L.10.379KD.10.372 But if I sende þe sum tokne · and seith non necaberisL.10.379: The scribe originally wrote mecaberis and someone, possibly the original scribe, erased the first minim to make necaberis. Both readings are represented among B manuscripts.
M.10.379KD.10.372But if I sende þe som token and saith . non ...?...occidesM.10.379: M's occides, written over a longer erasure, is unique. This word is attested variously among B manuscripts: mecaberis, necaberis, necabis. The corrector recognized Langland's error, as does one A text scribe. See Luke 18.20, and Skeat's explanation of the readings (2.160). John Alford provides further comment (Piers Plowman: A Guide to the Quotations (Binghamton, 1992) pp. 68-69).
Cr1.10.377KD.10.372 But if I sende the some token , and saye , Non necabismecaberis .,
W.10.379KD.10.372 But if I sende þee som tokene . and seiþ Non mecaberisW.10.379: The scribe has written the more obvious necaberis and then altered this to mecaberis by adding a minim in the red ink used for the box. Other B manuscripts reading necaberis or necabis are CrYLOC2 and G (altered). See John Alford's discussion of the textual variations in Piers Plowman: A Guide to the Quotations (Binghamton: MRTS, 1992): 68-69.
C.10.375KD.10.372 But if I sende þe somme tokene · and sayde non mecaberis
G.11.380KD.10.372 but yff I send þe some tokne / & seyth non mnechaberisG.11.380: In both G and L, original mechaberis (as most B manuscripts) has been altered to nechaberis by the delition of the first minim. Cr23 Y share this reading.: //
O.10.379KD.10.372But if I sende þee sum tokne & seiþ . non necabisO.10.379: Cr1OC2 alone have necabis; WHmCBRF have mecaberis.