L.10.373KD.10.366 And owre bakkesL.10.373: The gloss id est panni is written above the line by the scribe. The gloss tells us that bakk- does not mean tergum, "back," but "clothes," "garments." þat moth-eten be · and sen beggers go naked
.id est. vestes clothisM.10.373: The gloss vestes is the same ink and hand as the main text. The hand of the later gloss clothis resembles that of the Latin note at the top of fol 104v, as well as that of the verses about the mace at the foot of that
leaf. The sidenote fiat voluntas on fol. 64v may also be compared. A gloss on bakkes in L reads id est panni.
Cr1.10.371KD.10.366 And our backs þat moteaten ben , & se beggers go naked
C.10.370KD.10.366 And oure bakkes cloþes þat mothe-eten ben · and seen beggers ga naked
G.11.374KD.10.366 and our backesBaggesG.11.374: Compare the form of the <g>s in Bagges with the <g> found in the marginalia on the previous page.G.11.374: In C2 as in G, the reading baggis (for most manuscripts bakkes) results from a later correction. þat moghteyten beene & se beggers go naked
R.10.392KD.10.366 And oure backes þat mote-etenR.10.392: The correct reading is moth-eten. R's
apparently nonsensical phrase (cf. F = mote be betyn)
attests to the spelling practice of alpha, who frequently renders /θ/ as <t>,
especially in syllable-final position. MED, s. v.
motthe, lists no examples of mote as a variant spelling
of motthe, and OED2, s. v.
moth, notes none earlier than 1520. However, among recorded late-medieval
forms, the closest is moȝte, which makes alpha's form easy to account
for. ben & seen beggeres go naked .
F.7.382KD.10.366For oure bak mote be betyn / we cloþe no beggere nakyd.F.7.382: The scribe misunderstood his exemplar. Bx reads "And our bakkes þat moþeeten be and seen beggeris go naked." We can see in R's "mote eten ben" the origins of F's error.