fol. 47r (cont.)I
presens
dauid
dauid
x
Passus
xusx[j]usdecimus[un]decimus
de visione vt supra
—
—
—
R.11.0: Above the
passus heading, a later reader has inscribed david. Below the passus
heading, the same reader has inscribed p(re)sens david.R.11.0: 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 x.
ÞanneR.11.1: 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. scripture scorned me and a
skile tolde .
And lakked me a latynR.11.2: Beta agrees with the P family of C manuscripts in reading
this phrase as in latyne; Russell-Kane opt for that reading as
representing Cx as well, but the X family of C
manuscripts clearly agrees with R, and probably alpha (F reads this line eccentrically), in
rendering it a latyn. There is, of course, no semantic difference between
these two phrases. & liȝt by me heR.11.2:He, "she." sette . In
the right margin, in black ink, there is an early ownership stamp for the Bodleian
Library.
presens prime
R.11.4KD.11.4
¶ Þo wepte I for sorweR.11.4:
Cf. alpha's sorwe to beta's properly alliterating wo.
Cx agrees here with beta. and wrath of
hire speche .
your for me elin
Bower
Rondull wylly
Bower
Rondull wylly
And in a wynkynge wrathR.11.5: 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 Bx. Kane and
Donaldson conjecture a sort of metathesis distorting original worþ;
Schmidt concurs. til I wasR.11.5:
R's til I was is unique. Beta reads wex I. a-slepe
A merueylous metles me tydde to dreme .R.11.6: The b-verse is from alpha and is clearly inferior, in its redundancy, to
beta's mette me þanne.
R.11.8KD.11.8
And in-to þe lond of
longynge & loueR.11.8:
Both beta and F read allone in place of R's & loue.
It appears that a majority of the X family of the C version supports
this F/beta variant, but the P family and two X-family copies (YcUc) agree with R's harder
reading. sche me brouȝte .
Sitthen sche seide to me here miȝtow
se wondres .R.11.10: Extending from R10.510 to this line in the right margin is an erased note,
horizontally written, approximately seven lines long.
fol. 47vI
And pruyde of þiR.11.33:
R's þi is a unique addition to the text of Bx. This
addition is also unwitnessed in any C copy. parfit lyuynge
to muche peril þe brynge .
¶ Homo proponit
quod a poete þoR.11.37:
Alpha's þo is omitted by beta but supported by Cx. and plato he hiȝte .
Ne schal nouȝte greue þe graythlyR.11.41:
Beta reads gretly, a more obvious reading, but one which is also the
reading of Cx. ne begile þe but þow wolt .
Til concupiscencia carnis
acorded tilR.11.43:
R's second til is a unique addition to the text witnessed by F and beta.
However, Cx agrees with R on this variant's presence. alle my
werkes .
Þat wit schal turne to wrecchednesse for wille to haue his
likynge .R.11.45: The <y> of likynge 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.R.11.45: Hereafter
alpha omits four lines present in the beta manuscripts (KD11.46-49):
Coueityse of eyghes conforted me anon after
And folwed me fourty wynter and a fyfte more
Þat of dowel ne dobet no deyntee me ne þouȝte
I had no lykynge leue me if þe leste of hem auȝte to knowe.
F then omits the next two lines of Bx as well. The obvious cause of alpha's four-line omission was eyeskip, since KD11.46 begins with the same phrase as KD11.50: Coueytyse of eyes.
Coueityse of eyghes conforted me anon after
And folwed me fourty wynter and a fyfte more
Þat of dowel ne dobet no deyntee me ne þouȝte
I had no lykynge leue me if þe leste of hem auȝte to knowe.
F then omits the next two lines of Bx as well. The obvious cause of alpha's four-line omission was eyeskip, since KD11.46 begins with the same phrase as KD11.50: Coueytyse of eyes.
fol. 48rI
For whiles fortune is þi frende sum frereR.11.51: R's sum frere is unique; Bx reads Freres, as does Cx. 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. wil þe louie .
R.11.52KD.11.56
And fetteR.11.52: Cf. F's sette and beta's fecche. 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>.
þe to here fraternite and for þe by-seche .
And preyen for þe pol by pol if þow be pecunious .R.11.54: Though the
B group agrees with alpha's pecunious, beta presumably had peccuniosus. Some C manuscripts agree with beta.
However, four of the X family copies of the C version (P2KUcDc) agree with the P family in supporting alpha's anglicized form (both
OED2 and MED, both s. v.
pecunious, agree in citing this line from Langland as the earliest
occurrence of pecunious in English.
Pena
peculariaR.11.55: R's pecularia is unique error. The other
witnesses (both B and C) have pecuniaria. non sufficit pro
spiritualibus delictis.
R.11.56KD.11.59
¶ By wissynge of þis wenche I dedeR.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 .
Þat wedden non wydewes but for to welde here
goed .R.11.70: R's singular form is unique; Bx reads godis, as does Cx.
fol. 48vI
¶ 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 .
¶ And where-of
serueth lawe quod leute þanneR.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 .
R.11.96KD.11.98
Except persones and prestes and
prelates of holy cherches .R.11.96: R's plural is unique; Bx reads cherche.
¶ AcR.11.99:
Beta omits the conjunction, while F reads A instead.
þinge þat alle þe worlde wote wherefore schuldestow
spare .
R.11.104KD.11.106
Neither for loue lakkeR.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 .
¶ He seith þeR.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 lewed men it knoweR.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 bileue
þat[of] þat lord þat lettred men 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.
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.
And In a were gan I wex
.
fol. 49rI
¶ 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.
R.11.120KD.11.120α
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 saueR.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 .
R.11.124KD.11.124
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).
he bouȝte vsvs [wiþ]R.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.
☜
For þouȝ a cristen man coueyted his cristendom to
receyue .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.
With-outen leue of his lorde
neR.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 renneR.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 he
renneth 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.
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.
AndR.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 þere riȝteR.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 .
R.11.136KD.11.135
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 leueR.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 may alR.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 þat mekenesse he 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.
R.11.140KD.11.139
For þei beth as oure
bokeR.11.140: R's singular is unique; Bx has bokes. Cx confirms the majority B
reading. telleth aboue godes werkes .
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.
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
.
fol. 49vI
R.11.152KD.11.151
And I saued as ȝe nowR.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.
Loue and bi lernynge of my lyuynge in treuthe .
¶ Lo ȝe lordes what leuteleute [dide]R.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 .
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 treuthe
in Episcopum
Romanum
¶ Þis matir is merke for mani of ȝow ac 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.
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.
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.
fol. 50rI
ForR.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 lordeR.11.182: Both beta and F read non-alliterating god in place of R's
oure lorde.
wote þe sothe .
And comaundedR.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 .
For oure ioye and oure euelR.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. is ihesuR.11.187: Beta omits is. crist of heuene .
Ȝoure festynge and ȝoure
fayre ȝiftes vch frende quitR.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.
R.11.200KD.11.197
¶ Almiȝty god hath made riche 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.
AcR.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 .
AsR.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 .
R.11.204KD.11.201
For atR.11.204: Beta has For on, but Cx attests At.
caluarie of cristes blode cristendom gan springe .
¶ In þe olde lawe as þeR.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
fol. 50vI
¶ For-þi loue we as leue childernR.11.214: Beta has bretheren, but Cx agrees
with alpha's childern. schal & vch man lauȝh vp
oþer .
R.11.216KD.11.211
And eueri man helpe oþer hereR.11.216: Beta omits here, and Cx agrees with
beta. for hennes schulle we alle .
Is litel alowed
þei bothR.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. but by-leue hem helpe .
Bothe logyke and lawe þat loueth nauȝt for toR.11.230: R's for is a unique addition to the archetypal
text. lye .
h ijus
fol. 51rI
And alle was ensaumple for-sotheR.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 .
in
vestitum miletentio
And in þe paraileR.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 .
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.
¶ Ihesu crist on a Iewes douȝter a-liȝte gentel woman þouȝ aR.11.254: R's a (= "she") is unique; other manuscripts have she. were .
To ponyshe me
in shrift
in shrift
AR.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 .
Nota
Domine non est tibi cure
&cetera .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.
Maria optimam partem elegit —
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.
R.11.264KD.11.257
Preisen pouerte for best lyf if pacience it wolde .R.11.264: R's fourth stave, wolde, is a unique reading; cf. beta's
folwe and F's welde. Cx agrees
with beta.
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 .
And wel sikerer he slepeth þe seggeR.11.274: Beta reads non-alliterating man. Cx
agrees with alpha.
þat is pore .
fol. 51vI
R.11.284KD.11.275
And is to mene to men þat onR.11.284: R uniquely omits the
determiner in the b-verse phrase, on þis
molde.
molde lyuen
With eny wel or wo /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.
If prestes weren wiseR.11.295: For R's wise, F has all wise men; beta
reads parfyt.
þei wolde no seluer take .
in
clericos
—
And þei here
deuerR.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 seideR.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 .
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
.
Nota
fol. 52rI
Þat hath noþerR.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. ne gode los of his hondes .
☞
Nota in
Episcopos
R.11.324KD.11.309
Qui offendit in vno in
omnibus
&cetera .R.11.324: R uniquely omits the end of this citation: est
reus.
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
andR.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.
¶ 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.
h iiijus
fol. 52vI
R.11.344KD.11.329
Wilde wormes andR.11.344: R's and is unique; Bx and Cx both read in. wodes and wonderful
foules .
Man and his make I miȝte se botheR.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. .
¶ Reson I seiȝ sothely schewenR.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 .
R.11.352KD.11.337
And after cours of
concepcioun non toke kepe tilR.11.352: R's til is unique; Bx and Cx read of. other .
And in eueninges also ȝedeR.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 .
To lege stikkesR.11.363: R omits beta's þe after lege, a
feature also characteristic of Cx. F revises the entire phrase.
in which aR.11.363:
He, "she."
lenth 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.
R.11.364KD.11.349
Þere is noR.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]t as I wene schulde werche hire neste to paye .
¶ And ȝet me merueyled more 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 .
¶ And somme tredenR.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 .
R.11.372KD.11.357
And breddeR.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
.
fol. 53rI
And somme cauked I toke hedeR.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 .
Þere noþer buirn ne best ne mayR.11.377: R's ne is a unique addition to the text of Bx. here briddes rechen .
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 .
Saue man and his make many tymesR.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 .
Whi þow ne schewestR.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 .
¶ Holy writt quod þat weyeR.11.398:
Weye, "person, being, man." wisseth 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.
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.
fol. 53vI
De re quieteque te non molestat noliteR.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 .
R.11.416KD.11.399
And bad to vch aR.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 .
R.11.420KD.11.403
Þat 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-alR.11.421: For R's with-al, beta has þerewith,
while F reads þerto. Cx agrees with beta.
nemo sine crimine viuit .
R.11.428KD.11.411
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.
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 .
Adam þe 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
.
fol. 54rI
Þe wisdom and þe wit of god he was put fram þe 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. .
ForR.11.443: Beta omits For. However, Cx attests
its presence. schal neuer chalenginge ne
chidynge chaste a man so sone .
R.11.444KD.11.426
HeR.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 .
OrR.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 þanne it were but pure synne .
¶ Ȝe seggen soth by my souleR.11.453: Beta omits alpha's by my soule. Cx,
however, includes the phrase. quod I ich haue Iseyen it ofte
.
Þere smit nonR.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 fouleR.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 felachippe .R.11.455: Beta reads the b-verse as for euery man hym
shonyeth.