fol. 1rI
Passus secundus de visione Petri Plowman . vt
supra
R.2.0: Here the lacuna in the manuscript (running from KD1.141-2.40) ends and text resumes.
Knowe hem þere if þow canst and kepen þi tonge .R.2.7: F and some
beta copies read keep wel þyn tunge. Other beta
witnesses show kepe þow þi tonge. Manuscripts CL
agree with R's phrasing. None of the B witnesses agrees with Ax or Cx, which both attest kepe the
fro(m) hem alle.
¶ Now I bekenne þe crist quod heR.2.10:
He, "she." R's he, repeatedly deployed for the feminine
3rd person sing. pronoun, is relatively uncommon among the B manuscripts
in this role. and his clene moder .
Weren bedeR.2.15: Though identical in meaning to the majority reading, R's
form here is unique among the B copies; most of the others, including F,
attest boden. Ax agrees with the B majority (although manuscripts VRa agree with R) , but Cx's
verb form is uncertain. Though a majority of C witnesses also supports
the predominant reading, most P family manuscripts (PVcAcQScFcGc ~ ibede
McNc) agree with R. to þisR.2.15:
F reads his; beta shows þe. Two A
witnesses agree with R (manuscripts LaK), but Ax agrees with beta. Cx is uncertain: the X family reading is identical to that of beta, but the
P family reading is þat. bridale on bothe to sydes . In
the right margin, in black ink, there is an early ownership stamp for the Bodleian
Library.
To marie þis mayde was many man ensembledR.2.17:
For alpha's ensembled (F has ensemblyd þere), beta
reads assembled. .
R.2.24KD.2.64
Were moste priue with mede of any men þouȝte .R.2.24: R's reading here, men þouȝte, is unique error. R is
probably reproducing an omission that had already occurred in alpha. As is often the case, F
's homologous reading, þere owte, has more the appearance of an attempted
repair than a faithful reproduction of the sub-archetype. The Cx reading
here is identical to beta's; however, manuscript X, the single best witness of this version,
agrees with R in omitting me but then reinserts it in another hand! X's
corrected error may attest to an early documentary parent of both B and
C traditions in which the word occurred only as an interlinear
correction.
¶ Whanne symonye and cyuile seiȝ here bethereR.2.27: The variant genitive forms bether, boþer and beire all appear in the
manuscripts. wille .
fol. 1vI
R.2.32KD.2.72
¶ Þanne symony and cyuile stondethR.2.32: Although
R's meaning here is identical to that found in beta (presumably reading stonden), R's verb form is unique at this point in the B
tradition; F agrees with YM in reading a preterite, stoden castel.
Nevertheless, R's form is probably also the reading of Ax and is
certainly the form attested in the X family of C. Among the P
manuscripts, the preferred reading is that of FcYcMc (which can also be found among some A witnesses). forth bothe .
And þus bygyneth þis gomes atR.2.34:
R's at (cf. R2.11 above) = standard þat and is a unique
reading here. The other witnesses attest to. greden ful hiȝe
.
Sciant
presentesR.2.35: R uniquely omits the end of this citation: & futuri
&c. The C version of this citation agrees with that
found in F/beta.
&cetera .
R.2.44KD.2.83
Bold and vnbuxumR.2.44:
In beta, the phrasal order of this a-verse is reversed: Vnbuxome and
bolde. The beta rendering is, however, the presumptive original since it matches the
order found in C. to breke þe ten hestes .
R.2.52KD.2.91
In
wedyngesR.2.52:
Cf. F's wenyngis, which is probably the reading of Bx
as well as that of alpha; beta reads wedes. The Cx
reading is uncertain; the P family agrees with beta, but the X group rejects all the B variants, revising to woldes. and in wischynges
and with ydel þouȝtes .
fol. 2rI
Robart Bente you shalbe with vs
at
Budworthe and there to Testyfy
youre knowlegh in a materR.2.61: At the top of fol. 2r, a secretary hand has written in black,
Robart Bente you shalbe with vs at
Budworthe and there to Testyfy
youre knowlegh in a mater.
This note may explain the cropped margins of the first few pages of the manuscript: someone appears to have been using them for occasional short notes. Budworth probably refers to one of two ancient parishes in Cheshire, Great Budworth and Little Budworth.
Budworthe and there to Testyfy
youre knowlegh in a materR.2.61: At the top of fol. 2r, a secretary hand has written in black,
Robart Bente you shalbe with vs at
Budworthe and there to Testyfy
youre knowlegh in a mater.
This note may explain the cropped margins of the first few pages of the manuscript: someone appears to have been using them for occasional short notes. Budworth probably refers to one of two ancient parishes in Cheshire, Great Budworth and Little Budworth.
For he leueth be yloste þis is hisR.2.62:
R's his is unique (but preferable to the F and beta alternatives, which
are rejected in its favor by Kane-Donaldson and Schmidt); F reads þe while
beta reads here. laste ende .
R.2.64KD.2.103
A dwellynge with þe deuel and dampned be foR.2.64:
Neither MED nor OED2, s. v.
for, cites an example of fo as viable for the
preposition signified here, but it occurs in R in four widely separated contexts (cf. R14.60,
R15.379, and R20.224) and probably represents an instance of idiolect apocope. euere
.
¶ In wytnesse of þisR.2.69:
For alpha's non-alliterating þis, beta properly reads which. Unfortunately, the problem appears to be, at some level, authorial rather than
merely scribal. That is, although Ax clearly agrees with beta in
alliterating this line on /w/ (using the exact same variants), Cx agrees
with alpha just as emphatically in ignoring the normal alliterative pattern. Russell-Kane
emend their C text back to the norm, but that seems pointlessly
meliorative. At the very least, the aforementioned variant array (which is fairly typical)
suggests a cavalier attitude toward such small metrical issues on the part of the C author. þing wronge was þe furste .
By siȝt of sire symonye atR.2.75:
This is a unique reading in R; Bx reads and. Cx agrees with the B majority. cyueyles leue
.
R.2.76KD.2.115
¶ Þenne tenethR.2.76:
Only R deploys a seemingly present-tense form of this verb (but the difference may be
illusory; see the Introduction III.2.2.10. Beta
reads tened while F has was teenyd. Both Ax and Cx agree here with beta. hym teologye
whan he þis tale yherde .
R.2.80KD.2.119
¶ For mede is moylere of amendes engendreth .R.2.80: R shares an apparently
nonsensical verb inflection (engendreth for engendred)
with beta witnesses LCY. Nevertheless, any RL shared form, however odd, is intrinsically
likely to be archetypal, albeit perhaps non-authorial—because of their extraordinary
accuracy as well as their definitive stemmatic positions. If this lection is not merely a
blatant archetypal error (one "corrected" by most later copyists to the expected form), it
may be that the R and L scribes (or the Bx scribe) understood the -eth
suffix in this word as allomorphic with the past participle suffix -ed /
-et attested in other B copies. The final phone of engendreth would then probably have been construed by L and R as /t/ (not the
/θ/ which the spelling would suggest to us). Cf. the 1408 London will of John Plot.
Twice in this brief document, Plot uses a phonologically identical verbal suffix <-yth>
to denote the past participle form usually spelled as <-ed>. In the first instance,
Plot requests that "thyr be Spendyth among my Nyebourus in Mete & in drynke" a certain
amount of money; in the second, he requests that some of his assets be used for road repairs,
or, as he phrases it, "be yspendyth betwene London and ware, of fowle weys, . . . there most
nede ys" (The Fifty Earliest English Wills, ed. Frederick J. Furnivall
(London: Trübner, 1882), 14-15. A few pieces of evidence scattered throughout manuscripts L
and R may support such a conclusion. One wonders, for example, whether the strong preference
in manuscripts L and R for the ON-derived spelling of the cardinal number 100 (= hundreth) over the OE-derived form (= hundred) indicates
that these scribes, or their models, would have pronounced that word with /θ/ as the
final phone, rather than /t/. Such a conclusion seems doubtful. Rather, this spelling
preference for the number 100 probably attests the same trivial orthographic anomaly
hypothesized above concerning engendreth. For fuller discussion see
Introduction III.2.2.10.
R.2.88KD.2.127
Þe notaries and ȝee nuyȝetR.2.88: Some beta copies and F
agree in reading noyen but beta itself probably read as LMHm, noyeth. Only R shows what appears to be a preterite form of the verb (but see
the Introduction III.2.2.10 regarding the
possibility of morphological ambiguity in R's verb-tense marking). In a similar version of
this line, Ax agrees with beta and F in using a present-tense
form. þe poeple .
fol. 2vI
R.2.92KD.2.131
And asR.2.92:
Beta reads was. Both Ax and Cx
agree here with alpha. a bastarde ybore of belsabubbes kynne .
Ȝut beth war of þeR.2.99:
R's þe is owed to alpha, though it is shared by GH. Beta omits it. Many
A witnesses, as well as Cx, agree with alpha on
the presence of this determiner. weddynge for witty is trewthe .
R.2.104KD.2.143
Til he hadde siluer for thisR.2.104:
R's this is unique; beta reads his while F rephrases
the entire line (which appears to be corrupt at the archetypal level when compared to the
rendering in A and C).
seruise and al-so þe notaries .
For heR.2.109:
Only L, among beta copies, agrees with alpha's reading here; the other beta witnesses attest
þei. However, the LRF reading is almost certainly authorial, matching the
reading found in Ax and Cx. may mede a-maystrie and maken at my wille .
For we haue mede amaysterud thorȝR.2.115:
Beta reads with here, agreeing with the apparent reading of Ax (two A copies, manuscripts LaE, agree with alpha);
the C manuscripts support alpha almost unanimously. oure merie
speche .
R.2.116KD.2.155
Þat heo graunteth gooR.2.116:
For R's goo, F reads for to goo while beta has to gon. Both Ax and Cx agree with
beta's phrasing. with a good wille .
To londoun to loke if þatR.2.117:
R's if þat lawe is unique; F and some beta copies read
ȝif þat þe Lawe; other beta witnesses have if þe lawe. The
reading of Ax is uncertain (because of a wide variety of variants here)
but may have agreed with R's. The reading of Cx is if
lawe. lawe walde iuge .R.2.117: R uniquely divides this line after iuge; all other B witnesses divide the line before this
word.
R.2.120KD.2.159
And leten sompne alle þeR.2.120: R is joined by G in
attesting þe (and Ax agrees with the R variant), but
the word is not found in F (alle men) or beta (alle segges). The P family of C agrees with beta's
rendering of this phrase, but the X family has alle his
segges. segges in schires aboute .
And bad hem alle be bown beggeres and otheres .R.2.121: R is the only witness for the plural form; all other B
copies (except Hm, which shows ellis) attest the singular othere. Both Ax and Cx agree with the F/beta
phrasing.
fol. 3rI
M M Butte N
N
Nell XXXCX
God from SamR.2.122: At the top of fol. 3r are the remains of various sixteenth-century pen trials, scribbled in jagged fashion horizontally, from left to right.
Nell XXXCX
God from SamR.2.122: At the top of fol. 3r are the remains of various sixteenth-century pen trials, scribbled in jagged fashion horizontally, from left to right.
To wenden with hymR.2.122:
Though RF opt for the apparently singular form (a reading endorsed by Schmidt), beta agrees
with Ax in reading hem, which seems more appropriate
to the plural referents named in previous lines; the P family of C also
attests this reading, but the X family agrees with alpha. However, MED, s.v
"hem," documents hym as an available but rare spelling, especially in the
fifteenth century, for the objective case of the third-person plural pronoun. So the
difference noted above may be only a clutter of scribal / authorial accidentals. to
westmenstre to witnesse þeR.2.122:
For alpha's þe, beta reads þis. A majority of A witnesses supports beta, but a sizeable minority agrees with
alpha. dede .
And sette mede vppeR.2.125:
For R's vppe, F has on while beta reads vpon. The same line occurs in the A version, where the reading
agrees with F's. a schyriue I-schoud alle newe . The terminal punctus for each of these lines has been rubbed
or partially erased long ago, but they are both sufficiently visible for detection in normal
light.
R.2.128KD.2.167
¶ Þo hauedR.2.128: Only manuscript L agrees with R's unusual verb form haued (common in the thirteenth century but nowhere cited in
MED, s. v.
haven, later than about 1330, except for Piers Plowman).
Both F and the majority of beta copies read had(de). The same line appears
in A, but Kane was not concerned to record such morphemic variations,
regarding them all as accidentals. notaries none anuyed þei were .
R.2.132KD.2.171
And lat apparayle þeR.2.132:
FGH omit any determiner, while beta reads þis. The same array of variants
is present at this point in the A witnesses , with no strong evidence
for originality. prouisoures in palfreyes wyse .
Erchedeknes and deknesR.2.135:
R's deknes is a unique addition unattested in any other B manuscript. officiales and alle ȝoure
regestreres
As deuoutrieR.2.137:
This is the alpha variant. Beta offers a more common synonym, but one that fails to
alliterate: auoutrie. F reverses the noun phrasal order of the
a-verse. and deuoses and derne vsure .
R.2.144KD.2.183
As fobberesR.2.144:
Beta has Freres. A majority of A witnesses attests
folis at this point (though three, manuscripts LaWaN, agree with beta).
Cx has fobbes. That support, as well as the word's
relative rarity, suggests alpha's variant is likely to be authorial in B. Schmidt accepts fobberes at face value. MED, s. v.
fobben, hypothesizes that fobberes was derived from
"fobben," v., but cites merely two Piers Plowman manuscripts for the form's
existence. Conversely, Kane-Donaldson view alpha's variant as scribal and emend to the C form. and faytoures þat on here feet rennen .
John naylleR.2.149: A sixteenth-century signature written
vertically upwards appears in the lower left margin of fol. 3r: John
naylle.
fol. 3vI
Fals other fauel otherR.2.155:
Beta reads this set of correlative conjunctions as or . . . or. F agrees
with R for the first (eyþir) but reverts to the beta variant for
the second. A majority of A witnesses agrees with beta (but Kane
chooses the alpha set, exemplified in manuscript T, as a "harder reading"). Cx's reading is also somewhat ambiguous, with a majority of witnesses (mostly of the P
family) attesting oþur in the first case and a minority (again mainly P
family manuscripts) offering the same variant in the second instance. any of his feres
.
GooR.2.161: Beta reads To, which is
also the reading of Ax. Four C witnesses (IP2FcNc) agree with beta, but Cx clearly agrees with
alpha's Goo. atache þo tirantes for eny thyng I hote
.
R.2.164KD.2.206
And ȝif ȝe lacchethR.2.164:
R's form is unique; F and most beta copies read lacche(n). Both Ax and Cx appear to agree with the F/beta
reading. lyere lat hym nouȝt asckapen .
R.2.168KD.2.209
And how þe kynge demedeR.2.168:
R uniquely fails in alliteration here; F and beta read comaunded.
constables and seriantz .
R.2.172KD.2.213
¶ Falsenesse for fere þanne fleiȝtR.2.172:
R's form is unique; F and many beta copies read fleiȝ. Other beta
witnesses have fledde. Both Ax and Cx appear to agree with the F/beta reading. to þe freres .
fol. 4rI
Þei weschen hym and wyped hym and wonden hym in
clothesR.2.182:
Although Hm agrees with alpha, beta itself must have read cloutes. It is
unclear what the reading of Ax was since the alpha / beta disjunction is
mirrored by nearly equal numbers of A witnesses. Cx, however, agrees with beta on this form.
¶ Spiceres speken toR.2.187:
Beta has with. Although both readings are available in the A tradition, a large majority of A witnesses agrees with beta. On
the contrary, Cx clearly agrees with alpha's to. hym to spien here ware .
R.2.188KD.2.229
For he couthe onR.2.188:
Although Hm supports alpha, beta itself must have read of. Both Ax and Cx agree with alpha's reading. here
craft and knew many gummes .
And helden hym half aR.2.190:
For alpha's half a, beta reads an half. Cx probably read simply half, a variant also found in the A tradition (manuscripts TRaUNMa). However, a plurality of A witnesses agrees with alpha's phrasing (though two agree with beta).
ȝere and elleuene dayes .
R.2.196KD.2.237
Saue mede þe mayde no manR.2.196:
R's no man is unique in the B tradition (four A copies share the reading); F and beta read na mo,
which is the reading of Cx and of a majority of the A manuscripts. durste abyde .