M.6.90KD.6.87He shal haue my soule þat beste hath itM.6.90: All other B manuscripts place this it at the end of the line. M's original reading without it is unattested in other B manuscripts but is the reading of the A version. Kane and Donaldson record the rest of the line as over erasure, perhaps referring to disserued, but only its final <-e> is erased. disseruede
Cr1.6.90KD.6.87 He shal haue mi soule that best hath deseruid it
C.6.88KD.6.87 He shal haue my soule · þat best haþ I-serued it
G.7.90KD.6.87 he shall hauve my souvle þat best hathe I-seruved ytt
R.6.89KD.6.86-87a
In dei nomine amen
I make it my-selue he schal
haue my soule .R.6.89: Here alpha differs from beta by merging the opening phrase from the
archetype's next line (= He shal haue my soule ) with this one, and then
truncating the third line by deleting its final phrase (= for so I
bileue), so that the three lines in Langland's presumptive original are reduced to two
non-alliterating ones.
R.6.90KD.6.87b-88 Þat best hath I-serued it
and fro þe fende I-keped itR.6.90:
R's I-keped is unique; F rephrases this
verse, with his own unique verb phrase (weyvid fram yt); the cognate beta
reading is it defende. Both Ax and Cx substantially agree with beta's phrasing in this entire passage, where alpha was
clearly corrupt (cf. note at R6.89). .
F.5.741KD.6.86-87¶ In dei nomine amen / god shal have myn soule. Alpha two lines here appear in beta witnesses as three. Beta reads as follows:
In dei nomine amen I make it myselue
He shal haue my soule þat best haþ deserued
And fro þe fend it defende for so I bileue.