Readings for line KD.8.101

To croune one to be kynge to reuleL.8.100: LCr alone have reule. Other B manuscripts have rulen, covering the -e and thus assuring a metrically regular b-verse. hem bothe
# On to be kyng & Rule all
To croune on . to be kynge to reulen hem .....bothe
To coroune one to be Kynge to rule hem boeth
To crowne oon to be kyng . to rulen hem boþe
to crownyn oon to be kyng · to rewlyn hem bothe ·
To crowne oon to be kyng to reulen hem bathe
to crowne on to be kyng to reuvlen þem bothe
To crowne oon to be kyng  to rulen hem boþe
To croune andR.8.96: R's and is a unique reading. F omits the entire line, and beta reads one to be kynge  to kepen hem alle . For R's kepen hem alle, beta reads rulen hem bothe. F omits the whole line. The alliteration in R is clearly preferable to that in beta, and Cx agrees at least with R's verb. But R's b-verse seems conflated with a similar b-verse properly belonging several lines below this point in Bx (= Crouned one to be kynge to kepin hem alle [KD8.108]). To judge from the evidence of both R and F (each shows corruptions and omissions for several lines in a row), alpha was significantly deficient in this passage. Alpha probably omitted all five of the lines in this passage which are present in beta but missing from R (presumably by eyeskip induced from similar a-verses). The two sub-archtypes rejoin each other at KD8.109, but part of the problem continues beyond that point.
When Kane and Donaldson examined this garbled passage, they hypothesized that alpha's text for this passage was accurately reflected in F (R being solely responsible for the omission in question); they further postulated that Bx itself had lost two lines (i.e., KD8.103 and KD8.105), lines which are now available only in F and in the A-version. Of course it must be recalled that their hypothetical narrative of F's production included the supposition that F had access, for proofing purposes, to a copy of B whose text was superior to that of the common archetype of all extant B manuscripts. However, it must be recalled that F not only reproduces, in this passage, three A lines unattested in any other B manuscript (KD8.113 as well as the two mentioned above). In addition, F puts forward three distinctive A-version variants in lines that do survive in beta (presoun for beta's in yrens [KD8.104]; & be here conseyl wirche for beta's to kepin hem alle [KD8.108]; and so me crist helpe for the R/beta I coueite to lerne) Collectively, this evidence suggests a different, simpler explanation of F's text: having found his alpha copytext deficient in this verse paragraph, the F-scribe (or his predecessor) borrowed all of the missing text from an A manuscript usually available to him.
F [Not found.]