And hasteliche god answered  and eitheres wille folwede . Bothe Marthes and maries  as matheu bereth witnesse . Ac pouerte god putte by-fore  and preysed it þe bettere . Maria optimam partem elegitelegit que non auferetur ab ea— R.11.262: Here R uniquely omits the end of the citation, which in most B copies reads: que non auferetur ab ea. In LMCrW, however, the citation is truncated after non. In the C tradition, the P manuscripts mostly treat the citation fully, as in the majority of beta copies; however, the X family offers a variety of truncated versions. And alle þe wyse þat euere were  by auȝt I can aspie . Preisen pouerte for best lyf  if pacience it woldefolwe .R.11.264: R's fourth stave, wolde, is a unique reading; cf. beta's folwe and F's welde. Cx agrees with beta. And bothe bettere and blisseder  by many folde þan richesse . Alle-þouȝAnd it be soure to suffre  þere cometh swete after . As on a walnote with-oute  is a bitter barke . And after þat bitter barke  be þe schelle aweye  Is a kernel of conforte  kende to restore . So is after pouerte or penaunce  pacientliche ytake . MakethFor it makethR.11.271: Beta begins this line with the phrase For it maketh; R's opening, Maketh, is supported by F and by Cx. a man to haue mynde in god  and a grete wille . To wepe and to wel bidde  where-of wexeth mercy . Of which crist is a kernel  to conforte þe soule . And wel sikerer he slepeth  þe seggemanR.11.274: Beta reads non-alliterating man. Cx agrees with alpha. þat is pore . And lasse he dredeth deth  and in derke to be robbed . Þan he þat is riȝt riche  reson bereth witnesse  Pauper ego ludo dum tu diues meditaris  Alle-þouȝ salomon seyde  as menfolkeR.11.278: Beta reads folke. seth in þe bible . Diuicias nec paupertates &cetera . Wiser þanne salomon was  bereth witnesse and tauȝte . Þat parfit pouert was  no possession to haue . And lif most likynge to god  as luk bereth witnesse . Si vis pefectuspe[r]fectusperfectus esse vade et vende  &cetera . And is to mene to men  þat onR.11.284: R uniquely omits the determiner in the b-verse phrase, on þis molde. moldeþis molde lyuen  ho-so wil be puir parfit  mote possession forsake . Or selle it as seith þe boke  and þe seluer dele . To beggeres þat gon and begge  & bidden goed for goddes loue . ¶ For fayled neuer man mete  þat miȝtful god serueth . As dauid seith in þe sauter  to swich þat ben in wille . With eny wel or wonil  /R.11.290: The scribe has left a vertical stroke to mark a position for inserting more text, indicating his awareness that something may be missing here.R.11.290: In alpha, KD11.280 (above) was followed by an extra half-verse punctuated as a separate line, as here; cf. F's to suffre wo for welthe. To serue god godeliche  ne greueth hemhym no penaunce . Nichil difficileinpossibileR.11.292: Beta reads inpossibile. volenti &cetera . Ne lakketh noytherneuereR.11.293: Beta has neuere; F omits the line. lyuelode  lynnen ne wolenne . Inquirentes autem dominum non munuenturm[i]nuenturminuentur omni bono. If prestes weren wiseparfytR.11.295: For R's wise, F has all wise men; beta reads parfyt.  þei wolde no seluer take .in clericos — For masses ne for matynes  nouȝt here mete of vsureres . Ne noyther kertel ne cote  þeiȝ þei for colde schuld deye And þei here deuerdeuor dede(n)R.11.298: Here R and F are defective in sense; F rewrites the a-verse entirely while R omits the required verb, dede.  as dauid seideseithR.11.298: R's seide is unique. All the other B manuscripts read a present-tense form, as with W's seiþ. See the Introduction III.2.2.10 on R's seemingly anomalous tense marking. in þe sauter . Iudica me deus et discerne causam meam . Spera in deo speketh of prestes  þat han no spendynge siluer Þat if þei trauaile treweliche  and tristen in god almiȝti Hem schulde lak no lyuelode  neyther wolen ne lynnen . And þe title þat ȝeR.11.303: R's ȝe seems to be the reading of alpha (F is substantially different but agrees on the second person); although W agrees with R on this reading, presumably by enlightened correction (in the b-verse, nearly all the B copies agree with R on the second-person pronoun reference ), the mass of evidence indicates that beta had a third-person plural in the a-verse (L = þei). Cx is partially revised in this line but preserves the alpha second-person pronouns. take ordres by  telleth ȝe ben auaunsed . Þan nedeth ȝow nouȝt to take seluer  for masses þat ȝe syngeth . For he þat toke ȝouretoke ȝow ȝowre title  schulde take ȝow ȝoure wages .Nota Or þe bishope þat blesseth  ȝow  if þat ȝe ben worthi . ¶ For made neuer kinge no kniȝt  but he hadde catel to spende . As byfel for a kniȝt  or fonde hym for his strengthe . It is a kareful kniȝt  and of a caytif kynges makynge . Þat hath noþernoR.11.310: Beta reads no; the P family of C agrees with this beta lection, but the X family reading matches alpha's noþer. lond ne lynage R.11.310: R's lynage shows an alpha error of omission (F = lyflode); cf. beta's lynage riche, which is also the reading of Cx.neriche ne gode los of his hondes . Þe same I segge for-sothe  bi alle swiche prestes . Þat han noither cunnynge ne kyn  but a crowne one . And a title a tale of nouȝt  to his liflode at mischef☞ He hath more bileue as I leue  to lacchen þoruȝ his crowne . Cure þan for kunnynge  or knowen for clene of beringe .Nota in Episcopos I haue wonder and whi  and wherefor þe bischope . A brace in both margins joins this line to the next. In addition, in the right margin a reader has added a gloss next to the brace. Maketh suche prestes  þat lewed men bytraien . Between these two lines there are traces of red offset from boxing on the facing page. ¶ A chartre is chalengeable  by-fore a chief iustice . If fals latin be in þat lettre  þe lawe it impugneth . Or peinted par-entrelinarie  parcelles ouerskypped . Þe gome þat gloseth so chartres  for a goky is holden . ¶ So is it a goky bi god  þat in his gospel faileth  Or in masse or in matynes  maketh any defaute . Qui offendit in vno in omnibus &ceteraest reus &c .R.11.324: R uniquely omits the end of this citation: est reus. And al-so in þe sauter  seith dauid to ouerskipperes . Psallite deo nostro psallite  quoniam rex terre deus israel psallite sapienter . Þe bisshope schal be blamed  be-fore god as I leue . Þat crowneth suche goddes kniȝtes  þat kunneth nauȝt sapienter . Synge ne psalmes rede  ne segge a masse of þe daye .R.11.329: After this line, the scribe omits his usual blank line to separate verse strophes, but no motive other than inattention is apparent.Ac neuerneytherneuer neyther is blameles  þe bisshoppe andneR.11.330: R's and is unique; Bx and Cx both have ne. þe chapeleyne . For her eyther is endited  and þat of ignorancia .R.11.331: In the right margin, a pointing hand, in smeared brown ink, directs attention to this line. Non excusat episcopos  nec ydiotes prestes . ¶ Þis lokynge on lewde prestes  hath do me luppeR.11.333: Although there is no semantic difference from the majority here, R's luppe is a unique form, minimally attested by OED2, s. v. leap, and MED, s. v. lepen; F has lope while most of the beta copies read lepe. fram pouerte . Þe wiche I preyse þere pacience is  more parfit þanne ricchesse .R.11.334: The last word of this line is smudged or partially erased. ¶ Ac muche more in metynge þus  with me gan on dispute . And slepinge I seye al þis  and sithen cam kende . And nempned me be my name  and bad me nymen hede . And þoruȝ þe wordesR.11.338: BmBoCot share this error with R (wordes for wondres), but R is likely mirroring alpha here, and F's rather lame worchynge sounds like attempted repair of this error. of þeþisR.11.338: R's þe is unique; Bx has þis. werlde  wit for to take . And on a mounteyn þat mydelerde hiȝt  as me þo þouȝte . I was fette forth  by ensaumples to knowe . Þoruȝ ech a creature and kende  my creatour to louye .h iiijus I seiȝ þe sonne and þe see  and þe sond after And where þat briddes and bestes  by here make þei ȝeden . Wilde wormes andinR.11.344: R's and is unique; Bx and Cx both read in. wodes  and wonderful foules . With flekked federes  and of fele coloures  Man and his make  I miȝte se bothebothe byholdeR.11.346: R's I miȝte se bothe is unique (cf. F's ful manye seyȝ y þere. Beta reads I myȝte bothe byholde; Cx has the same reading as that found in R. . Pouerte and plente  bothe pees and werre. Blisse and bale bothe I seiȝ at ones. And how men token mede  and mercy refused. ¶ Reson I seiȝ sothely  schewensuenR.11.350: It appears that schewen is an alpha error for beta's suen (with which the reading of Cx agrees); F rewrites the line. alle bestes . In etynge in drinkynge  & in engendringe of kende . And after cours of concepcioun  non toke kepe tilofR.11.352: R's til is unique; Bx and Cx read of. other . As whan þei hadde ride in rotey time  anon riȝt þere-after . Males drowen hem to males  a-morewenynges by hem-selue . And in eueninges also  ȝedeþeR.11.355: Most beta copies have a simple þe for R's ȝede, but L's reading, ȝe, suggests itself as a likely channel of error from the authorial reading to beta and that R's reading may be original (both for lexical specificity and alliteration); F omits the line. males from females . ÞeÞe[r]Þere ne was kow ne kou-kende  þat conceyued hadde . Þat wolde belwen after boles  ne bore after sowe . Bothe hors and houndes  and alle other bestes . Medled nauȝt with here makes  þat with fole were . ¶ Briddes I behelde  þat in busches made nestes . Hadde nereneuere weyeR.11.361: Weye, "person, being, man." wit  to worche þe leste . I hadde wonder at wham  and where þe pie lerned . To lege stikkesþe stykkesR.11.363: R omits beta's þe after lege, a feature also characteristic of Cx. F revises the entire phrase.  in which asheR.11.363: He, "she." lenthleythe and bredethR.11.363: Beta (and presumably Bx) read the b-verse as in whiche she leythe and bredeth. Although F attempts to rationalize the error preserved in R by improvising in lengþe & in breede, R's general conformity to beta here indicates that the error began as a small one in alpha: lenth for original leythe. The alpha form of "she" was probably a, though it is not clear what the R scribe took it to mean. Þere is nonysR.11.364: For alpha's is no (which is shared with Cx), beta has nys, a reading also reflected in a few C witnesses. witw[r]i[ȝ]twriȝte as I wene  schulde werche hire neste to paye . If any masoun made a molde þere-to  muche wonder it were . ¶ And ȝet me merueyled more  manyhow many otherR.11.366: For R's many other, beta reads how many other while F has of manye oþire. Cx agrees with R. briddes . Hudden and heleden  here egges ful derne  In mareys and mores  for men schulde hem nouȝt fynde . And hudden here egges  whan þei þere-fro wenten . For fere of other foules  and for wilde bestes . ¶ And somme tredentrodenR.11.371: For alpha's treden, beta reads a preterite, troden (although Cr2-3 agree with alpha). Cx agrees with alpha. here makes  and on tres bredde . And breddebrouȝte(n)R.11.372: This unique error is introduced as an echo from the previous line; from the evidence of F, it appears that alpha showed a present tense form here, where beta read brouȝten. Cx agrees with beta. forth here briddes so  al a-boue þe grounde . And somme briddes at þe bille  þoruȝ brethynge conseyued . And somme cauked I toke hedekepeR.11.374: R's hede is a unique error; Bx attests the correctly alliterating kepe. In a revised line, Cx's verb agrees with that of the B majority.  how pekokes breden . Muche merueyled me  what mayster þei hadde . And who tauȝt hem on trees  to tymbre so hye . Þere noþer buirn ne best  nenil mayR.11.377: R's ne is a unique addition to the text of Bx. here briddes rechen . ¶ And sitthen I loked vp-on þe se  and so forth vpon þe sterres . Many selcouthes I seye  beth nauȝt to segge nouthe . ¶ I seiȝ floures ofinR.11.380: R's of is unique; Bx reads in. þe frith  and here faire coloures . And how amonge þe grene gras  greuȝ so many hewes . And somme soure and some swete  selcouth me þouȝte . Of her kende and ofR.11.383: Though R's of is also attested by Cr and Cot, it is clear that beta omitted the repeated preposition. F rephrases the verse. here coloure  to carpe it were to longe .Ac þat moste meued me  and my moed chaunged . Þat reson rewarded  and rewled alle bestes . Saue man and his make  many tymestymeR.11.386: For alpha's tymes, beta has tyme and Cx completely revises this line but agrees with alpha in attesting a plural, tymes. and ofte . No reson hem folwed  and þanne y rebuked . Reson . and riȝt til hym  seluen I seyde . I haue wonder of þe quod I  þat witty art holde . Whi þow ne schewestsuwestR.11.390: Apparently, alpha failed to understand the meaning of suwest (cf. R11.350), and R reproduces his schewest; F once again improvises with makst. man and his make  þat no misfeithR.11.390: Bo and Cot appear to share R's reading here (their spelling is mysfaith); cf. F's myschef and beta's mysfait. R's form is probably intended to represent the same word as beta's (= ModEng misdeed); cf. the Introduction III.2.2.10 on evidence for R's occasional use of final <th> as a phonological and morphological equivalent to final <t>. hem folwe . ¶ And reson arated me  and seyde recche þe nevere . Whi I suffre or nauȝt suffre  þi-self hast nauȝt to done . Amende þow it if þow miȝt  for my tyme is to abide . Suffrance is a souereyne vertue  and a swift veniance Ho suffreth more þan god quod he  no gome as I leue . He miȝt amende in a minut while  alle þat mis-stondeth . Ac he suffreth for somme mannes goed  and so is oure bettere . ¶ Holy writt quod þat weyeR.11.398: Weye, "person, being, man."wissethwyssheþ men to suffre . These lines do not appear in the beta manuscripts. They display a large array of differences in F, which is therefore reproduced here in full for comparison (cf. Appendix 1, R11.398-409, for details and any cross-references to the C version): Holy writ quod þat weyȝ / wyssheþ men to suffre. Propter deum  subiecti estote  omni creature. Now wille ȝe leere a tale / was told me in towne. How Frensshe men in France / a-faytyn here childryn. Beele vertue est suffraunce  mal dire est pety vengance. Bien dire & bien suffre  fait lui suffrant a bien venir. For-þy  y rede þe Resoun / þou rewle better þy tunge. & er þou my lyf lakke / looke þyn be to preyse. For þere is no creature vndir criȝst / can formen hym-selue. & yf a man myghte / make lakles hym-selue. Ech man wolde ben lakles / leve þou non oþir. Ne shalt fyȝnde but fewe / fayn wolde heere. Of here fowle defawtys / be-fore here face reersed. Propter deum subiecti estote omni creature Frenche men and fre men  affeyteth þus her childerne . Vele[B]eleBeele vertue est soffrance  mal dire est pety veniance Bien dire et bien soffrersuffre  fait lui soffrant a bien venir For-þi I rede quodþe reson  rewleþou rewle þi tonge betterebetter þy tunge . And ar þow lakke my lyfmy lyf lakke  loke if þowþyn be to preyse . For isþere is no creature vnder criste  can formen hym-seluen . And if a man miȝte make  hym-self goedlakles hym-selue to þe poeplenil . Vch a lifman wold be lakles  leue þow non other . Ne þownil schalt fynde but fewe  fayne for towolde here . Of here defautes foulefowle defawtys  by-for hemhere face rehersed . ¶ Þe wise and þe witty  wrot þus in þe bible . De re quieteque teque te non molestat nolitenolyR.11.411: Beta reads noly while F has non. In a completely revised verse passage homologous with this one, the C version cites this same Latin tag. In that set of witnesses, the predominant reading (attested by copies from both major families, including manuscripts X and P) is beta's, noly. However, a sizeable minority agrees with the form cited by R. certare . For be a man faire or foule  it falleth nauȝt for to lakke . Þe schappe ne þe schafte  þat god schope hym-selue . For alle þat he wrouȝtdidR.11.414: Beta reads did. was wel ydo  as holy writ witnesseth . Et vidit deus cuncta que fecerat et erant valde bona . And bad to vch aeueryR.11.416: Beta's opening phrase for this line is And badde euery; F's phrase is God bad ech. creature  in his kende encresce . Alle to murth with man  þat most wo tholieththolye . In fondynge of þe flesche  and of þe fende bothe . For man was made of swich a matere  he may nouȝt wel astert . ÞatÞat ne sum-tymesR.11.420: Though L also attests a plural, F and all other beta copies read sometyme. Among the C witnesses, the X family agrees with F and the beta majority, but a majority of the P family agrees with LR. hym bytit  to folwen his kende . Catoun acordeth with-alþere-withR.11.421: For R's with-al, beta has þerewith, while F reads þerto. Cx agrees with beta.nemo sine crimine viuit . ¶ Þo cauȝt I colour anon  and comsed to ben a-schamed . And awaked þere-with  wo was me þanne . Þat I in meteles ne miȝte  more hauen I-knowe . And þanne seyde I to my-selue  & chidde þat tyme . Now I wot what dowel is quod I  by dere god as me þenketh . ¶ And as I cast vp my eyes  on loked on me and asked . Of me what thynge it were  I-wis sire I seide .R.11.428: The red mark between this line and the next is offset from the rubric on fol. 54r. To se muche and suffre more  certes quod I is dowel . ¶ Haddest þow suffred he seyde  slepynge þo þow were . Þow schuldest haue knowe þat clergie can  & conseyued more þoruȝR.11.431: An offset stain from the blue initial of Passus 12 on the facing page has partially obscured the <þo> of þoruȝ. resoun . For resoun walde haue rehersed þe  riȝt as clergie seyde . Ac for þin entremetynge  here art þow for-sake . Philosophus esses si tacuisses . Adam þenil whiles R.11.435: R's þe whiles is a unique reading among the B copies (the rest of which omit þe ). R's phrase may, however, be the original reading since it has the support of the X family of C manuscripts (while the P family agrees with the B majority in omitting þe ). he spake nauȝte  hadde paradis at wille . Ac whan he mameled aboute mete  & entremeted to knowe . Þe wisdom and þe wit of god  he was put fram þenil blisse R.11.437: R's þe is a unique addition to the text here witnessed by Bx. Cx, though slightly revised, agrees with Bx in omitting the determiner. . And riȝt so ferde reson be þe  þow with rude speche . Lakkedest and losedest þinge  þat longed nauȝt þenilR.11.439: Beta omits þe. toto be done .R.11.439: Between this line and 11.443, at the right margin, a cartoon of a face appears to have been lightly traced and then erased. Þo had he no likynge  for to lere þe more . Between these lines, there is a tear in the parchment. ¶ Pruide now and presumpcion  per-auenture wol þe apele . Þat clergie innilR.11.442: Beta omits alpha's in. þi companie  ne kepeth nauȝt eftenil to sittesueR.11.442: Beta omits alpha's efte. Alpha's sitte suggests again that he did not understand the meaning of Bx's sue. Cf. R.11.350: and . FornilR.11.443: Beta omits For. However, Cx attests its presence. schal neuer chalenginge ne chidynge  chaste a man so sone . HeAsR.11.444: Once again, R's apparently unique error (He for original As) probably mirrors the same mistake in alpha, with F attempting a correction (Þan). schal schame and schenden hym  and schapen hym to amende . For lat a dronken daffe  in a dike falle  Lat hym ligge loke nauȝt on hym  til hym list to rise . For þouȝ resoun rebuked hym þanne  reccheth hym neuerenil . Beta omits this passage through eyeskip caused by the recurring midline phrase hym þanne. Of clergie ne of his conseil  he counteth nouȝt a rusche . OrnilR.11.449: R's Or is unique; F omits it, while beta omits the entire phrase that begins this a-verse. However, Cx concurs with R on the presence of this conjunction. for to bete hym þannenil  it were but pure synne . Ac whan nede nymeth hym vp  for doute lest he sterue . And schame schrapeth his clothes  and his schynes wascheth . Þanne wote þe dronken daffe  where-fore he is to blame . ¶ Ȝe seggen soth by my soulenilR.11.453: Beta omits alpha's by my soule. Cx, however, includes the phrase. quod I  ich haue Iseyen it ofte . Þere smit nonno þingeR.11.454: F reads no man; beta has no þinge. Cx agrees with beta. so smerte  ne smuillethR.11.454: The <s> was inserted later in a darker ink and a contemporary hand, probably that of the scribe. so foulesoureR.11.454: F and some beta copies read sore here; most beta copies have soure. Cx, however, agrees with R's foule. . As schame þere he scheweth hym  no man loueth his felachippefor euery man hym shonyeth .R.11.455: Beta reads the b-verse as for euery man hym shonyeth. Whi ȝe wisse me þus quod I  was for I rebuked resoun . ¶ Certes quod Ihe þat is soth  and schope hym for to wakenwa[l]ken . And I aros vp riȝt with þat  and folewed hym after . And preied hym of his curteysie  to telle me his name .