<div1>fol. 54r (cont.)I</div1>
<foreign>pass<expan>us</expan> xj<expan>us</expan></foreign>
<head><foreign><hi>Passus <orig><sic>xj<expan>us</expan></sic><corr>x[i]j<expan>us</expan></corr></orig><reg><sic>undecim<expan>us</expan></sic><corr>[duo]decim<expan>us</expan></corr></reg> de visione vt s<expan>upra</expan> <seg></seg> <seg></seg> <seg></seg></hi></foreign></head>
<l> <hi><hi>I</hi></hi> am ymaginatif q<expan>uo</expan>d he  Idel was I neu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> Þouȝ I sit be my<seg>-</seg>selue  in seknesse ne in helthe .</l>
<l> I haue folewed þe in faith  þis fyue and forty wynt<expan>er</expan> .</l>
<l> And many tymes haue meued þe  to þenke on þin ende .</l>
<l> And howe fele <app><lem>ferneres be</lem></app><note>R.12.5: Beta has <hi>fernȝeres are</hi>; F omits the line.</note> faren  and so fewe to come<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> And of þi wilde wantou<expan>n</expan>esse  þo þow ȝong<expan>e</expan> wer<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> To amenden it in þi myddel age  lest miȝt þe faile .</l>
<milestone>fol. 54vI</milestone>
<l> In þin olde eelde  þat euel can suffre .</l>
<l> Pouerte or penaunce  or preieres bidde .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Si non in prima vigilia nec in secu<expan>n</expan>da . &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Amende þe <app><lem><sic>ye</sic><corr>[]</corr></lem></app><note>R.12.11: R's <hi>ye</hi> is a unique addition to the text of <hi>Bx</hi>.</note> while þow miȝt  þow hast ben warned ofte .</l>
<l> With powstes of <app><lem>penaunce</lem></app><note>R.12.12: F shows a plural, <hi>penances</hi>. Beta reads <hi>pestilences</hi>.</note>  with pou<expan>er</expan>te & with angres .<note>R.12.12: The page is split horizontally for a space of about 3.8 cm. here, along the length of the b-verse.</note></l>
<l> And with þis bitter<expan>e</expan> baleyses  god beteth his dere children .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Que<expan>m</expan> diligo castigo </foreign></hi> <seg></seg> <note>R.12.14: Alpha omits two lines attested in beta at this point (KD12.13-13α): <lb/>
<hi>And dauid in þe sauter seith of suche þat loueth Ihesus <lb/>
<foreign>Virga tua & baculus tuus ipsa me consolata sunt &c.</foreign></hi>
<l> Al<seg>-</seg>þouȝ þow strike me with þi staf  with stikke or with ȝerde .</l>
<l> It is but murth as for me  to amende my soule .</l>
<l> And þow medlest þe with <app><lem>makyng<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.12.17: Though M supports alpha's singular, the other beta copies read <hi>makynges</hi> or <hi>mastryes</hi>.</note>  and miȝtest go sey þi saut<expan>er</expan> .</l>
<l> And bidde for hem þ<expan>a</expan>t ȝiueth þe brede  for þere are bokes Inowe .</l>
<l> To telle me<expan>n</expan> what dowel is  dobet and dobest bothe .</l>
<l> And p<expan>re</expan>choures to p<expan>re</expan>ue what it is  of many a peir<expan>e</expan> freres .</l>
<l> ¶ I seiȝ wel he seide me soth  <app><lem>ac</lem></app><note>R.12.21: This is a unique reading in R; all the other manuscripts have <hi>and</hi>.</note> somwhat me to excuse .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.12.22: Alpha seems to have been uncomfortable with the enjambment of <hi>Bx</hi> here, but alpha's extra conjunction (<hi>And</hi>), instead of smoothing, actually breaks the syntactic pattern of the statement.</note> seide catou<expan>n</expan> conforted his sone  þat clerk þouȝ he wer<expan>e</expan></l>
<l> To solasen hym su<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>tyme  <app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.12.23: R's <hi>and</hi> is shared uniquely with F, but F rewrites the following half-line completely; beta has <hi>as</hi>.</note> I do whan ich make .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Int<expan>er</expan>pone tuis int<expan>er</expan>du<expan>m</expan> gaudia curis .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> And<note>R.12.25: Most other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts here read, <hi><hi>of</hi> holy men</hi>; R shares the omission of the preposition with Hm (and, originally, with C) by convergence.</note> holy men I <app><lem>her<expan>e</expan></lem></app> q<expan>uo</expan>d I  how þei otherwile .</l>
<l> Pleiden þe parfiter  to be in many <app><lem>a place</lem></app> .<note>R.12.26: For R's <hi>a place</hi>, beta has <hi>places</hi>. Both versions of the b-verse are obviously corrupt, causing F to rewrite it totally: <hi>in here prayeres after</hi>.</note></l>
<l> <app><lem>Ȝif</lem></app><note>R.12.27: The evidence of both beta and F indicates that R has here dropped a word; F begins the line <hi>Nou if</hi>, while beta begins it <hi>Ac if</hi>.</note> þer<expan>e</expan> were any <app><lem>wit</lem></app><note>R.12.27: This is a unique form in R; most of the other manuscripts have <hi>wight</hi>. However, R's <hi>wit</hi> probably does not represent a substantive difference from the majority reading. <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>wight</hi>, documents <hi>wyt(e)</hi> for the fifteenth century and <hi>wite</hi> for the fourteenth century as variant spellings of <hi>wight</hi>. <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>wight</hi>, also lists <hi>wit(e)</hi> as a variant spelling but offers only one example, from the thirteenth century.</note>  þat wolde me telle .</l>
<l> What were dowel and do<seg>-</seg>bet  and dobest atte laste .</l>
<l> Wold I neu<expan>er</expan> do werke  but wende to holy cherche .</l>
<l> And þer<expan>e</expan> bidde my bedes  but whan ich eet or slepe .</l>
<l><app><lem>With</lem></app> poule in his <app><lem>pistles</lem></app><note>R.12.31: R is unique in reading the plural <hi>pistles</hi>, but the serious error of this line, the addition of the preposition <hi>With</hi> at line head, must reflect a problem in alpha, since F's <hi>See Poulis</hi> also reads Paul's name as the line's second word.</note> q<expan>uo</expan>d he  p<expan>re</expan>ueth what is dowel .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Fides . spes . <app><lem>caritas</lem></app><note>R.12.32: Beta adds <foreign>&</foreign> before <foreign>maior</foreign>.</note> <app><lem>maior</lem></app><note>R.12.32: R uniquely omits a final word from this tag: <foreign>horum</foreign>.</note> &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Feith hope and charite  <note>R.12.33: Reflecting the difference with alpha in the Latin citation from the previous line, beta has <hi>and</hi> before <hi>alle</hi>.</note> <app><lem>alle</lem></app> ben goed .</l>
<l> And sauen men sundri tymes  ac non so sone as charite .</l>
<l> For he doth wel with<seg>-</seg>outen doute  þ<expan>a</expan>t doth as leute techeth .</l>
<l> Þat is if þow be man maried  þi make þow louye .</l>
<l> <note>R.12.37: R uniquely omits the conjunction <hi>And</hi> at line head.</note> <app><lem>Liue</lem></app> forth as lawe wole  <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.12.37: R's <hi>þe</hi> is shared exclusively with F and omitted by beta.</note> while ȝe lyue bothe .</l>
<l> Riȝt so if þow be religiouse  ren þow neu<expan>er</expan>e ferther .</l>
<l> To rome ne to roche<seg>-</seg>madour  but as þi reule techeth .</l>
<l> And holde þe vnder obedience  þat heiȝ waye is to heuene .<note>R.12.40: A new strophe is marked by the usual <hi>cc</hi> in the margin next to R12.41, but the scribe did not skip a line between 12.40 and 41. This is frequently his habit when the last line of a page begins a new paragraph.</note></l>
<l> ¶ And if <del>ȝ</del><add>þ</add>ow be <app><lem>mayde &</lem></app> to<note>R.12.41:: Beta reads <hi>maiden to</hi> for R's <hi>mayde & to</hi>; F's <hi> Mayde meeke &</hi> confirms that alpha also read <hi>mayde</hi>.</note> marie  and miȝt wel co<expan>n</expan>tynewe .</l>
<milestone>fol. 55rI</milestone>
<l> Seke þow ner<expan>e</expan> seynt forther  for no soule helthe .</l>
<l> For what made lucifer  to lese þe heiȝ heuene .</l>
<l> Or salomon his sapience  <app><lem>other</lem></app><note>R.12.44: R's <hi>other</hi> is unique; F and beta read <hi>or</hi>.</note> sampson his strengthe .</l>
<l> Iob þe iewe his ioye  der<expan>e</expan> he it abouȝte .</l>
<l> Aristotel and other mo  Ipocras and virgil .</l>
<l> Alisandre þat alle wan  elengeliche ended .</l>
<l> Catel and kende wit  was co<expan>m</expan>braunce to hem alle .</l>
<l> Felice hir<expan>e</expan> fair<expan>e</expan>nesse  fel hir<expan>e</expan> alle to sclaundre .</l>
<l> And rosamound riȝt so  reufulliche besette .</l>
<l> Þe beaute of hir<expan>e</expan> body  in <app><lem>badd vse</lem></app><note>R.12.51: For alpha's <hi>badd vse</hi>, beta has <hi>badnesse she</hi>.</note> <app><lem>despended</lem></app> .</l>
<l> Of many suche <app><lem>men</lem></app> <app><lem>may I</lem></app><note>R.12.52: R's <hi>men</hi> is a unique addition to the text of <hi>Bx</hi>. Beta transposes alpha's phrase, <hi>may I</hi>, to <hi>I may / myght</hi>.</note> rede  of men & of wo<expan>m</expan>men</l>
<l> Þat wise wordes wolde schewe  and werchen þe contrarie</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Sunt ho<expan>m</expan>i<expan>n</expan>es neq<expan>ua</expan>m bene de virtute loquentes .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> And riche renkes riȝt so  gaderen and sparen .</l>
<l> And þo men þat þei moste haten  mi<expan>n</expan>stren it atte laste .</l>
<l> And for þei soffren and see  so many nedy folkes .</l>
<l> And loue hem nauȝt as our<expan>e</expan> lorde bit  lesen <app><lem>ȝour<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.12.58: For R's <hi>ȝoure</hi> (a unique reading), F reads <hi>here owen</hi> and beta has <hi>her</hi>.</note> soules .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Date et dabit<expan>ur</expan> vobis  .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <app><lem>So</lem></app> catel and <app><lem>kende</lem></app> wit  acombreth ful many .<note> The first half-line in R (12.60a) differs considerably from the text of F, which reads <hi>& þerfore catel & vnkynde wit</hi>. The beta manuscripts entirely omit R12.60 (= KD12.55) and the four following lines. The <hi>C</hi> manuscripts include the first three of these alpha lines.</note></l>
<l> Wo is hym þat hem weldeth  but <app><lem>if</lem></app> he hem <app><lem>wil</lem></app><note>R.12.61: R's <hi>wil</hi> probably signifies the same adverbial here as F's <hi>wel</hi>. Cf. <ref>R.11.136:</ref>.</note> despende .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign><app><lem>Scienti</lem></app> <app><lem>&</lem></app> no<expan>n</expan> facienti varijs flagellis vapulabit .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <app><lem>Sapience seith þe boke</lem></app><note>R.12.63: R's a-verse phrasing differs markedly from F's, which reads <hi>Þe book seiþ þat sapyence</hi>.</note>  swelleth a mannes soule .</l>
<l> <foreign><app><lem>Sapiencia</lem></app> inflat . <app><lem>&c<expan>etera</expan></lem></app> .</foreign></l>
<l> And richesse riȝt so  but if þe rote be trewe .</l>
<l> Ac grace is a <app><lem>grace</lem></app><note>R.12.66: R's redundancy appears to derive from alpha; F notices the problem but his <hi>grate</hi> simply substitutes nonsense for the original error. Beta agrees with <hi>Cx</hi>, reading <hi>grasse</hi>.</note> <app><lem>þer<expan>e</expan>fore</lem></app><note>R.12.66: R's <hi>þerefore</hi> is shared exclusively with F; beta has <hi>þerof</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note>  þo greuaunces to abate .</l>
<l> Ac grace ne greueth<note>R.12.67: Hand2 has supplied the appropriate reading in the right margin, implying that <hi>greueth</hi> should be cancelled, but the original reading was never marked as cancelled, either by striking through or by subpuncting.</note> nauȝt  but amonges lowe .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Of</lem></app> pacience<note>R.12.68: <hi>Of</hi> is a unique reading in R; F omits the entire line, and beta begins the line with <hi>Pacience</hi>.</note> and pou<expan>er</expan>te  þe place is þere it groweth .</l>
<l> And in lele lyuynge men  and in lif<seg>-</seg>holy .</l>
<l> And þurȝ <app><lem>gifte</lem></app><note>R.12.70: Before <hi>gifte</hi>, R uniquely omits a determiner; F has <hi>þat</hi> while beta has <hi>þe</hi>.</note> of þe holy goste  as þe gospel telleth .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Spiritus vbi wlt spirat . &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Clergie and kende wit  cometh of siȝte and techynge .</l>
<l> As þe boke bereth witnesse  to barnes þat can rede .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Quod scim<expan>us</expan> loquim<expan>ur</expan> quod vidim<expan>us</expan> testam<expan>ur</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Of <foreign>quod scim<expan>us</expan></foreign> cometh clergie  <app><lem>a</lem></app> cu<expan>n</expan>nynge of heuene .</l>
<l> And of <foreign>quod vidim<expan>us</expan></foreign> cometh kende wit  of siȝte of diu<expan>er</expan>se poeple .</l>
<l> Ac grace is a gifte of god  & of grete loue springeth .</l>
<milestone>fol. 55vI</milestone>
<l> Knewe neu<expan>er</expan>e clerke how it cometh forth  ne kend <app><lem>wit his</lem></app><note>R.12.78: F reads the possessive as <hi>witys</hi> for R's <hi>wit his</hi>. Beta has <hi>witte þe</hi>.</note> weyes .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Nescit aliquis vnde venit aut quo <app><lem>vadit</lem></app></foreign></hi></l>
<l> Ac ȝet is clergie to comende  and kende wit bothe .</l>
<l> And nameliche clergie for cristes loue  þat of clergie is rote .</l>
<l> For moyses witnesseth þat god wrote  for to wise þe poeple .</l>
<l> In þe olde lawe as þe l<expan>ett</expan>re telleth  <note>R.12.83: Manuscript G reads the opening of the b-verse exactly as R does, but beta shows <hi>þat was</hi> at the head of the b-verse; F rewrites the entire b-verse, reading <hi>þe lawe so was to þe Iewis</hi>.</note> was þe lawe of iewes .</l>
<l> Þat what wo<expan>m</expan>man were in <app><lem>deuoutrie</lem></app><note>R.12.84: R's form is unique here (beta and F attest <hi>auoutrie</hi>). But cf. KD 2.176, where R's <hi>deuoutrie</hi> is accepted for alliterative reasons over the beta reading, <hi>auoutrie</hi>. Since F agrees with R at this point, and since the same base form shows as archetypal at <hi>C</hi>2.187 (<hi>deuoutours</hi>), there seems no reason to doubt that it represents an example of contemporary usage. <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>devoutrie</hi>, and <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>devoutour</hi>, both cite only <title>Piers Plowman</title>, labelling the form as a variation / corruption of <hi>auoutrie</hi>.</note> taken  wer<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>he</lem></app><note>R.12.84: R's form for the third-person singular feminine pronoun here is the one commonly preferred by this scribe and is, as usual, unique. F and beta agree on <hi>she</hi>.</note> riche or pore .</l>
<l> With stones men schulde hire striken  and stonen hir<expan>e</expan> to <app><lem>dede</lem></app> .<note>R.12.85: R's <hi>to dede</hi> is unique but not ungrammatical or substantially different in meaning from the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts, which read <hi>to deth</hi>. Cf. <ref>R.3.262:</ref> (KD3.267), where R's phrasing is paralleled by many beta manuscripts: <hi>brenne hem to dede</hi>. Alpha omits the following line from <hi>Bx</hi>:<lb/>
<hi>A womman as we fynden was gulty of þat dede</hi>.
<l> Ac crist of his curteisie  <app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.12.86: R's <hi>and</hi> is unique; beta omits the conjunction while F completely rewrites the b-verse.</note> þoruȝ clergie hir<expan>e</expan> saued .</l>
<l> For þoruȝ <app><lem>cristes carectus</lem></app><note>R.12.87: For alpha's <hi>cristes carectus</hi>, beta reads <hi>carectus þat cryst wrot </hi>.</note>  þe iewes knewe hem<seg>-</seg>seluen .</l>
<l> Gultier as afor god  and gretter in synne .</l>
<l> Þanne þe wo<expan>m</expan>man þ<expan>a</expan>t þer<expan>e</expan> was  and wenten aweye for schame .</l>
<l> Þe clergie þat þer<expan>e</expan> was  conforted þe womman .</l>
<l> Holi <app><lem>cherche</lem></app><note>R.12.91: Though Hm and B agree with alpha's <hi>cherche</hi>, beta itself here reads <hi>kirke</hi>.</note> knoweth þis  þat cristes writyng<expan>e</expan> saued .</l>
<l> So clergie is confort<expan>e</expan>  to creatures þat repenten .</l>
<l> And to mansed men  mischief at here ende .</l>
<l> ¶ For godes body miȝte nouȝt be of brede  withoute clergie .</l>
<l> Þe whiche body is bothe  bote to þe riȝtful .</l>
<l> And deth and dampnac<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan>  to hem þat deyeth euele .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Ac</lem></app><note>R.12.97: R's <hi>Ac</hi> is unique; cf. F's <hi>But</hi> and beta's <hi>As</hi>.</note> cristes carette co<expan>n</expan>forted  and bothe coupable schewed .</l>
<l> Þe wo<expan>m</expan>man þat iewes <app><lem><sic>bouȝte</sic><corr>b[r]ouȝte</corr></lem></app>  þat ih<expan>es</expan>us þouȝte to saue .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Nolite iudicar<expan>e</expan> & no<expan>n</expan> iudicabimini . &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Riȝt so godes body bretheren  but it be worthily taken .</l>
<l> Dampned<note>R.12.101: Although Y supports R's preterite, F and beta attest <hi>Dampneth</hi>. But the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref> on the R scribe's anomalous tense marking.</note> vs at þe day of dome  as <app><lem>dede þe carette</lem></app><note>R.12.101: Beta transposes alpha's phrase and pluralizes the noun: <hi>þe carectes dede</hi>.</note> þe iewes .</l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>þi I co<expan>n</expan>seile þe for cristes sake  clergie þat þow louye .</l>
<l> For kende wit is of his kyn  and neyȝ cosynes bothe .</l>
<l> To oure lorde leue me  for<seg>-</seg>þi loue hem I rede .</l>
<l> For bothe beth as miroures  to amenden our<expan>e</expan> defautes .</l>
<l> And lederes for lewed men  and for lett<expan>er</expan>red bothe .</l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>thi lakke þow neu<expan>er</expan>e logike lawe  ne his custumes .</l>
<l> Ne countreplede clerkes  I conseile þe for euere .</l>
<l> For as a man may nauȝt se  þat misseth his <app><lem>siȝtes</lem></app> .<note>R.12.109: Beta reads <hi>eyghen</hi>, which is also the reading of <hi>Cx</hi>; F has the singular <hi>syghte</hi>.</note><note>R.12.109: The final <s> of <hi>siȝtes</hi> appears to have been written over an erasure; it is, moreover, the tall <s>, which this scribe almost never deploys in word terminal position (cf. the same word at R12.146). Its form also seems abbreviated, with the descender entirely absent. Nevertheless, the ink appears indistinguishable from that used by the scribal hand.</note></l>
<l> Na more can no clerke  but if he cauȝte it furst þorȝ bokes .</l>
<l> Al<seg>-</seg>þouȝ men made bokes  god was þe mayster</l>
<l> And seynt spiriȝt þe saumplarie  & seyde what <app><lem>ma<expan>n</expan></lem></app><note>R.12.112: With the exception of OC<hi>2</hi>, which agree with alpha, the beta manuscripts here show <hi>men</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> scholde write .</l>
<milestone>fol. 56rI</milestone>
<l> And riȝt as siȝt serueth a man  to se þe heye strete .</l>
<l> Riȝt so <app><lem>lereth</lem></app><note>R.12.114: Beta has <hi>ledeth</hi> at this point. <hi>Cx</hi>, however, agrees with alpha.</note> letterur<expan>e</expan>  lewed men to reson .</l>
<l> And as a blinde man in bataile  <app><lem>ber<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.12.115: R's verb form is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> read <hi>bereth</hi>.</note> wepne to fiȝte .</l>
<l> And hath no happ<expan>e</expan> with his ax  his enemy to hitte .</l>
<l> Na more can a kende <app><lem>wedded</lem></app> man<note>R.12.117: R's almost nonsensical <hi>kende wedded man</hi> (in place of beta's <hi>kyndewitted man</hi>) reflects alpha corruption, while F's omitting <hi>kynde</hi> and substituting <hi>lewid man</hi> represents an attempt to make sense of the half-line.</note>  but clerkes hym teche .</l>
<l> Come for al his kende wit  to c<expan>r</expan>istendom and be saued .</l>
<l> Whiche is þe coffre of cristes tresor  and clerkes ke<del>n</del><add>p</add>e<note>R.12.119: Either the scribe or an early reader caught an error here (<hi>kene</hi> for <hi>kepe</hi>) and added a light descender in the same ink as that of the scribe. The shape of the descender matches that of the scribe's authentic <p>.</note> þe keyes .</l>
<l> To vnlouken it at her likyng<expan>e</expan>  and to þe lewed poeple .</l>
<l> <app><lem>For</lem></app><note>R.12.121: R is clearly defective here syntactically; but F's grammar seems equally elliptical, and one must conclude that both are responding to some confusion in alpha. Once again, the source of confusion may lie in the fact that this line is enjambed from the previous one. Cf. R's <hi>For</hi> and F's completely different <hi>& graunteþ</hi> to beta's <hi>Ȝyue</hi>. At this point <hi>C</hi> supports beta, reading <hi>To ȝeue</hi>.</note> m<expan>er</expan>cy for her mysdedes  if men it wole aske .</l>
<l> Buxu<expan>m</expan>liche & benigneliche  and bidden it <app><lem>as</lem></app><note>R.12.122: R's <hi>as</hi> is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> have <hi>of</hi>.</note> grace .</l>
<l><foreign>Archa dei</foreign> in þe holde lawe  leuites it kepten .</l>
<l> Hadde neu<expan>er</expan>e lewed man leue  to leggen honde on þat cheste .</l>
<l> But he wer<expan>e</expan> preste or p<expan>re</expan>stes sone  pat<expan>ri</expan>ark or p<expan>ro</expan>phete .</l>
<l> ¶ Saul for <app><lem>he sacrifised</lem></app>  sorwe hym be<seg>-</seg>tydde .<note> These lines are omitted by the beta manuscripts. F's rendering of these lines is sufficiently different from R's that F's lines should be cited here in their entirety (cf. Appendix 1, R12.126-36, for details and any cross-references to the <hi>C</hi> version): <lb/>
<hi>Saul for his mys-sacrifyse / sorwe hym by-tydde. <lb/>
& hise sones also / for þat synne myschevedyn <lb/>
& manye mo oþire men / þat weryn none levites. <lb/>
þat with archa dei wentyn / with worchepeful reuerencis. <lb/>
& leyde on hond / & lyfte it vp / & lurn here lyf after. <lb/>
For<seg>-</seg>þy ; y conseyle alle creatures / no clergye ȝee dispise. <lb/>
Ne settiþ lyght be here scyence / what so þei do hem<seg>-</seg>selue. <lb/>
Tak here wordis at worþ / here wytnesses be trewe. <lb/>
& medle not meche with hem / to meve hem to wratthe. <lb/>
Leest Charyte be chased owt / þan ech man choppeth oþir. <lb/>
<foreign>[N]olite tangere Cristos meos</foreign>.</hi>
<l> And his sones al<seg>-</seg>so  for þat synne myscheued .</l>
<l> And many mo other men  þat wer<expan>e</expan> no leuites .</l>
<l> Þat with <foreign>archa dei</foreign> <app><lem>ȝeden</lem></app><app><lem>in reu<expan>er</expan>ence and in worchipp<expan>e</expan></lem></app> .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>leyden honde þ<expan>er</expan><seg>-</seg>on to liften</lem></app> it vp  and loren her lif after .</l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>þi I conseil alle creatures  no clergie <app><lem>to</lem></app> dispise .</l>
<l> Ne <app><lem>sette schort<expan>e</expan></lem></app> be her<expan>e</expan> science  what<seg>-</seg>so þei don hem<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
<l> Take <app><lem>we</lem></app> her wordes at worthe  <app><lem>for</lem></app> her<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>witnesse</lem></app> be trewe .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>ne medle we</lem></app> nauȝt muche with hem  to <app><lem>meuen any</lem></app> wrathe .</l>
<l> Lest <app><lem>cheste</lem></app> <app><lem>chasen vs</lem></app><app><lem>to choppe vche man</lem></app> other .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign><app><lem>Nolite</lem></app> tangere <expan>christos</expan> meos  <app><lem>&c<expan>etera</expan></lem></app> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ For clergie is <app><lem>kynge and</lem></app> keper<expan>e</expan><note>R.12.137: For alpha's compounded phrase, beta reads simply <hi>kepere</hi>. Alpha's exact reading here is uncertain; cf. F's <hi>keye & kepere</hi>.</note>  vnder crist of heuene .</l>
<l> Was þ<expan>er</expan> neu<expan>er</expan>e no kniȝt  but clergie hym made .</l>
<l> Ac kende wit cometh  of al kynnes siȝtes .</l>
<l> Of <sic>brriddes</sic><corr>briddes</corr> & of bestes  of tastes of treuthe  & of deseytes .</l>
<l> ¶ Liueres to<seg>-</seg>foren vs  vsede to <app><lem>make</lem></app> .<note>R.12.141: Alpha and Cr read <hi>make</hi>, which makes no sense; cf. beta's <hi>marke</hi>.</note></l>
<l> Þe selcouþes þat þei seye  her<expan>e</expan> sones for to teche .</l>
<l> And helden it an heiȝ science  her<expan>e</expan> wittes to knowe .</l>
<l> Ac þoruȝ her<expan>e</expan> science sothely  was neu<expan>er</expan>e no soule saued .</l>
<milestone>fol. 56vI</milestone>
<l> Ne <app><lem>bouȝte</lem></app><note>R.12.145: The error here, <hi>bouȝte</hi> for <hi>brouȝte</hi>, is found in both R and F and derives from alpha.</note> be her<expan>e</expan> bokes  to blisse ne to ioye .</l>
<l> For alle her kende knowynges  cam but of diu<expan>er</expan>se siȝtes </l>
<l> Patriarkes and p<expan>ro</expan>phetes  <app><lem>repreueth</lem></app><note>R.12.147: R's <hi>repreueth</hi> is unique; F has a different form of the plural with <hi>repreven</hi>, while beta reads <hi>repreued(en)</hi>. Though two <hi>C</hi> copies affirm a present-tense verb here, it is obvious that <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta's preterite. R's tense marking may not, however, represent a difference of intention from beta's. Cf. the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref>.</note> her<expan>e</expan> science .</l>
<l> And seide here wordes ne her<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>wisdome</lem></app><note>R.12.148: Beta has the plural <hi>wisdomes</hi>; F reads <hi>scyence</hi>. Though four <hi>C</hi> copies support R's singular, the vast majority of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agrees with beta.</note><app><lem>was</lem></app> but a folie .</l>
<l> As to þe clergie of criste  counted it but a trefle .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Sapiencia hui<expan>us</expan> mu<expan>n</expan>di stulticia ap<expan>ud</expan> .<note>R.12.150: One might construe R's script at the end of this citation as agreeing with the other witnesses if <ap> were taken as <foreign>ap(ud)</foreign> and <d>+backslash were seen as an abbreviation for <foreign>d(eum)</foreign>. Neither Kane-Donaldson nor I read it that way, however. The R scribe never elsewhere uses such an abbreviation for <foreign>deum</foreign> and, in fact, no such abbreviation is recognized by Capelli (<title>Dizionario di Abbreviature latine ed italiane</title>) nor by Walther (<title><foreign>Lexicon Diplomaticum</foreign></title>). Instead R customarily spells the form as <foreign>deu(m)</foreign> (six times out of seven—the seventh form is <foreign>d(eu)m</foreign>). Moreover, Capelli recognizes the actual form written by R, <foreign>ap<hi>d</hi></foreign>, as a late fourteenth-century form for <foreign>apud</foreign>.</note> &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi><note>R.12.150: Here alpha omits eleven lines present in beta (and also found in a revised form in <hi>Cx</hi>):<lb/>
<hi>For þe heihe holigoste heuene shal to-cleue <lb/>
And loue shal lepe out after into þis lowe erthe <lb/>
And clennesse shal cacchen it and clerkes shullen it fynde <lb/>
Pastores loquebantur ad inuicem <lb/>
He speketh þere of riche men riȝt nouȝt ne of riȝt witty <lb/>
Ne of lordes þat were lewed men but of þe hexte lettred oute <lb/>
<foreign>Ibant magi ab oriente &c.</foreign> <lb/>
If any frere were founde þere Ich ȝif þe fyue shillynges <lb/>
Ne in none beggares cote was þat barne borne <lb/>
But in a burgeys place of bethlem þe best <lb/>
<foreign>Set non erat ei locus in diuersorio & pauper non habet diuersorium</foreign>.</hi>
<l>¶ To pastoures and to poetes  appered <app><lem>an</lem></app><note>R.12.151: Beta has <hi>þe</hi> in place of alpha's <hi>an</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> angel .</l>
<l> And bad hem go to <app><lem><sic>bthlem</sic><corr>b[e]thlem</corr></lem></app>  godes burthe to honoure .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>syngen</lem></app><note>R.12.153: R's infinitive (or present tense) <hi>syngen</hi> is unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies; F and beta have <hi>song(en)</hi>. However, the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts are divided by major groups on this reading, with the X family supporting F/beta while the P family agrees with R.</note> a songe of solace  <foreign>gl<expan>or</expan>ia in excelsis deo .</foreign></l>
<l> ¶ Riche men <app><lem>rutte</lem></app> þo  <app><lem>and</lem></app> in here reste were .<note> These lines are not found in beta.</note></l>
<l> <app><lem>Þo it schon to schepherdes</lem></app><note>R.12.155: R and F differ here (F = <hi>Whan to shepperdis a sterre shon</hi>), but R's version of this phrase agrees with that found in the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts.</note>  a schewer of blisse .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.12.156: Beta omits <hi>And</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> clerkes knewe it wel  and comen with her<expan>e</expan> p<expan>re</expan>sentes .</l>
<l> And deden here homage hon<expan>our</expan>abely  to hym þat was almiȝti .<note>R.12.157: There is red offset from R12.91 (fol. 57r) partially covering the last word of this line.</note> </l>
<l> Whi I haue tolde þe al þis  I toke ful gode hede .</l>
<l> How þow contrariedest clergie  with crabbed wordes .</l>
<l> How þat lewed men liȝtloker  þan lettred wer<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>Isaued</lem></app> .</l>
<l> Þan clerkes or kende witted men  of criste<expan>n</expan> poeple .</l>
<l> ¶ And þow seydest soth of som<expan>m</expan>e  ac se in <app><lem>whaner<expan>e</expan></lem></app> .<note>R.12.162: The correct reading is beta's <hi>what manere</hi>; R here presumably mirrors a loss of text in alpha while F (<hi>an ensample</hi>) attempts to guess at a suitable correction.</note></l>
<l> Take to stronge men  and in temese caste hem .</l>
<l> And bothe naked as a nedele  her non siker<note>R.12.164: Most beta witnesses read <hi>sikerer</hi>, but L agrees with R's form (as did M until "corrected" into conformity with the CrW family).</note> þan other .</l>
<l> Þat on hath cu<expan>n</expan>nyng<expan>e</expan> and can  swy<expan>m</expan>men and <app><lem><sic>driuen</sic><corr>diuen</corr></lem></app> .</l>
<l> Þat other is lewed of þat labour  lerned neu<expan>er</expan>e swymme .</l>
<l> Which trowest þow of þo to  in temese is in moste drede .</l>
<l> He þat neu<expan>er</expan>e dyued  ne nauȝt can of swymmy<expan>n</expan>g<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Or þe swymmer þat is saf  be so hym<seg>-</seg>self like .</l>
<l> Þere his felawe flet forth  as þe flode liketh .</l>
<l> And is in drede to drenche  þat neu<expan>er</expan>e dede swymme .<note>R.12.171: Immediately hereafter, alpha omitted a line found in beta:<lb/>
<hi>Þat swymme can nouȝt I seide it semeth to my wittes</hi>.
<l> ¶ Riȝt so q<expan>uo</expan>d þe renke  reson it scheweth .</l>
<l> Þat he þat knoweth clergie  can <app><lem>sannore</lem></app><note>R.12.173: <hi>Sannore</hi>, "sooner," <OE <hi>sāna</hi>. This form appears in the Z text and it, <hi>sanere</hi>, and <hi>sannour</hi> appear in the <hi>C</hi> version. See Joseph S. Wittig, <title>Piers Plowman: Concordance. Will's Visions of Piers Plowman, Do-Well, do-better and do-best: A Lemmatized Analysis of the English Vocabulary of the A, B and C Versions as Presented in the Athlone Editions, with Supplementary Concordances of the Latin and French Macaronics.</title> (London and New York: Athlone Press, 2001), <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>soone</hi>, p. 609.</note> arise .</l>
<l> Out of synne and he<note>R.12.174: Though Cr agrees with R's reading, beta omits <hi>he</hi> (F rewrites the entire phrase as <hi>to be saf</hi>). <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> be safe  þouȝ he <app><lem>senege</lem></app><note>R.12.174: R's unique <hi>senege</hi> is not an error but, according to <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>sin</hi> and <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>sinnen</hi>, a legitimate thirteenth and fourteenth-century variant for <hi>sin</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> shows the same form as R at this point. Cf. similar forms at <ref>R.17.242:</ref> and <ref></ref>.</note> ofte .</l>
<l> If hym liketh and leste  þan any lewed lelly .</l>
<l> For if þe clerke be cu<expan>n</expan>nyng<expan>e</expan>  he knoweth what is synne .</l>
<l> And how contric<expan>i</expan>on with<seg>-</seg>outen co<expan>n</expan>fession  co<expan>n</expan>forteth þe soule .</l>
<hi>As þow seest i<expan>n</expan> þe saut<expan>er</expan></hi><note>R.12.177: A black ink stain partially obscures the <s> of <hi>sauter</hi>.</note>
<milestone>fol. 57rI</milestone>
<l> As þow seest in þe saut<expan>er</expan>  in <app><lem>psalme</lem></app> on or tweyne .<note>R.12.178: At the top right margin of this page, there is a smudged word written in black, beginning with what may be a <D>.</note></l>
<l> How contric<expan>i</expan>on is comended  for it caccheth a<seg>-</seg>weye synne .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Beati quor<expan>um</expan> remisse sunt iniquitates  & quor<expan>um</expan> tecta sunt <app><lem>p<expan>ec</expan>cat<expan>a</expan></lem></app> .</foreign><note>R.12.180: Though Hm supports alpha, beta itself omits the last word of this citation, <foreign>peccata</foreign>.</note></hi></l>
<l> And þis conforteth vch a clerke  and <app><lem>kenneth</lem></app><note>R.12.181: The beta reading is also that of <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> hym fram wanhope .</l>
<l> In which floed þe fende  fondeth a man hardest .</l>
<l> Þere þe lewed lith stille  and loketh after lente .</l>
<l> And hath no contric<expan>i</expan>on ar he come to schrifte  <app><lem>and can</lem></app><note>R.12.184: R's phrase manifests a unique omission; cf. F's <hi>for þereof ne can</hi> and beta's <hi>& þanne can</hi>. Although the <hi>C</hi> copies show a number of variations here, the predominant reading is that of beta.</note> he litel telle .</l>
<l> And as his lores<seg>-</seg>man  lereth hym  byleueth and troweth .</l>
<l> And þat is after p<expan>er</expan>son or parisch preste  and par<seg>-</seg>auenter <app><lem>bothe</lem></app> .<note>R.12.186: Beta omits <hi>bothe</hi>. There appears to have been a line-division problem at this point in <hi>Bx</hi>, and Kane-Donaldson recast the first word of the next line of <hi>Bx</hi> (<hi>Vnconnynge</hi>) as the final stave word of this line.</note></l>
<l> Vnkunnyng<expan>e</expan> to lere lewed men  as luk bereth witnesse .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Du<expan>m</expan> cecus ducit cecu<expan>m</expan>  &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi><note>R.12.188: Hereafter alpha omits a line found in beta:<lb/>
<hi>Wo was hym marked þat wade mote with þe lewed</hi>.
<foreign>not<expan>a</expan></foreign> /
<l> ¶ Wel may þe barne blisse  þat hym <app><lem>sette to scole</lem></app> .<note>R.12.189: F reads this b-verse as <hi>þat sette hym fyrst to skole</hi>. Beta has <hi>þat hym to boke sette</hi>. The beta reading, which alliterates correctly, is also that of <hi>Cx</hi>.</note></l>
<l> Þat lyuynge after lettrur<expan>e</expan>  saued hym lif and soule .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>D<expan>omi</expan>n<expan>u</expan>s pars hereditatis mee </foreign>  is a mery v<expan>er</expan>seit .</hi></l>
<l> Þat hath take fro tyburne  twenty stronge theues .</l>
<l> Þere lewed theues ben lolled vp  loke how þei ben saued .</l>
<l> Þe thef þat hadde g<expan>ra</expan>ce of god  a gode friday as þu speke .<note>R.12.194: A black ink blot intervenes between the final word of this line and the punctus.</note></l>
<l> Was for he ȝelde hym recreant<note>R.12.195: M here agrees with R on the stave word (<hi>recreant</hi>), but the beta majority's reading, supported by <hi>Cx</hi>, is <hi>creaunt</hi>. F omits the term entirely.</note> to crist  <app><lem>& vpon a cros</lem></app><note>R.12.195: In place of R's <hi>vpon a cros</hi>, beta has <hi>on þe crosse &</hi>. F omits the entire phrase. Though the end of the b-verse is different in <hi>C</hi>, its version of this line parallels <hi>B</hi> up to this point and reads <hi>Was for A ȝeld hym creaunt to crist</hi>.</note> <app><lem>knowleched</lem></app><note>R.12.195: R uniquely omits <hi>hym</hi> before <hi>gulty</hi>.</note> gulty .<note>R.12.195: Hereafter alpha omits a line preserved in beta:<lb/>
<hi>And grace axed of god and he is euer redy</hi>.
<l> Þat buxu<expan>m</expan>liche biddeth it  and ben in wille to amenden hem .</l>
<l> ¶ Ac þouȝ þat thef hadde heuene  he hadde non heiȝ<note>R.12.197: A red smudge partially covers <hi>heiȝ</hi>; the same red smudge appears on the facing page, partially obscuring the <hi>to</hi> of R12.163. No boxing occurs nearby either, so the probable cause is mere spillage of a drop of the rubricator's ink.</note> blisse .</l>
<l> As Seint Ioh<expan>a</expan>n and other seintes  þat ass<expan>er</expan>ued<note>R.12.198: R shares this form with L alone; F and beta agree on <hi>deserued</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> tradition is divided, but the surviving evidence suggests that that P subarchetype read as RL while the X subarchetype had either <hi>serued</hi> or <hi>deserued</hi>.</note> hadde bett<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> Riȝt as so<expan>m</expan> man ȝeue me<note>R.12.199: There is a superfluous loop above the <m> of <hi>me</hi>, in a darker ink than the text hand.</note> mete  and sette me amydde þe flore .</l>
<l> Ich haue mete more þan I<seg>-</seg>now  ac nauȝt so muche worchipe</l>
<l> As þo þat sitten at þe side table  or with þe sou<expan>er</expan>eynes of þe halle .</l>
<l> But sitte as a beggere bordeles  by my<seg>-</seg>self on þe grounde .</l>
<l> So it fareth be þat feloun  þat a god friday was saued </l>
<l> He sitt noither with <app><lem>Ioh<expan>a</expan>n</lem></app><app><lem>ne</lem></app><note>R.12.204: R's <hi>ne</hi>(1) is unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies; beta omits the word, while F rewrites the line completely. The <hi>C</hi> manuscripts are split, the X family agreeing with R while the P family supports beta's omission.</note> Symond ne Iude .</l>
<l> Ne with maidenes ne with martires  <app><lem>ne</lem></app><note>R.12.205: R's <hi>ne confessoures</hi> is a unique reading, the negative being omitted by beta (F has <hi>ne with Maydenys</hi>). The b-verse of the cognate <hi>C</hi> line has been revised, but it still begins with <hi>ne</hi>, as with alpha.</note> confessoures ne widewes .</l>
<l> But be hym<seg>-</seg>self as a soleine  and s<expan>er</expan>ued on þe erthe .</l>
<l> For he þat is ones a thef  is euermore in daunger .</l>
<l> And as lawe liketh  to lyue or to deye<note>R.12.208: Immediately below this line, and above R12.209, there is a scribally cancelled line which reads <hi>And <foreign>reddite vnicuiq<expan>ue</expan> iuxta op<expan>er</expan>a sua</foreign></hi>.</note> . <lb/>
<del>And <foreign>reddite vnicuiq<expan>ue</expan> iuxta op<expan>er</expan>a sua</foreign></del></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>De peccato p<expan>ro</expan>piciato noli e<expan>ss</expan>e sine metu .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> And forto s<expan>er</expan>uen a seynt  and suche a thef to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<l> It were nother reson ne riȝt  to <app><lem>rewarde</lem></app><note>R.12.211: Nearly all the other <hi>B</hi> copies (including F) attest <hi>rewarde hem</hi> at this point, but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R in omitting <hi>hem</hi>.</note> bothe I<seg>-</seg>liche .</l>
j i<expan>us</expan>
<milestone>fol. 57vI</milestone>
<l> And riȝt as <foreign>troianus</foreign> þe trewe kniȝt  tilde nauȝt depe i<expan>n</expan> helle</l>
<l> Þat our<expan>e</expan> lorde ne hadde hym liȝtliche oute  so leue I <app><lem>þe</lem></app> be i<expan>n</expan> heuene .<note>R.12.213: Alpha was clearly missing the key word of the b-verse, <hi>thef</hi>, a fact which F, as is his custom, attempts to cover over (<hi>so leve y it be in hevene</hi>). Beta reads this b-verse precisely as does R, with one addition: <hi>so leue I þe thef be in heuene</hi>.</note></l>
<l> For he is in þe lowest of heuene  if our<expan>e</expan> be<seg>-</seg>leue be trewe .</l>
<l> And <orig>wollosliche</orig><reg>wol losliche</reg> he lolleth þer<expan>e</expan>  be þe lawe of holy cherche .</l>
<l> <hi><app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.12.216: R's <hi>And</hi> is unique (but <hi>Cx</hi> attests the Latin equivalent, <foreign>Et</foreign>). Beta reads <foreign>quia</foreign> (or <foreign>Qui</foreign>), while F begins the line with the phrase <hi>Þere þe byble seyþ</hi>.</note> <foreign><app><lem>reddite</lem></app><note>R.12.216: Beta has <foreign>reddit</foreign>. <hi>Cx</hi> witnesses <foreign>reddet</foreign>.</note> vnicuiq<expan>ue</expan> iuxta opera sua .</foreign></hi></l>
<l><app><lem>Ac</lem></app> whi þ<expan>a</expan>t on thef <app><lem>vpon</lem></app><note>R.12.217: In this a-verse, R's <hi>Ac</hi> and <hi>vpon</hi> are unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies. For the former, F has <hi>But</hi> while beta reads <hi>And</hi>. For the latter, F and beta concur in reading <hi>on</hi>. Though eight <hi>C</hi> manuscripts support the latter reading, it seems likely that <hi>Cx</hi> agreed on both variants with R.</note> þe cros  creaunt hym ȝelde .</l>
<l> Rather þan þat other thef  þouȝ þow woldest apose .</l>
<l> Alle þe clerkes vnder criste  ne couthe <app><lem>skile</lem></app><note>R.12.219: R uniquely omits <hi>þe</hi> before <hi>skile</hi>.</note> <app><lem>telle</lem></app> .<note>R.12.219: R's <hi>telle</hi> is an alpha reading; beta and <hi>Cx</hi> show <hi>assoille</hi>.</note></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Quare placuit quia voluit .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ And so I seye be þe  þat sekest after þe whies .</l>
<l> And aresonedest resou<expan>n</expan>  a rebukyng<expan>e</expan> as it were .</l>
<l> And willest of briddes and of bestes  & of her<expan>e</expan> bredyng<expan>e</expan> to knowe .</l>
<l> Whi so<expan>m</expan>me be <app><lem>low</lem></app> and so<expan>m</expan>me a<seg>-</seg>lofte  þi likyng<expan>e</expan> it were .</l>
<l> And of þe floures in þe frith  and of her<expan>e</expan> faire hewes .</l>
<l> Where<seg>-</seg>of þei cacche here <app><lem>colour</lem></app><note>R.12.226: Beta has <hi>coloures</hi>.</note>  so clere and so briȝte .</l>
<l> And of <app><lem>stones</lem></app><note>R.12.227: R uniquely omits <hi>þe</hi> before <hi>stones</hi>.</note> and of þe sterres  þow studiest as I leue .</l>
<l> How ever best other bridde  hath so breme wittes .</l>
<l> ¶ Clergie ne kende wit  ne knewe neu<expan>er</expan>e þe cause .</l>
<l> Ac kende knoweth þe cause hym<seg>-</seg>selue  no creatur<expan>e</expan> elles .</l>
<l> He is þe <app><lem>pye</lem></app><note>R.12.231: R's <hi>pye</hi> is a unique, unmarked genitive. All the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>pyes</hi>.</note> patroen  and <app><lem>put</lem></app><note>R.12.231: <hi>put</hi>, 3rd sg. pres. ind., "puts." Though Hm and Cr support this alpha form, most beta witnesses read <hi>putteth</hi>.</note> it in her<expan>e</expan> ere .</l>
<l> Þat þere þe thorne is thikkest  <app><lem>þer<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.12.232: Beta omits alpha's <hi>þere</hi>(2).</note> to buylde and brede .</l>
<l> And kende kenned þe pecok  to cauken in suche a kende .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>kende</lem></app><note>R.12.234: Beta omits <hi>kende</hi>.</note> kenned Adam  to knowen his p<expan>ri</expan>ue membres .</l>
<l> And tauȝte hym and eue  to helyen hem with leues .</l>
<l> ¶ Lewed men many tymes  maistres þei apposen .</l>
<l> Whi adam ne huled nauȝt furst  his mouth þat ete þe appel .</l>
<l> Rather þan his lik<del>k</del><add>h</add><expan>a</expan>m alowe  lewed asken þus clerkes .</l>
<l> ¶ Kende knoweth whi he dede so  ac no clerke elles .</l>
<l> Ac of briddes and of bestes  men be olde tyme .</l>
<l> Ensaumples toke and termes  as telleth þis poetes .</l>
<l> And þat þe fairest foule  foulest engendreth .</l>
<l> And febelest foule of fliȝt is  þat fleth or swymmeth .</l>
<milestone>fol. 58rI</milestone>
<l> And þat is þe pecok and þe po<seg>-</seg>hen proude  riche men þei betokeneth .</l>
<l> For þe pecok and men pursuen hym  <app><lem>ne</lem></app><note>R.12.245: R's <hi>ne</hi> seems to be a unique addition to the text witnessed by the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts, but it may in fact be the alpha lection, if F misread his exemplar's <hi>ne</hi> as <hi>he</hi>.</note> may nouȝt fle heye .</l>
<l> For þe trailyng<expan>e</expan> of his taile  ouertaken is he sone .</l>
<l> And his flesche is foule flesch  and his fete bothe .</l>
<l> And vnloueliche of ledene  and laithe for to here .</l>
<l> ¶ Riȝt so þe riche  if he his ricchesse <app><lem>kepeth</lem></app> .<note>R.12.249: R's <hi>kepeth</hi> is an alpha form (F = <hi>kepiþ</hi>); cf. beta's <hi>kepe</hi>.</note></l>
<l> And deleth it nauȝt til his deth day  þe taile of alle sorwe .</l>
<l> Riȝt as þe pennes of þe pecok  payned hym in his fliȝte .</l>
<l> So is posession payne  of pans and of nobles .</l>
<l> To alle hem þat it holdeth  til here taile be plokked .</l>
<l> And þouȝ þe riche repente þanne  and be<seg>-</seg>rewe þe tyme .</l>
<l> Þat eu<expan>er</expan>e he gadered so grete  and gaf þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>of so litel .</l>
<l> Þouȝ he crie to criste þanne  with kene wille I leue .</l>
<l> His ledene be in our<expan>e</expan> lordes ere  <app><lem><sic>lyl</sic><corr>ly[k]</corr></lem></app> <orig>apyes</orig><reg>a pyes</reg> .</l>
<l> And whanne his caroyne schal come  in caue to be buried .</l>
<l> I leue it flaume ful foule  þe folde al aboute .</l>
<l> And alle þe othere þere it lith  enuenymed<note>R.12.260: Both L and Cr concur in this verb form; F and most beta manuscripts read <hi>enuenymeþ</hi>.</note> þoruȝ his atter .</l>
<l> By þe po feet is <app><lem>vnderstonded</lem></app><note>R.12.261: R's <hi>vnderstonded</hi> is a unique form. Most of the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts have <hi>vnderstonde</hi>.</note>  as I haue lerned in auynet .</l>
<l> Executores fals frendes  þat fulfille nauȝt his wille .</l>
<l> Þat was writen and þei <app><lem>witnesses</lem></app><note>R.12.263: R's explicit plural marking here is unique, but the other B manuscripts, attesting "witnesse," are presumably intending the same meaning as R, using an unmarked plural of the noun, as is found at R2.108.</note>  to werche riȝt as <app><lem>he</lem></app><note>R.12.263: Beta reads <hi>it</hi>.</note> wolde .</l>
<l> Þus þe poet p<expan>re</expan>ueth  þat þe pecok for his federes is reu<expan>er</expan>enced .</l>
<l> Riȝt so is þe riche  be reson of his godes .</l>
<l> ¶ Þe larke þat is a lasse foule  is more loueliche of ledene .</l>
<l> And wel a<seg>-</seg>way of wenge  swifter þen þe<note> There is a diagonal tear in the parchment running from this point to the end of <hi>swettere</hi> in the next line. The scribe has left a gap of approximately 5 spaces between <hi>þe</hi> and <hi>pecok</hi> to accommodate this pre-existing imperfection.</note> pecok .</l>
<l> And of flesche be fele folde  fatter<expan>e</expan> and swett<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> To lowe libynge men  þe larke is resembled .</l>
<l><app><lem>For</lem></app><note>R.12.270: Beta omits <hi>For</hi>.</note> aristotel þe grete clerk  suche tales he telleth .</l>
<l> Þus he likeneth in his <app><lem>glosing<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.12.271: R's non-alliterating stave, <hi>glosinge</hi>, is descended from alpha. Cf. F's <hi>glose</hi> and beta's <hi>logyk</hi>. Although the line is partially revised in the <hi>C</hi> version, the key term, <hi>logyk</hi>, agrees with beta's stave word.</note>  þe lest foule oute .</l>
<l> And wher<expan>e</expan> he be saf or nouȝt saf  þe sothe wote no clergie .</l>
<l> Ne of sortes ne of salomon  no scriptur<expan>e</expan> can telle .</l>
<l> Ac god is so god I hope  þ<expan>a</expan>t sitth he gaf hem wittes .</l>
<l> To wissen vs weyes þere<seg>-</seg>with  þat wissen vs to be saued .</l>
<l> And þe better<expan>e</expan> for here bokes  to bidden we ben holden .</l>
<l> Þat god for his grace  gyue her<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>soule</lem></app><note>R.12.277: R's <hi>soule</hi> is an alpha variant (cf. F's <hi>sowle</hi>). Beta reads a plural, <hi>soules</hi>, the same reading found in <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> reste .</l>
j ij<expan>us</expan>
<milestone>fol. 58vI</milestone>
<l> For lettred men were lewed men ȝut  ne wer<expan>e</expan> lore of <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.12.278: Beta has <hi>her</hi> for R's <hi>þe</hi>. F omits all determiners.</note> bokes .<note>R.12.278: Here the scribe fails to skip a line, even though he marks the next line as beginning a new verse paragraph.</note></l>
<l> ¶ Alle þise clerkes q<expan>uo</expan>d I þo  þat on criste leuen  .</l>
<l> Seggen in here sarmons  þat nother sarasynes ne iewes .</l>
<l> Ne no creature of cristes liknesse  with<seg>-</seg>oute cristendom worth saued .</l>
<l><foreign>Contra</foreign> <app><lem><sic>q<expan>uo</expan>d I</sic><corr>q<expan>uo</expan>d</corr></lem></app> ymaginatif þo  and cumsed for to loure .</l>
<l> <hi>And seyde <foreign>saluabitur vix iustus in die iudicij .</foreign></hi><note>R.12.283: The left side of this boxed line is left open, unconnected.</note></l>
<l><foreign>Ergo saluabitur</foreign> q<expan>uo</expan>d he  and seyde namore latyn .</l>
<l> <foreign>Troian<expan>us</expan></foreign> was a trewe kniȝt  and toke neu<expan>er</expan>e cristendome .</l>
<l> And he sauf so seyth þe boke  and his soule in heuene .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Ac</lem></app><note>R.12.287: Cf. F's <hi>But</hi> and beta's <hi>For</hi>. Among the <hi>C</hi> copies, UcTChNc agree with F's reading and most the of the P family simply omit the opening conjunction, but most of the X family manuscripts support R's <hi>Ac</hi>.</note> þere is fullyng<expan>e</expan> of fonte  and fullyng<expan>e</expan> in blode schedyng<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> And þoruȝ fuir is fullyng<expan>e</expan>  and þat is ferme byleue .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign> Aduenit ignis diuinus no<expan>n</expan> co<expan>m</expan>burens s<expan>ed</expan> <app><lem>illuminans</lem></app> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ Ac <app><lem>treuthe</lem></app><note>R.12.290: Here alpha omitted an essential relative pronoun; cf. beta's <hi>trewth <hi>þat</hi> trespassed</hi>. Beta's reading is also that of <hi>C</hi>.</note> trespased neu<expan>er</expan>e  ne transu<expan>er</expan>sed aȝen his lawe .</l>
<l> But <app><lem>lyued</lem></app> as his lawe <app><lem>tauȝte</lem></app><note>R.12.291: Beta's version of this a-verse shows present-tense verb forms: <hi>lyueth</hi> and <hi>techeth</hi>. Though a few copies of <hi>C</hi> agree with beta on these tenses, the preponderance of evidence from the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts supports the originality of R's readings.</note>  and leueth þer<expan>e</expan> be no bettere .</l>
<l> And if þer<expan>e</expan> were he walde amende  and in suche wille deyeth .</l>
<l> Ne wolde neu<expan>er</expan>e trewe god  but <app><lem>trewe</lem></app><note>R.12.293: Beta omits <hi>trewe</hi>, presumably because it was sensed as redundant with the following noun. F strikes the entire phrase (i.e., <hi>trewe treuthe</hi>) and replaces it with <hi>his wil</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note> treuthe wer<expan>e</expan> alowed .</l>
<l> And wer<expan>e</expan> it worth or worth nauȝte  þe byleue is grete of treuthe .</l>
<l> And an hope hangynge þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>in  to haue a mede for his treuthe .</l>
<l> <hi>For <foreign>d<expan>eu</expan>s dicit<expan>ur</expan> q<expan>uas</expan>i dans vitam et<expan>er</expan>na<expan>m</expan> suis . hoc e<expan>st</expan> fidelib<expan>us</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Et alibi si ambulauero in medio vmbre mortis . &c<expan>etera</expan></foreign></hi> .</l>
<l> ¶ Þe glose graunteth vpon þat verse  a grete mede to <app><lem><sic>trewe</sic><corr>trew[þ]e</corr></lem></app> .</l>
<l> And wit<note> The scribe has skipped approximately five spaces here to allow for a diagonal tear in the parchment; it extends down into the next line, where extra spaces are allowed between <hi>kepe</hi> and <hi>with</hi>. Cf. note at <ref></ref>, which describes the textual position of the same imperfection on the opposite side of this sheet.</note> and wisdom q<expan>uo</expan>d þ<expan>a</expan>t weye<note>R.12.299: <hi>Weye</hi>, "person, being, man."</note>  was su<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>tyme tresor .</l>
<l> To kepe with a comune  no catel was holde bet<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> And muche murthe and manhede  & riȝt <app><lem>myd</lem></app><note>R.12.301: Both F and beta have <hi>with</hi>.</note> þat he vanesched .</l>