fol. 147v (cont.)I
Passus xusdecimus · de visione · & iijustertius · de do-weel ·
þat lefe was to lereHm.10.2: Hm's lef was to lere is unique, involving a misinterpretation of lere as the verb "learn." The archetypal reading is lene was of lere, "was lean of face," though Cr1 prints leue for lene. · And of lyche boþe
þat wykkyd men ...?...nweldyn · Hm.10.24: Weldyn and the punctus are written over an erasure of at least ten letters ending with <n>; the initial <w> has a splayed lead-in stroke to fill some of the extra space created by the erasure. Kane and Donaldson reasonably surmise the original reading may have been archetypal þey weldyn. þe welþe of þys worlde
Ecce impijHm.10.28: The scribe picked up impij from Hm.10.26. peccatores habundantes · in seculo obtinuerunt diuicias ·
and iapers and iugoloursHm.10.34: Kane and Donaldson misread as iungolours. · and ianglers of gestys ·
than.......ne tellenHm.10.56: The correcting scribe wrote ne to complete þanne and then they, but failed to supply the verb. He later added tellen in the right margin, but failed to indicate its placement. they of trynyte · a tale other tweyne ·
Hm.10.67-69: A crude line drawing (or pen trials) appear in the left margin.ne were mercy yn mene men · more than yn ryche ·
wylneþ neuere to wyeteHm.10.127: Hm is the only manuscript to read wete, and that is the result of a scribal correction. Other B manuscripts read wite. · why that god wolde
suffre soHm.10.128: The same variation occurs at Hm.10.135. sathan · his seed to be-gyle
suffre soHm.10.135: The same variation appears in Hm.10.128. sathan · his seed to begyle
what is do-well fro do-bet · andHm.10.140: The erased and is visible under ultra violet light, and would have agreed with & in Cr1 against now in most B manuscripts. deef mote heHm.10.140: The words mote he are partially erased but legible. worþe
sytthe he wylneþ to wyte whiche þey ben boþeHm.10.141: The words ben boþe are partially erased but legible.
a fullyeþyyful lyeþyyHm.10.194: Hand3 in correcting <y> to <e> adds his characteristic flourish to word-terminal <y>. þynge it were · ȝif þat loue nere ·
¶ Lewyd folke may lykne ȝow thus · þaatHm.10.295: The scribe began to write the abbreviated form of þat using a superscript <a>, but then erased that character and wrote the word out normally. þe beem lyeth yn ȝour eiȝe ·
poule prechith it ..impossibleHm.10.345: Only the first minim of <m> is overwritten. · ryche men haue heuene ·
¶ God leue it fare nougth so wyth folkeHm.10.417: Erasure of <e> is only partial. · þat the feith techyn ·
Hm.10.424-426: Illegible pen trials appear in the right margin.
deþHm.10.428: Above the line and before the word adam, a contemporary scribe wrote deþ, now only partially legible, but no insertion mark is present.
¶ And wherby w.eteHm.10.447: With the corrections, Hm alone reads wete against, variously wote, wite(n) and wiste. · men whiche is w...hyt · ȝif alle þynge blake were
but wytt and wysdom · wan euereHm.10.462: HmF alone read euere against neuere in all other B manuscripts. Hm's error is possibly caused by the final <n> at the end of the preceding word wan. the maystrye
that euere þey cow.deHm.10.479: The <d> was re-inked after partial erasure. knoweHm.10.479: Hm alone reads knowe against on þe boke in most B manuscripts, although Bx (LMCrWR) reads or knewe. · more þan credo in deum