<div1>
<div1>fol. 47r (cont.)I</div1>
p<unclear><expan>re</expan></unclear>sens<lb/>
dauid
x
<head><foreign><hi>Passus <orig><sic>x<expan>us</expan></sic><corr>x[j]<expan>us</expan></corr></orig><reg><sic>decim<expan>us</expan></sic><corr>[un]decim<expan>us</expan></corr></reg> de vis<expan>ione</expan> vt sup<expan>ra</expan> <seg></seg> <seg></seg> <seg></seg></hi></foreign> <note>R.11.0: Above the passus heading, a later reader has inscribed <hi>david</hi>. Below the passus heading, the same reader has inscribed <foreign>p<unclear>(re)</unclear>sens david</foreign>.</note><note>R.11.0: In the extreme right margin, on the same line as the passus heading, there are traces of the rubricator's guide, but nothing is discernible except an <hi>x</hi>.</note></head>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi><hi>Þ</hi></hi>anne<note>R.11.1: It appears that the blue initial <Þ> originally had a drawing within it (as with the Passus 10 initial), but it was partially erased long ago.</note> sc<expan>ri</expan>ptur<expan>e</expan> scorned me  and a skile tolde .</l>
<l> And lakked me <app><lem>a</lem></app> latyn<note>R.11.2: Beta agrees with the P family of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts in reading this phrase as <hi>in latyne</hi>; Russell-Kane opt for that reading as representing <hi>Cx</hi> as well, but the X family of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts clearly agrees with R, and probably alpha (F reads this line eccentrically), in rendering it <hi>a latyn.</hi> There is, of course, no semantic difference between these two phrases.</note>  & liȝt by me <app><lem>he</lem></app><note>R.11.2:<hi>He</hi>, "she."</note> sette .<note> In the right margin, in black ink, there is an early ownership stamp for the Bodleian Library.</note></l>
<l> And seyde <foreign>multi multa sciunt  & se ip<expan>sos</expan> nesc<expan>iunt</expan> .</foreign></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
p<unclear><expan>re</expan></unclear>sens p<unclear><expan>ri</expan></unclear>me
R.11.4KD.11.4
<l> ¶ Þo wepte I for <app><lem>sorwe</lem></app><note>R.11.4: Cf. alpha's <hi>sorwe</hi> to beta's properly alliterating <hi>wo</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees here with beta.</note>  and wrath of hir<expan>e</expan> speche .</l>
your for me elin<lb/>
Bower<lb/>
Rondull wylly
<l> And in a wynkyng<expan>e</expan> wrath<note>R.11.5: This word amounts to an inappropriate and virtually meaningless repetition of the same term from the previous line, but it is witnessed by the beta manuscripts as well as R (F offers six inauthentic lines); indeed the entire line appears to have been corrupt in <hi>Bx</hi>. Kane and Donaldson conjecture a sort of metathesis distorting original <hi>worþ</hi>; Schmidt concurs.</note><app><lem>til I was</lem></app><note>R.11.5: R's <hi>til I was</hi> is unique. Beta reads <hi>wex I</hi>.</note> a<seg>-</seg>slepe </l>
<l> A m<expan>er</expan>ueylous metles  <app><lem>me tydde to dreme</lem></app> .<note>R.11.6: The b-verse is from alpha and is clearly inferior, in its redundancy, to beta's <hi>mette me þanne</hi>.</note></l>
<l> <app><lem>For</lem></app><note>R.11.7: Beta reads <hi>Þat</hi>, but <hi>Cx</hi> clearly agrees with alpha's <hi>For</hi>.</note> I was rauesched riȝt þer<expan>e</expan><app><lem>for</lem></app><note>R.11.7: Both beta and F read <hi>and</hi> where R has <hi>for</hi>. The reading of <hi>Cx</hi> is uncertain: the P family omits all conjunctions, while the X family agrees with R.</note> fortune me fette .</l>
R.11.8KD.11.8
<l> And in<seg>-</seg>to þe lond of longyng<expan>e</expan><app><lem>& loue</lem></app><note>R.11.8: Both beta and F read <hi>allone</hi> in place of R's <hi>& loue</hi>. It appears that a majority of the X family of the <hi>C</hi> version supports this F/beta variant, but the P family and two X-family copies (YcUc) agree with R's harder reading.</note> sche me brouȝte .</l>
<l> And i<expan>n</expan> a merour<expan>e</expan> þ<expan>a</expan>t hiȝt myddelerd  sche made me to beholde .</l>
<l> Sitthen sche seide to me  her<expan>e</expan> miȝtow se wondres .<note>R.11.10: Extending from R10.510 to this line in the right margin is an erased note, horizontally written, approximately seven lines long.</note></l>
<l> And knowe þ<expan>a</expan>t þow coueytest  & come þ<expan>er</expan><seg>-</seg>to par<seg>-</seg>aunter .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.12KD.11.12
<l> ¶ Þanne hadde fortune folwyng<expan>e</expan> hir<expan>e</expan>  to fair<expan>e</expan> damoysoyles .</l>
<l> <foreign>Concupisce<expan>n</expan>cia carnis</foreign>  men called þe elder mayde .</l>
<l> And coueytise of eyȝes  Icalled was þat other .</l>
<l> Pruyde of parfit lyuynge  pursued hem bothe .</l>
R.11.16KD.11.16
<l> And bad me for my contenance  acounte clergie liȝte .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l><foreign>Concupiscencia carnis</foreign>  colled me a<seg>-</seg>boute þe nekke .</l>
<l> And seyde þow art ȝonge and ȝeep<expan>e</expan>  & hast ȝeres I<seg>-</seg>nowe .</l>
<l> For to lyue longe  and ladyes to louie .</l>
R.11.20KD.11.20
<l> <app><lem><sic>And þis</sic><corr>And [in] þis</corr></lem></app> myrour þow miȝt se  murthes ful many .</l>
<milestone>fol. 47vI</milestone>
<l> Þat leden þe <app><lem>wel</lem></app> to likyng<expan>e</expan>  alle þi Iif<seg>-</seg>tyme .</l>
<l> Þe secounde seyde þe same  I schal sewe þi wille .</l>
<l> Til þow be a lorde and haue londe  lete þe I nelle .</l>
R.11.24KD.11.24
<l> Þat I ne schal folewe þi felaschip<expan>e</expan>  if fortune it like .</l>
<l> He schal fynde me his frende  q<expan>uo</expan>d fortune þ<expan>er</expan>e<seg>-</seg>after .</l>
<l> Þe freke þat folweth my wille  failed neu<expan>er</expan>e blisse .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Þanne was þer<expan>e</expan> on þ<expan>a</expan>t hiȝt elde  þ<expan>a</expan>t heuy was of cher<expan>e</expan> .</l>
R.11.28KD.11.28
<l> Man q<expan>uo</expan>d he if I mete with þe  by marie of heuene .</l>
<l> Þow schalt fynde fortune  þe faile at þi moste nede .</l>
<l> And <foreign>co<expan>n</expan>cupiscencia carnis</foreign>  clene þe forsake .</l>
<l> Bitt<expan>er</expan>lich schaltow banne þanne  both dayes and niȝtes .</l>
R.11.32KD.11.32
<l> Coueitise of eye  þat eu<expan>er</expan>e þow hir<expan>e</expan> knewe .</l>
<l> And pruyde of <app><lem>þi</lem></app><note>R.11.33: R's <hi>þi</hi> is a unique addition to the text of <hi>Bx</hi>. This addition is also unwitnessed in any <hi>C</hi> copy.</note> parfit lyuynge  to muche peril þe brynge .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Ȝee recche þe neu<expan>er</expan>e q<expan>uo</expan>d recchelesnesse  stod forth in ragged cloþes .</l>
<l> Folewe forth þat fortune wole  þow hast wel fer to elde .</l>
R.11.36KD.11.36
<l> A man may stoupe tymes I<seg>-</seg>now  whan he schal tyne þe croune .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l><foreign>Homo p<expan>ro</expan>ponit</foreign> q<expan>uo</expan>d a poete <app><lem>þo</lem></app><note>R.11.37: Alpha's <hi>þo</hi> is omitted by beta but supported by <hi>Cx</hi>.</note>  and plato he hiȝte .</l>
<l> And <foreign>deus disponit</foreign> q<expan>uo</expan>d he  lat god do his wille .</l>
<l> If treuth wil witnesse it be wel do  fortune to folwe .</l>
R.11.40KD.11.40
<l> <foreign>Concupiscencia carnis</foreign>  ne coueytise of eyes .</l>
<l> Ne schal nouȝte greue þe <app><lem>graythly</lem></app><note>R.11.41: Beta reads <hi>gretly</hi>, a more obvious reading, but one which is also the reading of <hi>Cx</hi>.</note>  ne begile þe but þow wolt .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Ȝee farewel fipp q<expan>uo</expan>d fauntelte  and forth gan me drawe .</l>
<l> Til <foreign>concupiscencia carnis</foreign>  acorded <app><lem>til</lem></app><note>R.11.43: R's second <hi>til</hi> is a unique addition to the text witnessed by F and beta. However, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R on this variant's presence.</note> alle my werkes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.44KD.11.44
<l> ¶ Allas eyȝe q<expan>uo</expan>d elde  and holynesse bothe .</l>
<l> Þat wit schal turne to wrecchednesse  for wille to haue his likyng<expan>e</expan> .<note>R.11.45: The <y> of <hi>likynge</hi> appears to have been subpuncted by two red dots but no correction has been made. In reality, the "subpuncting" is probably accidental offset from the red boxing on the facing page at 11.80.</note><note>R.11.45: Hereafter alpha omits four lines present in the beta manuscripts (KD11.46-49): <lb/>
<hi>Coueityse of eyghes conforted me anon after <lb/>
And folwed me fourty wynter and a fyfte more <lb/>
Þat of dowel ne dobet no deyntee me ne þouȝte <lb/>
I had no lykynge leue me if þe leste of hem auȝte to knowe</hi>
. <lb/>
F then omits the next two lines of <hi>Bx</hi> as well. The obvious cause of alpha's four-line omission was eyeskip, since KD11.46 begins with the same phrase as KD11.50: <hi>Coueytyse of eyes</hi>.
</note>
</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Coueytise of eyȝes  cam ofter in my mende .</l>
<l> Þanne dowel or do<seg>-</seg>bet  amonges my dedes alle .</l>
R.11.48KD.11.52
<l> Coueytise of eyȝes  conforted me ofte .</l>
<l> And seyde haue no consience  how þow come to goed .</l>
<l> Go co<expan>n</expan>fesse þe to su<expan>m</expan> frere  and schewe hym þi synnes .</l>
<milestone>fol. 48rI</milestone>
<l> <hi>For whiles fortune is þi frende  <app><lem>su<expan>m</expan> frer<expan>e</expan></lem></app></hi><note>R.11.51: R's <hi>sum frere</hi> is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> reads <hi>Freres</hi>, as does <hi>Cx</hi>.</note><note> These lines present a very good illustration of a difficulty sometimes encountered in R: it is nearly impossible here and in some other instances to distinguish later readers' underlinings from the residue of the original ruling for text.</note> wil þe louie .</l>
R.11.52KD.11.56
<l> <hi>And <app><lem>fette</lem></app></hi><note>R.11.52: Cf. F's <hi>sette</hi> and beta's <hi>fecche</hi>. R's verb is almost certainly that of alpha (a closely related synonym of beta's variant), a form misread by F on account of <f> being mistaken for tall <s>.</note> <hi>þe to her<expan>e</expan> frat<expan>er</expan>nite  and for þe by<seg>-</seg>seche .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>To her<expan>e</expan> priour<expan>e</expan> p<expan>ro</expan>uincial  a pardou<expan>n</expan> for to haue .</hi></l>
<l> And preyen for þe pol by pol  if þow be pecunious .<note>R.11.54: Though the B group agrees with alpha's <hi>pecunious</hi>, beta presumably had <foreign>peccuniosus</foreign>. Some <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with beta. However, four of the X family copies of the <hi>C</hi> version (P<hi>2</hi>KUcDc) agree with the P family in supporting alpha's anglicized form (both <title>OED2</title> and <title>MED</title>, both <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>pecunious</hi>, agree in citing this line from Langland as the earliest occurrence of <hi>pecunious</hi> in English.</note></l>
<l> <hi><foreign><app><lem>Pena</lem></app> <app><lem>pecularia</lem></app><note>R.11.55: R's <foreign>pecularia</foreign> is unique error. The other witnesses (both <hi>B</hi> and <hi>C</hi>) have <foreign>pecuniaria</foreign>.</note> no<expan>n</expan> sufficit  p<expan>ro</expan> sp<expan>irit</expan>ual<expan>ibus</expan> delict<expan>is</expan>.</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.56KD.11.59
<l> ¶ By wissyng<expan>e</expan> of þis wenche I <app><lem>dede</lem></app><note>R.11.56: R's <hi>dede</hi> is unique among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts; most of the others read some form of <hi>wrouȝte</hi>, while F, which rewrites the a-verse, attests <hi>wrowhte</hi>. However, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R's reading.</note>  hir<expan>e</expan> wordes wer<expan>e</expan> so swete .</l>
<l> <hi>Til I forȝat ȝouthe  and ran</hi><note>R.11.57: Beta shows <hi>ȝarn</hi>, while F has <hi>ȝeede</hi>. Only Hm agrees with R's reading. Among the <hi>C</hi> witnesses, there are various lections attested here, including a mixed group of six that agrees with R; however, it seems clear that <hi>Cx</hi> probably read <hi>yorn</hi>.</note> <hi>into elde .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And þan was fortune my foo  for alle hir<expan>e</expan> fair<expan>e</expan> beheste .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And pou<expan>er</expan>te pursued me  and putte me lowe .</hi></l>
R.11.60KD.11.63
<l> <hi>And þo fonde I þe frer<expan>e</expan> aferde  and flitynge bothe .</hi></l>
<l> Aȝeynes our<expan>e</expan> furste forwarde  for I seide I nolde .</l>
<l> Be buried at her<expan>e</expan> hous  but at my parisch cherche .</l>
<l> For I herd ones  how conscience it tolde .</l>
R.11.64KD.11.67
<l> Þat þer<expan>e</expan> a man wer<expan>e</expan> cristened  be kende he schulde be buried .</l>
<l> Or wher<expan>e</expan> he wer<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>a</lem></app> parischene  riȝt þer<expan>e</expan> he schulde be grauen .</l>
<l> And for I seyde þus to freres  a foel þei me helden .</l>
<l> And loued me þe lasse  for my lele speche .</l>
R.11.68KD.11.70
<l> Ac ȝeet I cried on my confessour  þ<expan>a</expan>t held hym<seg>-</seg>self so ku<expan>n</expan>n<del>g<expan>e</expan></del><add>y</add><expan>n</expan>g<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Be my feyth frere q<expan>uo</expan>d I  ȝe faren like þis woweres .</l>
<l> <hi>Þat wedden non wydewes</hi>  but for to welde her<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>goed</lem></app> .<note>R.11.70: R's singular form is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> reads <hi>godis</hi>, as does <hi>Cx</hi>.</note></l>
<l> Riȝt so bi þe rode  rouȝte ȝe neu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
R.11.72KD.11.74
<l> Wher<expan>e</expan> my body wer<expan>e</expan> buried  by so ȝe hadde my siluer</l>
<l> <hi>Ich haue muche m<expan>er</expan>ueyle of ȝow  and so hath many other .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>Whi ȝour<expan>e</expan> couent coueyteth  to confesse and to burie .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>Rather þan to baptize barnes  þ<expan>a</expan>t ben catekumelynges .</hi></l>
R.11.76KD.11.78
<l> Baptizing<expan>e</expan> and buriyng<expan>e</expan>  bothe beth ful nedful .</l>
<l> Ac muche more meritorie  me þinketh it is to baptize .</l>
<l> For a baptized man  may as meystres telleth .</l>
<l> Þoruȝ co<expan>n</expan>triciou<expan>n</expan> come  <app><lem>til</lem></app><note>R.11.79: Beta has <hi>to</hi> while F reads <hi>into</hi>.</note> þe heȝe heuene .</l>
R.11.80KD.11.81α
<l> <hi><foreign>Sola contric<expan>i</expan>o &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Ac a barne with<seg>-</seg>outen bapteme  may nouȝt so be <app><lem>ysaued</lem></app> .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Nisi quis renatus fu<expan>er</expan>it</foreign></hi> <add>loke</add> ȝe lettred men whet<expan>ur</expan> I lye or do nouȝt</l>
<l> And lewete <app><lem>þo</lem></app><note>R.11.83: Beta omits alpha's <hi>þo</hi>.</note> loked on me  and I loured after .<note>R.11.83: After this line, the scribe fails to insert a blank line to separate his verse strophes. Presumably, he omits the blank because the next line is the last one ruled for this side.</note></l>
</lg>
<lg>
R.11.84KD.11.85
<l> ¶ Wher<expan>e</expan>fore lourestow q<expan>uo</expan>d lewte  and loked on me harde.</l>
<milestone>fol. 48vI</milestone>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Ȝif I durst q<expan>uo</expan>d I amonges men  þis meteles auowe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Ȝe be peter and be poule q<expan>uo</expan>d he and take<note>R.11.86: Though most beta manuscripts read <hi>took</hi> here, R's <hi>take</hi> is supported by LMG.</note> hem bothe to witnesse .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Non oderis fr<expan>atr</expan>es secrete in corde tuo  s<expan>ed</expan> publice argue illos.</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.88KD.11.89
<l> ¶ Þei wol aleggen al<seg>-</seg>so q<expan>uo</expan>d I  and by þe gospel p<expan>re</expan>uen .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Nolite iudicar<expan>e</expan> quemq<expan>ua</expan>m  &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ And wher<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>of s<expan>er</expan>ueth lawe q<expan>uo</expan>d leute <app><lem>þa<expan>n</expan>ne</lem></app><note>R.11.90: R's <hi>þanne</hi> is a unique addition to the text of <hi>Bx</hi>. In an almost identical line, no <hi>C</hi> witness includes R's addition.</note>  if no lif vndertoke it .</l>
<l> Falsnesse ne faytrie  for sum<seg>-</seg>what þe apostle seide .</l>
R.11.92KD.11.93-94
<l> <hi><foreign>Non oderis fr<expan>atr</expan>em</foreign></hi> . and i<expan>n</expan> þe saut<expan>er</expan> al<seg>-</seg>so  seyth dauid þe p<expan>ro</expan>phete .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Existimasti iniq<expan>ue</expan> q<expan>uo</expan>d ero tui si<expan>mi</expan>lis . et c.</foreign></hi></l>
<l> It is <foreign>licitu<expan>m</expan></foreign> for <orig>lewedmen</orig><reg>lewed men</reg>  to segge þe sothe .</l>
<l> If hem liketh and lest  vch a lawe it graunteth .</l>
R.11.96KD.11.98
<l> Except persones and p<expan>re</expan>stes  and p<expan>re</expan>lates of holy <app><lem>cherches</lem></app> .<note>R.11.96: R's plural is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> reads <hi>cherche</hi>.</note></l>
<l> It falleth nauȝt for þat folke  none<note>R.11.97: Beta reads <hi>no</hi>.</note> tales to telle .</l>
<l> Þouȝ þe tale were trewe  and it touched synne .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l><app><lem>Ac</lem></app><note>R.11.99: Beta omits the conjunction, while F reads <hi>A</hi> instead.</note> þing<expan>e</expan> þat alle þe worlde wote  wher<expan>e</expan>fore schuldestow spar<expan>e</expan> .</l>
R.11.100KD.11.102
<l> And reeden it in rethorik<expan>e</expan>  to a<seg>-</seg>raten dedly synne .</l>
<l> Ac be neu<expan>er</expan><seg>-</seg>more þe furste  þe defaute to blame .</l>
<l> Þouȝ þow se euel sey it nauȝt furste  be sori it ner<expan>e</expan> amendit .</l>
<l> No þing<expan>e</expan> þat is p<expan>ri</expan>ue  publiche þow it neu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
R.11.104KD.11.106
<l> Neither for loue <app><lem>lakke</lem></app><note>R.11.104: R's first use of <hi>lakke</hi> in this line is unique; the majority of the beta manuscripts read <hi>laude</hi> and F, typically, rewrites the a-verse. The <hi>C</hi> line is virtually unchanged, but the verb phrase in question appears as <hi>labbe it out</hi>.</note> it nouȝt  ne lakke it for enuye .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Parum lauda vitup<expan>er</expan>a parcius.</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ He seith <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.11.106: R's <hi>þe</hi> is a unique addition to the text here witnessed by both <hi>Bx</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> sothe q<expan>uo</expan>d sc<expan>ri</expan>ptur<expan>e</expan> þo  and skypte an heyȝ and p<expan>re</expan>ched .</l>
<l> Ac þe mate<expan>re</expan> þat sche meued  <app><lem>lewed</lem></app> men it <app><lem>knowe</lem></app><note>R.11.107: The omission of <hi>if</hi> at the head of the b-verse completely alters the meaning of this line, but it must have occurred in alpha since F also bears witness to its absence. Likewise, alpha's aberrant <hi>knowe</hi> is attested in F's distorted b-verse (<hi>lewede men not knowe yt</hi>). The authorial status of the line as it appears in beta is warranted by its agreement with <hi>Cx</hi>: <hi>Ac þe matere þat she meuede if lewede men hit knewe</hi>.</note> .</l>
R.11.108KD.11.109
<l> Þe lasse as I leue  loueyen it þey wolde .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Þe bileue</lem></app> <sic>þat</sic><corr>[of] þat</corr> lord  <app><lem>þat</lem></app> lettred <app><lem>men</lem></app> techeth .<note>R.11.109: This line is absent from beta, and F's version is sufficiently different from R's that the reconstruction of alpha must remain conjectural. F reads the line: <hi>But þei be-leven on þe lord / þat lettrid men hem techeþ</hi>. It seems likely, however, that R's version of this line is more faithful to alpha than is F and that the omission of the preposition <hi>of</hi> from the a-verse occurred in R or its immediate ancestor.</note> </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Þis was hir<expan>e</expan> teme  and hir<expan>e</expan> tixte  I toke ful gode hede .</l>
<l> <foreign>Multi</foreign> to a mangerie  and to þe mete were sompned .</l>
R.11.112KD.11.113
<l> And whanne þe poeple was plen<expan>er</expan> come  þe port<expan>er</expan> vnpy<expan>n</expan>ned þe ȝate .</l>
<l> And plukked in <foreign>pauci</foreign> p<expan>ri</expan>ueliche  & lete þe remenant go rome .<note>R.11.113: Here the scribe omits his usual blank line separating strophes, presumably because the next line is the last one ruled for this side.</note></l>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Al for tene of hir<expan>e</expan> tixst  tremeled myn herte.</l>
<hi>And In a wer<expan>e</expan> gan I wex .</hi>
<milestone>fol. 49rI</milestone>
<l> And in a wer<expan>e</expan> gan I wex  and with my<seg>-</seg>selue to despute .</l>
R.11.116KD.11.117
<l> Whether I were chose or nouȝt chose  on holy cherche I þouȝte .</l>
<l> Þat vnderfonge me at þe fonte  for oen of godes chosene .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ For crist cleped vs alle  come if we wolde .<note>R.11.118: In the right margin, a black brace extends from this line down to 11.122.</note></l>
<l> Sarasines and sismatices  and so he dede þe Iewes .</l>
R.11.120KD.11.120α
<l> <hi><foreign>O vos om<expan>n</expan>es scicientes<note>R.11.120: R's <foreign>scicientes</foreign> is variant spelling of the Vulgate form <hi>sicientes</hi>. It is found in many <hi>B</hi> manuscripts (including L, M, and F) and is not rare in late medieval Latin generally.</note> venite &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> And bad hem souke for synne  <app><lem>saue</lem></app><note>R.11.121: RF here read <hi>saue</hi> against beta's <hi>saufly</hi>. At first glance, the occurrence of <hi>saue</hi> appears to be an alpha error, either for <hi>safly</hi>, or for Kane-Donaldson's conjectured <hi>saufte</hi>. However, <hi>saue</hi> is also found at this point in the X family of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts (the P family = <hi>sauete</hi>). As evidenced by <title>MED</title>, <hi>save</hi> can have nominal, adjectival, or adverbial senses. See <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>saue</hi>, (n. 1) and <hi>sauf</hi> (adj. and adv.). Moreover, Russell and Kane seem to have recanted their emendation, since their edition now offers <hi>saue</hi> as the original <hi>C</hi> reading. In light of the shared witness of the X family of <hi>C</hi>, and the ample evidence that SWMidlands phonology treated /v/ and /f/ as allophonic, R's reading probably is equivalent to "safe" and directly mirrors <hi>Bx</hi> while beta represents an attempt at glossing the harder reading.</note> at his breste .</l>
<l> And drinke bote for bale  brouke it ho<seg>-</seg>so miȝte .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Þanne may alle cristene come q<expan>uo</expan>d I  and clayme þer<expan>e</expan> entre .</l>
R.11.124KD.11.124
<l> Be þe blod<note>R.11.124: Beta adds <hi>þat</hi> before <hi>he</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> version of the line appears to support beta (though some X family copies omit <hi>þat</hi>).</note> <app><lem>he</lem></app> bouȝte <app><lem><sic>vs</sic><corr>vs [wiþ]</corr></lem></app><note>R.11.124: The omission of <hi>with</hi> at the end of the a-verse is unique to R and alters the meaning and grammatical status of the clause. <hi>Cx</hi> confirms that R is in error.</note>  and þoruȝ baptesme after .<note>R.11.124: In the right margin, a hand points to this line.</note></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Qui crediderit et baptizatus fu<expan>er</expan>it &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> For þouȝ a cristen man coueyted  his cristendom to <app><lem>receyue</lem></app> .<note>R.11.126: Alpha generated this error (<hi>receyue</hi> for <hi>reneye</hi>); it makes nonsense of the statement as a whole (which runs into the next line), though it makes limited sense within its own line. <hi>Cx</hi> shows the same verb as beta.</note> </l>
<l> Riȝtfulliche to reneye  no reson it wolde .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.128KD.11.127
<l> ¶ For may no cherle chartre make  ne his catel selle .</l>
<l> With<seg>-</seg>outen leue of his lorde  <app><lem>ne</lem></app><note>R.11.129: R's <hi>ne</hi> is unique; both <hi>Bx</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> read <hi>no</hi>.</note> lawe wile it g<expan>ra</expan>unte .</l>
<l> Ac he may rennen in a<seg>-</seg>rerage  and <app><lem>renne</lem></app><note>R.11.130: Beta has <hi>rowme so</hi>; F reads <hi>rayke</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta on the verb in question but agrees with alpha on the omission of <hi>so</hi>.</note> fro home .</l>
<l> And as <app><lem>he</lem></app> <app><lem>renneth</lem></app> caytif  rechelesliche aboute .<note> R's reading of the a-verse of this line is unique. Beta reads <hi>And as a reneyed caityf</hi>. The problem seems to have begun at line 130, where R's b-verse involves an awkward redundancy (cf. beta's <hi>rowme</hi>). However, this redundancy probably mirrors alpha, while F seeks to repair the mistake by varying the verb to <hi>rayke</hi>. At line 131, R's continued confusion then would be merely reproducing serious corruption in alpha that began in the previous line. F, typically, attempts to repair the lapse in sense with <hi>& þey he renne recchesly / or romeþ a-bowte</hi> (F8.128), but <hi>Bx</hi> presumably read something like beta's <hi>And as a reneyed caityf recchelesly gon aboute</hi>.</note></l>
R.11.132KD.11.131
<l> Ac reson schal rekne with hym  <app><lem>and rebuken hym at þe laste</lem></app> .<note> Beta omits KD11.131b-32a, presumably as a result of eyeskip involving <hi>with hym</hi>, which occurs midline in both lines. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees completely with alpha here.</note></l>
<l> <app><lem>And consience <app><lem>a<seg>-</seg>counte</lem></app> with hym</lem><lem>a<seg>-</seg>counte</lem></app>  & casten hym in a<seg>-</seg>rerage .</l>
<l> And putten hym after in p<expan>ri</expan>sone  in p<expan>u</expan>rgatorie to brenne .<note>R.11.134: The word <hi>purgatorie</hi> has been cancelled by a later reader with a horizontal black line.</note></l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.11.135: Beta omits <hi>And</hi> from the opening of this line. The cognate <hi>C</hi> line is slightly revised from <hi>B</hi>, but its opening phrase is the same (as is the previous line). Most of the P family copies support the beta omission while most of the X family support alpha's reading</note> for his a<seg>-</seg>rerages rewarden hym þer<expan>e</expan><app><lem>riȝte</lem></app><note>R.11.135: Beta completely omits this alliterative stave-word; F rewrites the b-verse completely and is irrelevant. The a-verse of <hi>Cx</hi> is slightly revised from <hi>B</hi>, but its b-verse is identical to R's and affirms the authority of <hi>riȝte</hi>.</note> to þe day of dome .</l>
R.11.136KD.11.135
<l> But if contric<expan>i</expan>on wel come<note>R.11.136: The spelling of the modal in this phrase is relatively unusual, but <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>will</hi>, recognizes <hi>wel</hi> as an acceptable Anglian form for <hi>will</hi> in the fourteenth century.</note>  and crie be hys <app><lem>leue</lem></app><note>R.11.136: R's <hi>leue</hi> is unique; the other copies have <hi>lyue</hi>; the reading of <hi>C</hi> for this final stave (in a slightly revised line) agrees with that of F and beta.</note> .</l>
<l> Mercy for his misdedes  <hi>with mouth or with herte</hi> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Þat is soth seyde scriptur<expan>e</expan>  may no synne lette</l>
<l> Mercy <app><lem>may al</lem></app><note>R.11.139: Alpha's <hi>may al</hi> is rendered by beta as <hi>alle to</hi>; <hi>C</hi> revises the a-verse slightly but clearly attests the presence of alpha's <hi>may al</hi>.</note> amende  <app><lem>þat</lem></app> mekenesse <app><lem>he</lem></app> folweth .<note>R.11.139: By uniquely substituting <hi>þat</hi> for <hi>if</hi>, and <hi>he</hi> for <hi>hym</hi> (= F) or <hi>hir</hi> (= beta), R appears here to lose the drift of Langland's thought, which is the <hi>conditional</hi> operation of Mercy. Beta's version of this line reads <hi>Mercy alle to amende and mekenesse hir folwe</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> seems to agree with beta.</note></l>
R.11.140KD.11.139
<l> For þei beth as our<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>boke</lem></app><note>R.11.140: R's singular is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> has <hi>bokes</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> confirms the majority <hi>B</hi> reading.</note> telleth  aboue godes werkes .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>M<expan>isericord</expan>ia eius super o<expan>mn</expan>ia op<expan>er</expan>a eius.</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Ye baw for bokes q<expan>uo</expan>d on  was broken oute of helle .</l>
<l> Hiȝte troianus had ben a trewe kniȝt  toke witnesse at a pope .<note>R.11.143: The word <hi>pope</hi> is cancelled by a later reader using a horizontal line. It is the same ink as was used to cancel <hi>purgatorie</hi> at 11.134 above; also the same as used to draw the pointing hand at 11.124.</note></l>
R.11.144KD.11.142
<l> How he was dede and dampned  to dwelle in pyne .</l>
<l> For an vncristene creature  clerkes witen þe sothe .</l>
<l> Þat alle þe clergie vnder criste  <note>R.11.146: Most <hi>B</hi> manuscripts agree with R here in the loss of the negative required for appropriate sense: <hi><hi>ne</hi> miȝte me cracche</hi>. The CrWHm group may have restored the negative through scribal conjecture.</note> miȝte me cracche fro helle .</l>
<milestone>fol. 49vI</milestone>
<l> But oneliche loue and <app><lem>my</lem></app><note>R.11.147: R's <hi>my</hi> is a unique addition to the text of <hi>Bx</hi>.</note> leute  <app><lem>of</lem></app><note>R.11.147: Beta reads <hi>and</hi> for alpha's <hi>of</hi>.</note> my lauful domes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.148KD.11.146
<l> ¶ Gregori wist þis wel  and wilned to my soule .</l>
<l> Sauacion for <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.11.149: R's <hi>for þe</hi> is an alpha reading. Beta omits <hi>þe</hi>, but <hi>Cx</hi> confirms alpha's reading on this point.</note> sothenesse  þat he <app><lem>seith</lem></app><note>R.11.149: R's <hi>seith</hi> is unique in tense; the other <hi>B</hi> and <hi>C</hi> copies have a preterite form.</note> <app><lem>of</lem></app><note>R.11.149: Beta reads <hi>in</hi>; <hi>Cx</hi> confirms beta's reading.</note> my werkes .</l>
<l> And after þat he wepte  and wilned me wer<expan>e</expan> graunted .</l>
<l> Grace with<seg>-</seg>oute<expan>n</expan> eny bede biddyng<expan>e</expan>  his bone was vnderfonge .</l>
R.11.152KD.11.151
<l> <hi>And I saued as ȝe <app><lem>now</lem></app></hi><note>R.11.152: The adverb <hi>now</hi> is unique to R. <hi>Bx</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> have <hi>may</hi>. R's error presumably resulted from a misreading of an alpha form such as <hi>mow(e)</hi>.</note> <hi>se  with<seg>-</seg>outen syngyng<expan>e</expan> of masses .</hi></l>
<l> <note>R.11.153: R's line is marred by an omitted preposition at its head (beta = <hi>By</hi>), but the error appears to stem from alpha; F seems to have attempted to correct the deficit by adding <hi>Þoru</hi> but failed to notice the resulting faulty parallelism created later in the line.</note> <app><lem>Loue</lem></app> and bi lernynge  of my lyuyng<expan>e</expan> in treuthe .</l>
<l> <hi>Brouȝt me fro bitt<expan>er</expan> peyne  þer<expan>e</expan> no byddyng<expan>e</expan> miȝte .</hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Lo ȝe lordes what <app><lem><sic>leute</sic><corr>leute [dide]</corr></lem></app><note>R.11.155: Omission of the verb at the end of the a-verse (F = <hi>doþ</hi> and beta = <hi>did</hi>) is a unique error in R.</note>  by an emp<expan>er</expan>our<expan>e</expan> of rome .</l>
R.11.156KD.11.155
<l> Þat was an vncristene creatur<expan>e</expan>  as clerkes fyndeth i<expan>n</expan> bokes .</l>
<l> <hi>Nouȝt þoruȝ preyer<expan>e</expan> of a pope</hi><note>R.11.157: The word <hi>pope</hi> is again cancelled (cf. 11.143 above) by a later reader using a horizontal line. It is the same ink as was used to cancel <hi>purgatorie</hi> at 11.134 above; also the same as used to draw the pointing hand at 11.124.</note>  but for his pur<expan>e</expan> treuthe</l>
<foreign>in Ep<expan>iscopu</expan>m Romanu<expan>m</expan></foreign>
<l> Was þat sarasyn saued  as seynt gregori bereth witnesse .</l>
<l> Wel auȝt <app><lem>þe</lem></app> lordes þat lawes kepe  þis lessou<expan>n</expan> to haue i<expan>n</expan> mynde .</l>
R.11.160KD.11.159
<l> And on troian<expan>us</expan> treuth to thenke  and do treuthe to þe poeple .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Þis matir is merke for mani <app><lem>of ȝow  ac</lem></app> men of holy cherche<note>R.11.161: Kane and Donaldson, lines 11.160-70 (= R 11.161-71) were omitted by the beta manuscripts and are preserved solely in R and F. F's rendering of these lines is sufficiently different from R's that F's lines should be cited in their entirety (cf. Appendix 1, R11.161-71, for details and any cross-references to the <hi>C</hi> version): <lb/>
<hi>Þis matere is merk for manye / save men of holy chirche. <lb/>
Þe legende sanctorum / lerneþ ȝow ; more largere þan y ȝou telle. <lb/>
& þus leel love / & leel lyvynge in trewthe <lb/>
Pytten owt of peyȝne / a payȝnym of Rome. <lb/>
I-blessid be trowþe / þat brak so helle ȝaatys. <lb/>
& savede þat sarsyȝn / fram sathenases powher. <lb/>
/ Þere no Clergie ne cowhde / ne conynge of lawis. <lb/>
Þan is love & lewte / ryght a leel science. <lb/>
God wrouht it / & wroot it / with his owne fynger. <lb/>
& took it Moyses on þe Mount / alle men / it to leere.</hi>
</note>
</l>
<l> Þe legende <foreign>s<expan>an</expan>c<expan>t</expan>or<expan>um</expan></foreign> <app><lem>ȝow lereth</lem></app>  more larger þan I ȝow telle .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Ac</lem></app> þus lele loue  and <app><lem>lyuyng<expan>e</expan></lem></app> in treuthe .</l>
R.11.164KD.11.163
<l> <app><lem>Pulte</lem></app> oute of <app><lem>pyne</lem></app>  a paynym of rome .</l>
<l> <hi>I<seg>-</seg>blessed be treuthe  þat <app><lem>so brak</lem></app> helle ȝates .</hi></l>
<l> And saued <app><lem>þe</lem></app> sarasyn  fram <app><lem>sathanas and his</lem></app> power</l>
<l> Þer<expan>e</expan> no clergie ne couthe  ne kunnyng<expan>e</expan> of lawes .</l>
R.11.168KD.11.167
<l> <app><lem>Loue</lem></app> and leute <app><lem>is</lem></app> a lele science  </l>
<l> <app><lem>For þat is þe boke blessed<expan>e</expan>  of blisse and of ioye</lem></app><note>R.11.169: The line appears uniquely in R.</note> .</l>
<l> God wrouȝt it and wrot hit  with his <app><lem>on</lem></app> fynger .</l>
<l> And toke it moyses <app><lem>vpon</lem></app> þe mount  alle men <app><lem>to</lem></app> lere</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.172KD.11.171
<l> ¶ Lawe with<seg>-</seg>oute loue q<expan>uo</expan>d troian<expan>us</expan>  leye þer<expan>e</expan> a bene .</l>
I lefte here<note>R.11.173: A sixteenth-century reader has inscribed for himself a personal bookmark. The note is in the same hand as the marginal note at 43v.</note>
<l> Or any science vnder sonne  þe seuen artz and alle .</l>
<l> But þei ben lerned for our<expan>e</expan> lordes loue  <app><lem>Ilost</lem></app> is alle þe tyme .</l>
<l> For no cause to cacche selu<expan>er</expan> þ<expan>er</expan><seg>-</seg>by  ne to be cald a mayster .</l>
R.11.176KD.11.175
<l> But alle for loue of our<expan>e</expan> lorde  & þe bet to loue þe poeple</l>
<l> For seynt Ioh<expan>a</expan>n seyde it  and soth aren his wordes .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Qui non diligit manet in morte </foreign></hi> <seg></seg></l>
<milestone>fol. 50rI</milestone>
<l> <hi>ho<seg>-</seg>so loueth nauȝte leue me  he lyueth in deth<seg>-</seg>deying<expan>e</expan></hi> .</l>
R.11.180KD.11.178
<l> And þat alle maner men  enemys and frendes .</l>
<l> Louen her eyther other  and lene hem as here<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
<l> <app><lem><hi>For</hi></lem></app><note>R.11.182: Beta omits <hi>For</hi>.</note> <hi>ho<seg>-</seg>so leueth</hi><note>R.11.182: Kane-Donaldson transcribe R here as agreeing with beta in reading <hi>leneth</hi>. Contextually, <hi>leneth</hi> must be what <hi>Bx</hi> read, but there is no reason in this instance to construe R's <u> as <n> (even though the character forms sometimes overlap in R), especially since the testimony of F (<hi>be-leveþ</hi>) indicates that the error derived from alpha.</note> <hi>nauȝt he loueth nauȝte  <app><lem>our<expan>e</expan> lorde</lem></app></hi><note>R.11.182: Both beta and F read non-alliterating <hi>god</hi> in place of R's <hi>oure lorde</hi>.</note> <hi>wote þe sothe</hi> .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>comaunded</lem></app><note>R.11.183: Although O agrees with alpha in reading a preterite verb form here, beta clearly had the present form <hi>comaundeth</hi>.</note> vch creatur<expan>e</expan>  to conforme hym to louye .</l>
R.11.184KD.11.182
<l> And sou<expan>er</expan>eyneliche pore poeple  and here enemys after .</l>
<l> <hi>For hem þat haten vs  is our<expan>e</expan> merite to louye</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And pore poeple to plese  her<expan>e</expan> preyeres may vs helpe</hi> .</l>
<l> For oure ioye and oure <app><lem>euel</lem></app><note>R.11.187: R's <hi>euel</hi> makes no sense and fails to alliterate properly; beta's <hi>hele</hi> and F's <hi>helthe</hi> are contextually appropriate but also fail the alliteration test. Kane-Donaldson conjecture alpha and <hi>Bx</hi>, on the basis of R, as <hi>Iuel</hi>.</note><app><lem>is</lem></app> ih<expan>es</expan>u<note>R.11.187: Beta omits <hi>is</hi>.</note> crist of heuene .</l>
R.11.188KD.11.186
<l> In a pore mannes apparaile  pursueth vs eu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> And loketh on vs in here likenesse  and þat with louely cher<expan>e</expan></l>
<l> To knowen vs be oure kende herte  and castyng<expan>e</expan> of oure eyes .</l>
<l> <app><lem><sic>Whe</sic><corr>Whe[ther]</corr></lem></app> we loue þe lordes here  by<seg>-</seg>for our<expan>e</expan> lorde of blisse .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.192KD.11.190
<l> ¶ And exiteth vs by þe eu<expan>au</expan>angelie  þ<expan>a</expan>t whan we maken festes .</l>
<l> We schulde nouȝte clepe our<expan>e</expan> kyn þ<expan>er</expan>to  ne none kyne riche .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Cum facitis co<expan>n</expan>uiuia nolite inuitare amicos .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Ac calleth þe careful þere<seg>-</seg>to  þe croked and þe pore .</l>
R.11.196KD.11.193
<l> For ȝour<expan>e</expan> frendes wolen fede ȝow  and fonden ȝow to quite .</l>
<l> Ȝoure festyng<expan>e</expan> and ȝour<expan>e</expan> fayre ȝiftes  vch frende <app><lem>quit</lem></app><note>R.11.197: Beta reads <hi>quyteth</hi>; F has <hi>ȝeldeth</hi>.</note> so other .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l><hi>Ac for þe pore I schal paie  and puir<expan>e</expan> wel quiten her<expan>e</expan> trauail</hi> .<note>R.11.198: A pattern of tiny pinholes (in the shape of saw teeth, with three crests and two troughs facing the page gutter) runs down the left margin, from this point to R11.201.</note> </l>
<l> <hi>Þat ȝiueth hem mete or mone  and loueth hem for my sake</hi> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.200KD.11.197
<l><app><lem>Almiȝty god hath made riche</lem></app>  men if he wolde .<note>R.11.200: This line is omitted by beta and apparently garbled in alpha; Kane-Donaldson conjecture from R's shape and F's content (<hi>God myghte ryche a maad al</hi>) that <hi>Bx</hi> read as follows: <hi>Alle myȝte god haue maad riche men if he wolde</hi>.</note></l>
<l> <app><lem>Ac</lem></app><note>R.11.201: R's <hi>Ac for</hi> is unique; F has <hi>But for</hi> and beta simply reads <hi>For</hi>.</note> for þe beste ben so<expan>m</expan>me riche  and so<expan>m</expan>me beggeres . & pore .</l>
<l> <hi>For alle ar we cristes creatures  and of his coferes riche</hi> .</l>
<l> <hi><app><lem>As</lem></app><note>R.11.203: R's <hi>As</hi> is unique; F and beta read <hi>And</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note> bretheren as of o blode  as wel beggeres as erles</hi> .</l>
R.11.204KD.11.201
<l> <hi>For <app><lem>at</lem></app></hi><note>R.11.204: Beta has <hi>For on</hi>, but <hi>Cx</hi> attests <hi>At</hi>.</note> <hi>caluarie of cristes blode  cristendom gan springe</hi> .</l>
<l> And blody brethern we by<seg>-</seg>come  þer<expan>e</expan> of one body ywonne .</l>
<l> As <foreign>quasi modo geniti</foreign>  and gentil men vchone .</l>
<l> No begger<expan>e</expan> ne boy amonges vs  but if it synne made .</l>
R.11.208KD.11.204α
<l> <hi><foreign>Qui facit peccatu<expan>m</expan> s<expan>er</expan>uus est peccati .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ In þe olde lawe  as <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.11.209: Beta reads <hi>holy</hi> in place of alpha's <hi>þe</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> copies are divided: the P family omits any modifier before <hi>lettre</hi> while the X family agrees with alpha's <hi>þe</hi>.</note> l<expan>ett</expan>re telleth .</l>
<l> Mennes sones men<note>R.11.210: The word <hi>men</hi> is bracketed by two slanting lines, apparently drawn by an early reader, perhaps to call attention to what might have been sensed, at first glance, as a case of scribal redundancy eligible for "correction."</note>  called vs echone .</l>
hij<expan>us</expan>
<milestone>fol. 50vI</milestone>
<l> Of adames issue and eue  ay til god man deyede .</l>
R.11.212KD.11.207
<l> And after his resurrexiou<expan>n</expan><foreign>redemptor</foreign> was his name .</l>
<l> And we his brethern þoruȝ hym Ibouȝte  bothe riche and pore</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ For<seg>-</seg>þi loue we as leue <app><lem>childern</lem></app><note>R.11.214: Beta has <hi>bretheren</hi>, but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha's <hi>childern</hi>.</note> schal  & vch man lauȝh vp oþ<expan>er</expan> .</l>
<l> And of þat vche man may forber<expan>e</expan>  amende þer<expan>e</expan> it nedeth .</l>
R.11.216KD.11.211
<l> And eueri man helpe oþer <app><lem>her<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.11.216: Beta omits <hi>here</hi>, and <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note>  for hennes schulle we alle .</l>
<l> <foreign>Alt<expan>er</expan> alteri<expan>us</expan> onera portate .</foreign></l>
<l> And be we nauȝt vnkende of our<expan>e</expan> catel  ne of our<expan>e</expan> <app><lem><sic>ku<expan>n</expan>nyg<expan>e</expan></sic><corr>ku<expan>n</expan>ny[n]g<expan>e</expan></corr></lem></app> noþ<expan>er</expan> .</l>
<l> For noet no man how neyȝ it is  to be Inome fro bothe .</l>
R.11.220KD.11.214
<l> For<seg>-</seg>þi lakke no lif oþer  þouȝ he more latyn knowe .</l>
<l> Ne vndernyme nauȝt foule  for is noen with<seg>-</seg>oute defaute .</l>
<l> For what<seg>-</seg>eu<expan>er</expan> clerkes carpe  of cristendom or elles .</l>
<l> Criste to a comune woman seyde  in comune at a feste .</l>
R.11.224KD.11.218
<l> Þat <foreign>fides sua</foreign> schulde sauen hir<expan>e</expan>  and saluen hir<expan>e</expan> of alle synnes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Þanne is bileue a lele helpe  <app><lem><sic>abue</sic><corr>ab[o]ue</corr></lem></app> logike or lawe .</l>
<l> Of logike ne of lawe  in <foreign>legenda s<expan>an</expan>c<expan>t</expan>oru<expan>m</expan></foreign> .</l>
<l> Is litel <app><lem>alowed</lem></app> <app><lem>þei both</lem></app><note>R.11.227: For RF's <hi>alowed</hi>, beta has <hi>allowaunce</hi>. The phrase <hi>þei both</hi> is unique to R (F omits the words) but probably mirrors alpha. Beta's entire a-verse reads: <hi>Is litel allowaunce made</hi>.</note><app><lem>but</lem></app> by<seg>-</seg>leue hem helpe .</l>
R.11.228KD.11.222
<l> For it is ouer<seg>-</seg>longe ar logike  ani lesson assoyle .</l>
<l> And lawe is lothe to louie  but if he lacche seluer</l>
<l> Bothe logyke and lawe  þat loueth nauȝt <app><lem>for to</lem></app><note>R.11.230: R's <hi>for</hi> is a unique addition to the archetypal text.</note> lye .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ I conseile alle cristene  cleue nauȝt þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>on to sore</l>
R.11.232KD.11.226
<l> For somme wordes I fynde write  were of feithes techyng<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Þat saued synful men  as seynt Ioh<expan>a</expan>n bereth witnesse .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Eadem mensura qua mensi fueritis  <app><lem>reme<del>c</del><add>s</add>tiet<expan>ur</expan></lem></app> vobis .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>þi lerne we þe lawe of loue  as our<expan>e</expan> lorde tauȝte .</l>
R.11.236KD.11.230
<l> And as seynt gregorie seyde  for mannes soule helth .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Melius est scrutari scelera n<expan>ost</expan>ra q<expan>ua</expan>m n<expan>atura</expan>s rer<expan>um</expan>.</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Why I meue þis matire  is moste for þe pore .</l>
<l> For in her<expan>e</expan> liknesse oure lorde  <app><lem><sic>of</sic><corr>of[t]</corr></lem></app> hath be I<seg>-</seg>knowe .</l>
R.11.240KD.11.234
<l> Witnesse in þe pasqe woke  whan he ȝede to emaus .</l>
<l> Cleophas ne knewe hym nauȝte  þat he criste were .</l>
<l> For his pore paraile  and pilgrimes wedes . <seg></seg></l>
h ij<expan>us</expan>
<milestone>fol. 51rI</milestone>
<l> Til he blissed and brak  þe brede þat þei eten .</l>
R.11.244KD.11.238
<l> So be his werkes þei wisten  þat he was ih<expan>es</expan>us .</l>
<l> Ac be clothyng<expan>e</expan> þei knewe hym nouȝte  ne be carpyng<expan>e</expan> of tonge .</l>
<l> And alle <app><lem>was</lem></app> ensaumple <app><lem>for<seg>-</seg>sothe</lem></app><note>R.11.246: R's <hi>for<seg>-</seg>sothe</hi> is unique; it is omitted by both beta and F. Nevertheless, it may well be original: <hi>Cx</hi> here reads <hi>sothly</hi>.</note>  to vs synful here .</l>
<l> Þat we schulde be lowe  and loueliche of speche .</l>
<foreign><hi>in vestitu<expan>m</expan> mileten<unclear>tio</unclear></hi></foreign>
R.11.248KD.11.242
<l> <hi>And apparailen vs nauȝt ou<expan>er</expan> proudly  for pilgrimes ar<expan>e</expan> we alle</hi> .</l>
<l> And in þe <app><lem>paraile</lem></app><note>R.11.249: In place of R's <hi>paraile</hi>, beta has <hi>apparaille</hi>. F omits the entire line. Some <hi>C</hi> manuscripts of both major families support R's form and some support beta's.</note> of a pore man  and pilgrimes liknesse .</l>
<l> Many tyme god hath ben <app><lem>ymette</lem></app>  amonges nedy poeple .</l>
to punysh m
\ þe<note> Between these two lines, Hand2 has tried to indicate an insertion point for <hi>þe</hi> in the previous line where the scribe had already written <hi>þe</hi>. Also Hand2 has drawn a tail on the original character's descender to make its identity more explicit. Apparently, he understood the scribe's form in line 251 as <hi>ye</hi> and was attempting to fix it.</note>
<l> Þer<expan>e</expan> neu<expan>er</expan>e segg<expan>e</expan> hym seyȝ  in secte of þe riche .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.252KD.11.246
<l> ¶ Seint Ioh<expan>a</expan>n and other seyntes  weren seyn in pore cloþing<expan>e</expan>.</l>
<l> And as pore pilgrimes  preyude <app><lem>men</lem></app><note>R.11.253: Beta reads <hi>mennes</hi>.</note> goedes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Ih<expan>es</expan>u crist on a Iewes douȝter a<seg>-</seg>liȝte  gentel woman þouȝ <app><lem>a</lem></app><note>R.11.254: R's <hi>a</hi> (= "she") is unique; other manuscripts have <hi>she</hi>.</note> wer<expan>e</expan> .</l>
To ponyshe me<lb/>
in <unclear>shrift</unclear>
<l> <app><lem>A</lem></app><note>R.11.255: Although Hm and Y have <hi>sche</hi> / <hi>she</hi>, beta omits all pronoun reference, beginning the line with <hi>Was</hi>. F omits the line. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta's omission.</note> was a puir pore mayden  and to a pore man Iweddede . </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.256KD.11.250
<l> ¶ Martha on marie maudeleyne  and huge pleynt sche made .</l>
<l> And to our<expan>e</expan> saueour<expan>e</expan> selue  seyde þis wordes .</l>
<foreign>N<expan>ota</expan></foreign>
<l> <hi><foreign>D<expan>omi</expan>ne non est tibi cur<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>&c<expan>etera</expan></lem></app> .</foreign><note>R.11.258: Here R uniquely omits the end of the citation, which in F and beta reads: <foreign>quod soror mea reliquit me sola(m) ministrare &c</foreign>. Among the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, the P family agrees with <hi>Bx</hi> while the X family offers various truncations of the citation.</note></hi></l>
<l> And hasteliche god answered  and eitheres wille folwede .</l>
R.11.260KD.11.254
<l> Bothe <hi>Marthes and maries  as matheu bereth witnesse .</hi></l>
<l> Ac pouerte god putte by<seg>-</seg>fore  and preysed it þe better<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Maria optimam partem <app><lem>elegit</lem></app><seg></seg></foreign> <note>R.11.262: Here R uniquely omits the end of the citation, which in most <hi>B</hi> copies reads: <foreign>que non auferetur ab ea</foreign>. In LMCrW, however, the citation is truncated after <foreign>non</foreign>. In the <hi>C</hi> tradition, the P manuscripts mostly treat the citation fully, as in the majority of beta copies; however, the X family offers a variety of truncated versions.</note></hi></l>
<l> And alle þe wyse þat eu<expan>er</expan>e were  by auȝt I can aspie .</l>
R.11.264KD.11.257
<l> Preisen pouerte for best lyf  if pacience it <app><lem>wolde</lem></app> .<note>R.11.264: R's fourth stave, <hi>wolde</hi>, is a unique reading; cf. beta's <hi>folwe</hi> and F's <hi>welde</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note></l>
<l> And bothe bett<expan>er</expan>e and blisseder  by many folde þan richesse .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Alle<seg>-</seg>þouȝ</lem></app> it be sour<expan>e</expan> to suffre  þer<expan>e</expan> cometh swete after .</l>
<l> As on a walnote with<seg>-</seg>oute  is a bitter barke .</l>
R.11.268KD.11.261
<l> And after þat bitt<expan>er</expan> barke  be þe schelle aweye </l>
<l> Is a kernel of conforte  kende to restore .</l>
<l> So is after pou<expan>er</expan>te or penaunce  pacientliche ytake .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Maketh</lem></app><note>R.11.271: Beta begins this line with the phrase <hi>For it maketh</hi>; R's opening, <hi>Maketh</hi>, is supported by F and by <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> a man to haue mynde in god  and a grete wille .</l>
R.11.272KD.11.265
<l> To wepe and to wel bidde  where<seg>-</seg>of wexeth m<expan>er</expan>cy .</l>
<l> Of which crist is a kernel  to conforte þe soule .</l>
<l> <hi>And wel sikerer he slepeth  þe <app><lem>segge</lem></app></hi><note>R.11.274: Beta reads non-alliterating <hi>man</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> <hi>þat is pore</hi> .</l>
<l> <hi>And lasse he dredeth deth  and in derke to be robbed</hi> .</l>
<milestone>fol. 51vI</milestone>
R.11.276KD.11.269
<l> Þan he þat is riȝt riche  reson bereth witnesse  </l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Pauper ego ludo du<expan>m</expan> tu diues meditaris </foreign></hi> </l>
<l> Alle<seg>-</seg>þouȝ salomon seyde  as <app><lem>men</lem></app><note>R.11.278: Beta reads <hi>folke</hi>.</note> seth in þe bible .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Diuicias nec paupertates &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
R.11.280KD.11.272
<l> Wiser þanne salomon was  bereth witnesse and tauȝte .</l>
<l> <hi>Þat parfit pouert was  no possession to haue</hi> .</l>
<l> And lif most likyng<expan>e</expan> to god  as luk bereth witnesse .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Si vis <app><lem><sic>pefectus</sic><corr>pe[r]fectus</corr></lem></app> esse vade et vende  &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
R.11.284KD.11.275
<l> And is to mene to men  þat on<note>R.11.284: R uniquely omits the determiner in the b-verse phrase, <hi>on <hi>þis</hi> molde</hi>.</note> <app><lem>molde</lem></app> lyuen  </l>
<l> ho<seg>-</seg>so wil be puir parfit  mote possession forsake .</l>
<l> Or selle it as seith þe boke  and þe seluer dele .</l>
<l> To beggeres þat gon and begge  & bidden goed for goddes loue .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.288KD.11.279
<l> ¶ For fayled neu<expan>er</expan> man mete  þat miȝtful god serueth .</l>
<l> As dauid seith in þe sauter  to swich þat ben in wille .</l>
<l> <app><lem>With eny wel or wo</lem></app>  /<note>R.11.290: The scribe has left a vertical stroke to mark a position for inserting more text, indicating his awareness that something may be missing here.</note><note>R.11.290: In alpha, KD11.280 (above) was followed by an extra half-verse punctuated as a separate line, as here; cf. F's <hi>to suffre wo for welthe</hi>.</note> </l>
<l> To s<expan>er</expan>ue god godeliche  ne greueth <app><lem>hem</lem></app> no penaunce .</l>
R.11.292KD.11.281α
<l> <hi><foreign>Nichil <app><lem>difficile</lem></app><note>R.11.292: Beta reads <foreign>inpossibile</foreign>.</note> volenti &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Ne lakketh <app><lem>noyther</lem></app><note>R.11.293: Beta has <hi>neuere</hi>; F omits the line.</note> lyuelode  lynnen ne wolenn<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Inquirentes autem d<expan>omin</expan>um non <app><lem><sic>munuent<expan>ur</expan></sic><corr>m[i]nuent<expan>ur</expan></corr></lem></app> o<expan>mn</expan>i bono.</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi>If prestes weren <app><lem>wise</lem></app></hi><note>R.11.295: For R's <hi>wise</hi>, F has <hi>all wise men</hi>; beta reads <hi>parfyt</hi>.</note> <hi> þei wolde no seluer take</hi> .</l>
<foreign>in cl<expan>er</expan>icos</foreign> <seg></seg>
R.11.296KD.11.284
<l> For masses ne for matynes  nouȝt her<expan>e</expan> mete of vsureres . </l>
<l> Ne noyther kertel ne cote  þeiȝ þei for colde schuld deye</l>
<l> And þei her<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>deu<expan>er</expan></lem></app><note>R.11.298: Here R and F are defective in sense; F rewrites the a-verse entirely while R omits the required verb, <hi>dede</hi>.</note>  as dauid <app><lem>seide</lem></app><note>R.11.298: R's <hi>seide</hi> is unique. All the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read a present-tense form, as with W's <hi>seiþ</hi>. See the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref> on R's seemingly anomalous tense marking.</note> in þe sauter .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Iudica me deus et discerne causam meam .</foreign></hi></l>
R.11.300KD.11.287
<l> <foreign>Spera in deo</foreign> speketh of p<expan>re</expan>stes  þat han no spendyng<expan>e</expan> siluer </l>
<l> Þat if þei trauaile treweliche  and tristen in god almiȝti </l>
<l> Hem schulde lak no lyuelode  neyther wolen ne lynnen .</l>
<l> And þe title þat ȝe<note>R.11.303: R's <hi>ȝe</hi> seems to be the reading of alpha (F is substantially different but agrees on the second person); although W agrees with R on this reading, presumably by enlightened correction (in the b-verse, nearly all the <hi>B</hi> copies agree with R on the second-person pronoun reference ), the mass of evidence indicates that beta had a third-person plural in the a-verse (L = <hi>þei</hi>). <hi>Cx</hi> is partially revised in this line but preserves the alpha second-person pronouns.</note> take ordres by  telleth ȝe ben auaunsed .</l>
R.11.304KD.11.291
<l> Þan nedeth ȝow nouȝt to take selu<expan>er</expan>  for masses þat ȝe syngeth .</l>
<l> <hi>For he þat <app><lem>toke ȝour<expan>e</expan></lem></app> title  schulde take ȝow ȝour<expan>e</expan> wages</hi> .</l>
<foreign><expan>Nota</expan></foreign>
<l> <hi>Or þe bishop<expan>e</expan> þat blesseth  ȝow  if þat ȝe ben worthi</hi> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ For made neu<expan>er</expan> king<expan>e</expan> no kniȝt  but he hadde catel to spende .</l>
R.11.308KD.11.295
<l> As byfel for a kniȝt  or fonde hym for his strengthe .</l>
<l> <hi>It is a kar<expan>e</expan>ful kniȝt  and of a caytif kynges makyng<expan>e</expan></hi> .</l>
<milestone>fol. 52rI</milestone>
<l> <hi>Þat hath <app><lem>noþer</lem></app></hi><note>R.11.310: Beta reads <hi>no</hi>; the P family of <hi>C</hi> agrees with this beta lection, but the X family reading matches alpha's <hi>noþer</hi>.</note> <hi>lond ne lynage <note>R.11.310: R's <hi>lynage</hi> shows an alpha error of omission (F = <hi>lyflode</hi>); cf. beta's <hi>lynage riche</hi>, which is also the reading of <hi>Cx</hi>.</note><app><lem>ne</lem></app> gode los of his hondes</hi> .</l>
<l> Þe same I segge for<seg>-</seg>sothe  <hi>bi alle swiche p<expan>re</expan>stes</hi> .</l>
R.11.312KD.11.299
<l> <hi>Þat han noither cunnyng<expan>e</expan> ne kyn  but a crowne one</hi> .</l>
<l> <hi>And a title a tale of nouȝt  to his liflode at mischef</hi></l>
<l> <hi>He hath more bileue as I leue  to lacchen þoruȝ his crowne</hi> .</l>
<l> <hi>Cure þan for ku<expan>n</expan>nyng<expan>e</expan>  or knowen for clene of bering<expan>e</expan></hi> .</l>
<foreign><expan>Nota</expan> in Ep<expan>iscop</expan>os</foreign>
R.11.316KD.11.302.1
<l> I haue wonder and whi  and wherefor þe bischop<expan>e</expan> .<note> A brace in both margins joins this line to the next. In addition, in the right margin a reader has added a gloss next to the brace.</note></l>
<l> Maketh suche p<expan>re</expan>stes  þat lewed men bytraien .<note> Between these two lines there are traces of red offset from boxing on the facing page.</note></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ A chartre is chalengeable  by<seg>-</seg>fore a chief iustice .</l>
<l> If fals latin be in þat lettre  þe lawe it impugneth .</l>
R.11.320KD.11.305
<l> Or peinted par<seg>-</seg>ent<expan>re</expan>linarie  parcelles ou<expan>er</expan>skypped .</l>
<l> Þe gome þat gloseth so chartres  for a goky is holden .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ So is it a goky bi god  þat in his gospel faileth </l>
<l> Or in masse or in matynes  maketh any defaute .</l>
R.11.324KD.11.309
<l> <hi><foreign>Qui offendit in vno in o<expan>mn</expan>ib<expan>us</expan> <app><lem>&c<expan>etera</expan></lem></app> .<note>R.11.324: R uniquely omits the end of this citation: <foreign>est reus</foreign>.</note></foreign></hi></l>
<l> And al<seg>-</seg>so in þe sauter  seith dauid to ou<expan>er</expan>skipperes .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Psallite deo n<expan>ost</expan>ro psallite  q<expan>uonia</expan>m rex t<expan>er</expan>re d<expan>eu</expan>s isr<expan>ae</expan>l psallite sapie<expan>n</expan>t<expan>er</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi>Þe bisshop<expan>e</expan> schal be blamed  be<seg>-</seg>fore god as I leue</hi> .</l>
R.11.328KD.11.313
<l> Þat crowneth suche goddes kniȝtes  þ<expan>a</expan>t ku<expan>n</expan>neth nauȝt <foreign>sapient<expan>er</expan></foreign> .</l>
<l> Synge ne psalmes rede  ne segge a masse of þe daye .<note>R.11.329: After this line, the scribe omits his usual blank line to separate verse strophes, but no motive other than inattention is apparent.</note></l>
</lg>
<lg>
<l><hi>Ac <orig>neu<expan>er</expan>neyther</orig><reg>neu<expan>er</expan> neyther</reg> is blameles  þe bisshop<expan>pe</expan> <app><lem>and</lem></app></hi><note>R.11.330: R's <hi>and</hi> is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> both have <hi>ne</hi>. </note><hi>þe chapeleyne</hi> . </l>
<l> <hi>For her eyther is endited  and þat of <foreign>ignorancia</foreign></hi> .<note>R.11.331: In the right margin, a pointing hand, in smeared brown ink, directs attention to this line.</note></l>
R.11.332KD.11.317
<l> <hi><foreign>Non excusat ep<expan>iscop</expan>os  nec ydiotes p<expan>re</expan>stes</foreign></hi> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Þis lokyng<expan>e</expan> on lewde p<expan>re</expan>stes  hath do me luppe<note>R.11.333: Although there is no semantic difference from the majority here, R's <hi>luppe</hi> is a unique form, minimally attested by <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>leap</hi>, and <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>lepen</hi>; F has <hi>lope</hi> while most of the beta copies read <hi>lepe</hi>.</note> fram pou<expan>er</expan>te .</l>
<l> Þe wiche I preyse þer<expan>e</expan> pacience is  more parfit þanne ricchesse .<note>R.11.334: The last word of this line is smudged or partially erased.</note></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Ac muche more in metyng<expan>e</expan> þ<expan>us</expan>  with me gan on dispute .</l>
R.11.336KD.11.321
<l> And sleping<expan>e</expan> I seye al þis  and sithen cam kende .</l>
<l> And nempned me be my name  and bad me nymen hede .</l>
<l> And þoruȝ þe wordes<note>R.11.338: BmBoCot share this error with R (<hi>wordes</hi> for <hi>wondres</hi>), but R is likely mirroring alpha here, and F's rather lame <hi>worchynge</hi> sounds like attempted repair of this error.</note> of <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.11.338: R's <hi>þe</hi> is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> has <hi>þis</hi>.</note> werlde  wit for to take .</l>
<l> And on a mounteyn þat mydelerd<expan>e</expan> hiȝt  as me þo þouȝte .</l>
R.11.340KD.11.325
<l> I was fette forth  by ensaumples to knowe .</l>
<l> Þoruȝ ech a creatur<expan>e</expan> and kende  my creatour to louye .</l>
h iiij<expan>us</expan>
<milestone>fol. 52vI</milestone>
<l> I seiȝ þe sonne and þe see  and þe sond after</l>
<l> And wher<expan>e</expan> þat briddes and bestes  by her<expan>e</expan> make þei ȝeden .</l>
R.11.344KD.11.329
<l> Wilde wormes <app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.11.344: R's <hi>and</hi> is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> both read <hi>in</hi>.</note> wodes  and wonderful foules .</l>
<l> With flekked federes  and of fele coloures </l>
<l> Man and his make  I miȝte se <app><lem>bothe</lem></app><note>R.11.346: R's <hi>I miȝte se bothe</hi> is unique (cf. F's <hi>ful manye seyȝ y þere</hi>. Beta reads <hi>I myȝte bothe byholde</hi>; <hi>Cx</hi> has the same reading as that found in R.</note> .</l>
<l> Pou<expan>er</expan>te and plente  bothe pees and werr<expan>e</expan>.</l>
R.11.348KD.11.333
<l> Blisse and bale bothe I seiȝ at ones.</l>
<l> And how men token mede  and m<expan>er</expan>cy refused.</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ Reson I seiȝ sothely  <app><lem>schewen</lem></app><note>R.11.350: It appears that <hi>schewen</hi> is an alpha error for beta's <hi>suen</hi> (with which the reading of <hi>Cx</hi> agrees); F rewrites the line. </note> alle bestes .</l>
<l> In etyng<expan>e</expan> in drinkyng<expan>e</expan>  & in engendringe of kende .</l>
R.11.352KD.11.337
<l> And after cours of co<expan>n</expan>cepc<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan>  non toke kepe <app><lem>til</lem></app><note>R.11.352: R's <hi>til</hi> is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> read <hi>of</hi>.</note> other .</l>
<l> As whan þei hadde ride i<expan>n</expan> rotey time  anon riȝt þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>after .</l>
<l> <hi>Males drowen hem to males  a<seg>-</seg>moreweny<expan>n</expan>ges by hem<seg>-</seg>selue</hi> .</l>
<l> <hi>And in eueni<expan>n</expan>ges also  <app><lem>ȝede</lem></app></hi><note>R.11.355: Most beta copies have a simple <hi>þe</hi> for R's <hi>ȝede</hi>, but L's reading, <hi>ȝe</hi>, suggests itself as a likely channel of error from the authorial reading to beta and that R's reading may be original (both for lexical specificity and alliteration); F omits the line.</note> <hi>males from females</hi> .</l>
R.11.356KD.11.341
<l> <hi><app><lem><sic>Þe</sic><corr>Þe[r]</corr></lem></app> ne was kow ne kou<seg>-</seg>kende  þat co<expan>n</expan>ceyued hadde</hi> .</l>
<l> <hi>Þat wolde belwen after boles  ne bore after sowe</hi> .</l>
<l> Bothe hors and hou<expan>n</expan>des  and alle other bestes .</l>
<l> Medled nauȝt with her<expan>e</expan> makes  þat with fole wer<expan>e</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.360KD.11.345
<l> ¶ Briddes I behelde  þat in busches made nestes .</l>
<l> Hadde <app><lem>ner<expan>e</expan></lem></app> weye<note>R.11.361: <hi>Weye</hi>, "person, being, man."</note> wit  to worche þe leste .</l>
<l> I hadde <add>wond<expan>er</expan></add> at wham  and wher<expan>e</expan> þe pie lerned . </l>
<l> To lege <app><lem>stikkes</lem></app><note>R.11.363: R omits beta's <hi>þe</hi> after <hi>lege</hi>, a feature also characteristic of <hi>Cx</hi>. F revises the entire phrase.</note>  in which <app><lem>a</lem></app><note>R.11.363: <hi>He</hi>, "she."</note> <app><lem>lenth</lem></app> and bredeth<note>R.11.363: Beta (and presumably <hi>Bx</hi>) read the b-verse as <hi>in whiche she leythe and bredeth</hi>. Although F attempts to rationalize the error preserved in R by improvising <hi>in lengþe & in breede</hi>, R's general conformity to beta here indicates that the error began as a small one in alpha: <hi>lenth</hi> for original <hi>leythe</hi>. The alpha form of "she" was probably <hi>a</hi>, though it is not clear what the R scribe took it to mean.</note></l>
R.11.364KD.11.349
<l> Þere <app><lem>is no</lem></app><note>R.11.364: For alpha's <hi>is no</hi> (which is shared with <hi>Cx</hi>), beta has <hi>nys</hi>, a reading also reflected in a few <hi>C</hi> witnesses.</note> <app><lem><sic>wit</sic><corr>w[r]i[ȝ]t</corr></lem></app> as I wene  schulde werche hir<expan>e</expan> neste to paye .</l>
<l> If any masou<expan>n</expan> made a molde þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>to  muche wonder it wer<expan>e</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ And ȝet me m<expan>er</expan>ueyled more  <app><lem>many</lem></app> other<note>R.11.366: For R's <hi>many other</hi>, beta reads <hi>how many other</hi> while F has <hi>of manye oþire</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note> briddes . </l>
<l> Hudden and heleden  her<expan>e</expan> egges ful derne  </l>
R.11.368KD.11.354a, 353a
<l> In mareys and mores  for men schulde hem nouȝt fynde .</l>
<l> And hudden her<expan>e</expan> egges  whan þei þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>fro wenten .</l>
<l> For fere of other foules  and for wilde bestes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ And so<expan>m</expan>me <app><lem>treden</lem></app><note>R.11.371: For alpha's <hi>treden</hi>, beta reads a preterite, <hi>troden</hi> (although Cr<hi>2-3</hi> agree with alpha). <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> her<expan>e</expan> makes  and on tres bredde .</l>
R.11.372KD.11.357
<l> And <app><lem>bredde</lem></app><note>R.11.372: This unique error is introduced as an echo from the previous line; from the evidence of F, it appears that alpha showed a present tense form here, where beta read <hi>brouȝten</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> forth her<expan>e</expan> briddes so  al a<seg>-</seg>boue þe grounde .</l>
<l> <hi>And som<expan>m</expan>e briddes at þe bille  þoruȝ brethyng<expan>e</expan> conseyued</hi> .</l>
<milestone>fol. 53rI</milestone>
<l> And so<expan>m</expan>me cauked I toke <app><lem>hede</lem></app><note>R.11.374: R's <hi>hede</hi> is a unique error; <hi>Bx</hi> attests the correctly alliterating <hi>kepe</hi>. In a revised line, <hi>Cx</hi>'s verb agrees with that of the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note>  how pekokes breden .</l>
<l> Muche m<expan>er</expan>ueyled me  what mayster þei hadde .</l>
R.11.376KD.11.361
<l> And who tauȝt hem on trees  to tymbre so hye .</l>
<l> Þer<expan>e</expan> noþer buirn ne best  <app><lem>ne</lem></app> may<note>R.11.377: R's <hi>ne</hi> is a unique addition to the text of <hi>Bx</hi>.</note> here briddes reche<expan>n</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ And sitthen I loked vp<seg>-</seg>on þe se  and so forth vpon þe sterres .</l>
<l> Many selcouthes I seye  beth nauȝt to segge nouthe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.380KD.11.365
<l> ¶ I seiȝ floures <app><lem>of</lem></app><note>R.11.380: R's <hi>of</hi> is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> reads <hi>in</hi>.</note> þe frith  and here fair<expan>e</expan> coloures .</l>
<l> And how among<expan>e</expan> þe grene gras  greuȝ so many hewes .</l>
<l> And som<expan>m</expan>e sour<expan>e</expan> and some swete  selcouth me þouȝte .</l>
<l> Of her kende and of<note>R.11.383: Though R's <hi>of</hi> is also attested by Cr and Cot, it is clear that beta omitted the repeated preposition. F rephrases the verse.</note> here colour<expan>e</expan>  to carpe it wer<expan>e</expan> to longe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.11.384KD.11.369
<l><hi>Ac þat moste meued me  and <add>my</add> moed chaunged</hi> .</l>
<l> <hi>Þat reson rewarded  and rewled alle bestes</hi> .</l>
<l> <hi>Saue man and his make  many <app><lem>tymes</lem></app><note>R.11.386: For alpha's <hi>tymes</hi>, beta has <hi>tyme</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> completely revises this line but agrees with alpha in attesting a plural, <hi>tymes</hi>.</note> and ofte</hi> .</l>
<l> <hi>No reson hem folwed  and þanne y rebuked</hi> .</l>
R.11.388KD.11.373
<l> Reson . and riȝt til hym  seluen I seyde .</l>
<l> I haue wonder of þe q<expan>uo</expan>d I  þat witty art holde .</l>
<l> Whi þow ne <app><lem>schewest</lem></app><note>R.11.390: Apparently, alpha failed to understand the meaning of <hi>suwest</hi> (cf. R11.350), and R reproduces his <hi>schewest</hi>; F once again improvises with <hi>makst</hi>.</note> man and his make  þ<expan>a</expan>t no misfeith<note>R.11.390: Bo and Cot appear to share R's reading here (their spelling is <hi>mysfaith</hi>); cf. F's <hi>myschef</hi> and beta's <hi>mysfait</hi>. R's form is probably intended to represent the same word as beta's (= ModEng <hi>misdeed</hi>); cf. the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref> on evidence for R's occasional use of final <th> as a phonological and morphological equivalent to final <t>.</note> he<expan>m</expan> folwe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> ¶ And reson arated me  and seyde recche þe never<expan>e</expan> .</l>
R.11.392KD.11.377
<l> Whi I suffre or nauȝt suffre  þi<seg>-</seg>self hast nauȝt to done .</l>
<l> Amende þow it if þow miȝt  for my tyme is to abide .</l>
<l> Suffrance is a souereyne v<expan>er</expan>tue  and a swift veniance</l>
<l> Ho suffreth more þan god q