L.8.51KD.8.51 God wole suffre wel þi sleuthe · ȝif þi-self lyketh
M.8.51KD.8.51God w...?...ole suffre wel þ..y sleuthe ȝif þ..y-seluen likeþ
Cr1.8.51KD.8.51 God wyll suffer wel thy slouth , if thy-selfe lyketh
Hm.8.50KD.8.51 god woll suffre thy soule · ȝif þy-sylfeHm.8.50: The final <e> has been partially erased. lyketh
C.8.51KD.8.51 God wol suffre wel þy slouþe · if þy-selue likes
G.9.51KD.8.51 god wyll suffer well þi slought yff þi-seluve lykethe
R.8.47KD.8.51 God wil suffre wel þi soule ȝif þi-selue liketh .
F.6.47KD.8.51¶ But god wille þou save þi sowleF.6.47: F's a-verse is unique, and the agreement of FHmR in reading sowle in place of the other beta manuscripts' reading sleuþe makes it difficult to determine the archetypal reading. It is likely to have read "God wole suffre wel þi sowle (or sleuþe)." / þyf[ȝ]ifF.6.47: Though Norman Davis notes that isolated cases of scribal confusion of <þ> and <ȝ> occur occasionally elsewhere, the
examples he cites are mainly from East Anglian texts. "A Scribal Problem in the Paston Letters," English and Germanic Studies 4 (1951-1952): 39. It is perhaps equally possible that this form represents the scribe's effort at the Worcester form yef or yif. þi-selue lyke.F.6.47: F revises this line radically. Bx reads "God wole suffre wel þi sleuþe if þiself likeþ." Alpha must have had soule in place of sleuþe, and later F revised "suffre wel" to "þou save" in an attempt to salvage some sense.